From: Lee Daniel Crocker (lcrocker@mercury.colossus.net)
Date: Thu Jun 03 1999 - 10:20:36 MDT
>> There are those who have "absolutistic" moral principles,
>> and this does not make them irrational or unreasonable.
> I disagree. I consider the term "absolutist" to be an excellent
> synonym for illogical, irrational and unreasoning dogmatism and
> consider those who are absolutist to be defenders of a cognitively
> frozen and quasireligious faith (perhaps intoning a mellifluous
> BANNGGGGG... to the scent of gunpowder incense) rather than
> seekers after the optimum state of affairs.
Whose "optimum"? And is your belief about what is optimum (say,
that no one dangerous posesses lethal force) an absolute belief,
or was it arrived at from some other prior? How was that prior
chosen as a goal/desire?
Since reason cannot be applied to desires, having absolute
desires is compatible with reason or with dogma, and is no
indication of either. Reason can be used to determine which
specific actions serve which desires, and one can criticize
dogmatic adherence to actions that reason shows don't serve
their intended goals, but once cannot argue with the desires
themselves.
I desire to continue living--this is an absolute and extreme
position, with which I brook no compromise. I don't think it
is irrational for me to say so.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:57 MST