|existentialism ° art ° poetry ° exquisite corpse ° chat ° search engine|
|( the cry ) Philosophy Discussion Board|
Posted by Anitah on Friday, December 20, 2002 at 02:25:12 :
In Reply to: A calm response posted by Joe on Friday, December 20, 2002 at 01:16:27 :
: So you don't moralize but only one side was justified??
: Here's my very calm response, as a part of my ongoing effort not to call you an idiot anymore:
: 1) Is being justified better than not being justified?
: 2) If not, why raise the distinction?
: 3) If so, is not calling one side justified the exact same thing as moralizing?
: If it is justified to act immoral, then what is immoral about the act? Your comment about terrorists being immoral because they killed innocent people means exactly nothing if the act is "justified". And if it still means something, then being "justified" means nothing. Am I the only one who who sees the problem with this argument? I hope not.
: I'll just add that you sound like you are in the typical academic relativist box. It is so common as to be sad. The box is the combination of discomfort with raising moral judgments combined with the ardent desire to condemn certain conduct. Obviously, this is logically impossible and requires the abuse of language to pull off. Therefore, we find people who denounce "judgmentalism" in the area of sex screaming at the top of their lungs against racism. We find people who deny any basis for criticizing indigenous cultures easily locating dozens of reasons for criticizing the US.
: Distinctions between moralizing and being justified are thrown around as if they mean something just to cover up the futility of the quest.
: Good luck, Anitah. I was in graduate school many years. I'm just offering as free advice that you are on your way to nowhere if you follow this path.
Post a Followup