When I say I'm a nominalist, I don't say so lightly. I refute the idea
there is any absolute reality, external reality, or anything of the
sort. Mark Walker is his response differentiated between moral truths
and scientific truths, that one could be a relativist in one and not the
other. Possibly, but in my opinion people who fixate tend to do so in
everything.
I appreciate your idea of ethical subjectivism. This is because, in my
opinion all knowledge is choice based. We select or choose the things we
know. Knowledge does not exist in us because we stumble upon the reality
of it. At any moment in time we arbitrarily choose which things we shall
consider true, no differently than the way we choose cars or clothing.
What scientist does not make the choice to say his research supports his
hypothesis? If knowledge is wholly choice based, then knowledge is
necessarily dependent on personal valuations, and if through valuation
then it is morality which dictates knowledge and not vice versa. I
steadfastly resist the idea anyone can be moral for rational reasons, or
morality might be rationally derived. Such is simply narrow mindedness
and bigotry. But people can be rational for moral reasons. In other
words it is a choice to be rational. To be ethically subjective is
simply to say a person proceeds to live out whatever knowledge set he
has.
The idea of a fixed external reality we all relate to, is not difficult
to refute. It is done by continually denoting vagueness. It is an issue
of semantics and context, only. If semantics, context, objectifications,
and identities are of the mind, then reality is of the mind and whatever
we deem it to be. Again, morality, or how choice is constructed is the
root of knowledge, and knowledge is not the root of morality, regardless
what the pompous may say, or try and dictate.
Rather than a reality-based metaphysical model, I prefer a logic-based
one. Someone may wonder what the difference is. A logic-based model
means whatever I think, feel, or believe is contrived dynamically in the
moment. My view of the world is constructed as I see it at that time. In
contrast, a reality-based model involves however many fixations a person
has and for whatever reason has chosen to remain stuck on.
>From: "Russell Blackford" <RussellBlackford@bigpond.com>
>Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 09:28:39 +1000
>
>David said
>
>>I agree morality exists. I just do not agree it is always the same, or
>>must always be the same.
>
>Unlike most on the list (as far as I can work out), I am an ethical
>subjectivist. I think we are *ultimately* driven back to our own
>commitments, values, etc. This list seems to be dominated by ethical
>realists and natural lawyers (I am a legal positivist), positions which I
>find puzzling and wildly metaphysical.
>
>In any event, you can be an ethical subjectivist without being a relativist
>(most forms of relativism seem to be internally inconsistent). Would you
>like to elaborate any further on your views?
-- http://www.geocities.com/dmcdivitt_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:14 MDT