[lit-ideas] Re: SoS-Chapter 2, Moral Frameworks

  • From: John Wager <john.wager1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 11:49:35 -0500

Omar Kusturica wrote:

....(Not to mention that Taylor' terms sound very academic;

most people define themselves through subjective
preferences, i.e. what I like and what I don't like,
rather than "what is good, what I endorse and what I
oppose" and so on) The things are further complicated
if you have changed several geographical locations. I
am sorry but I can't help looking a bit from the above
at Taylor's equating of identity with the current
physical-political-cultural space.

The move that Taylor needs to make next is to go from what people, from their limited
perspectives (whether of the food they eat, or the religions [plural, except for the 'people
of the book'] they affirm), to some more global, universal perspective. "The many do not
give the same answer as the wise" (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics). What is there behind
what people "like" that makes it "good" for them? What is it that Taylor will come up
with that lets him get at this more universal "good?"


--
-------------------------------------------------
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence and ignorance." -------------------------------------------------
John Wager john.wager1@xxxxxxxxxxx
Lisle, IL, USA


------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. lit-ideas
  3. Archive
  4. 06-2006