Quoting Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>: > Volodya: is Eric claiming that his view about absolute views > is only "relatively true." (We're still awaiting some sense > on that notion.) > > > I considered writing that "every view carries its own > exceptions including this view," but thought it too snide. > Sort of like objecting to Popper's falsification principle > on the grounds that it is not subject to falsification. > > > Volodya: Eric maintains an absolute claim about absolute > claims ... > > > My starting premise -- and I'm open to instruction -- is > that moral considerations, like mathematics, is creative and > open-ended. Like Goedel's Incompleteness operating in the > realm of moral axioms ... > Just a small comment on Eric's penultimate point. What I'd say is creative and open-ended here is our understanding of the situations to which moral norms and principles apply. (I believe that understanding runs parallel with the growth of a certain cosmopolitan sensibility that transcends parochialisms such as the sovereignty of nation-states, the values and virtues of my tribe, etc..) Those principles, I believe, are pretty much fixed by our capacities for rational judgement and agency and our recognition of our common humanity, be we Spartan or Athenian. They all revolve around respect for the autonomy and dignity of others and ourselves as persons (ends-in-themselves). Moral principles, though as finite in number as the number of notes on the musical scale, permit an infinite range of applications, in virtue of the features of contexts and the circumstances of application by agents. So we keep ending up with new songs and crazy ideas like "universal human rights" and "duty to protect." How those humans get through the day, I just don't know. Walter O MUN ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html