"I said absolutely nothing about the spirits of mists and cloud, but referred solely to reflection upon the nature of human beings and their societies."
You said a great deal more than that. You made it clear that the rational alternative (moral relativism) was equated with some rather ugly consequences of any failure to embrace your worldview...
"If there is an objective moral order, one cannot make it up as one goes along, and one has to begin with the basic facts of human life. Take it as a working hypothesis, not ratifying every detail of social life, but serving as a basis to critique social life. What is the advantage of such an assumption? Well, it means that there is something to tether our fancy as we consider what rules man should live by, or what table of values should be subscribed. It means that we have something to discuss when in conflict over moral ideas, rather than having no recourse but violence to resolve things. It means that we have to seek some coherence in our moral notions, rather than being totally whimsical and self- serving. It means that moral progress is a real possibility, as we critique current practices and bring them more into conformity with the result of moral reflection. It means that we do not have to choose between the fanaticism which made the Nazis a force to be reckoned with, or the lassitude which made the West allow them to become formidable through appeasement: we can be firm and energetic in our convictions, without being mystical and fanatic..........
So we needn't choose between "fanaticism" (like the Nazis!) or the "lassitude" (which permitted the horrors of Nazism!)?!
Well, Neo. I think you are being unfair by accusing me of not attending to you. May I not make my own points, as everyone else does, without you personalising my every word, as you have just done?
You are famous for straying all over the field in attempts to explain yourself. In this case, you have illustrated the range of your ruminations by referring to the dangers of Nazism and such--which are liable (you would have us believe) to a moral code not grounded in absolutism (ironically, of course, you give an example that highlights the very dangers inherent in thinking which tends toward political and moral absolutism).
I intimate that moral absolutism sets people against one another in accordance with their different and contrasting "leaps of faith"--and your response is to become indignant, and to reproach me for imaginary slights. I said nothing about your personal leaps of faith, or lack of same. Perhaps you take yourself far more seriously than is warranted? Just a thought... |
