[lit-ideas] deep imbeciles and their dangers
- From: palma <palma@xxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 15:28:41 -0400 (EDT)
On Sun, 17 Oct 2010, Walter C. Okshevsky wrote:
Plse see specific replies below:
Quoting Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
Per usual, a Popn. take on this:-
--- On Sun, 10/10/10, Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Walter O. wrote:
"In other words, rightness is internally related to belief.
Nothing in
the world decides the rightness or wrongness of a moral
claim - only
rational belief can do that.
Well if "rational belief" is defined as "rational _true_ belief" [akin to
'justified true belief' (JTB)] then perhaps:- but the term that does all the
vital work here is "true".
W: Yes, you got it. And the claim is that "true" or more appropriately in the
moral domain "rightness" is a matter of agreement or belief attained under
conditions of discourse. Is there a problem here?
YES THERE IS A PROBLEM THERE AND IT IS AT THEVERY LEAST AMAZING THAT A
GERMAN OF ALL PEOPLE DOES NOT SEE IT
ONCE HIS FELLOW COMPATRIOTS GOT THEIR "DISCOURSE" [WHATEVER THAT IS]
STRAIGHT THERE WAS A VAST CONSENSUS TO THE EFFECT THAT IT IS RIGHT TO
EXTERMINATE JEWS IN POLAND SINCE THEY DID NOT GET OUT OF THE WAY OF THE
EINSATZGRUPPEN.
THEN THE THEORY OF THIS OLD FOOL (IMIBIBING MARXISM WHEN HE WAS YONG-ISH
AND IMBIBING THE TRADITIONAL PUS OF "PRAGMATISM") IS THAT THE
NAZIS-AGREEMTN WAS RIGHT???
and this was passes for "ethics" at universities???
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
- » [lit-ideas] deep imbeciles and their dangers - palma
