From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Fri Nov 22 2002 - 07:44:24 MST
Eliezer writes
> Lee Corbin wrote:
> >
> > You see someone stridently say "It is MORALLY WRONG that x!"
> >
> > What the hell does that mean? At most it could mean,
> >
> > "I disapprove, and so do most societies with
> > which I am familiar, though not all, and most
> > people you respect would agree with me."
> >
> > It cannot, via good epistemology, possibly mean anything
> > more. In fact, since it cannot, I usually find its use
> > somewhat dishonest.
>
> Um, even if those two statements turned out to be
> coextensional for all speakers,
and clearly that can't happen because in many cases, e.g.
"taxation is morally wrong", the speaker couldn't even
point to societies or majorities---
> I don't think your epistemological work is done until you
> explain the origins of the perceived cognitive difference.
> Why is it that people seem to see "It is MORALLY WRONG
> that x!" as a different statement than "I and most people
> disapprove of x"?
Because the latter statement implies only the truth, namely
that the speaker's and most people's *values* are violated
by x. By speaking of something as MORALLY WRONG an effort
is made to speak in the objective mode, so that what is
conveyed is a claim, backed by the judgment and authority
of the speaker, that x has a universal failing, and that
anyone ought to be able to see that.
> Why does one statement seem to imply legal prohibition
> while the other implies, at the most, social ostracization?
Because (did absolutes wrongs exist) then all societies and all
peoples would be obliged to prohibit them, whereas if only the
values of many people are being violated, then it's not so clear
that there should be laws against x.
> What is it that, for you, distinguishes that which you
> disapprove of with a frown, and that which many people
> including you band together to disapprove of with a gun?
Good question (as are the above). That which we band
together against and have laws against is behavior that
has been found unworkable for societies by evolution.
That is to say, societies that condone theft or murder
are not fit societies beyond the very short run.
At least, that is all that we *should* have laws against.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:18 MST