moral
responsibility only requires that you be willing to answer for your actions, and to
make an earnest attempt to show cause for rebellion. And the willingness to
defend your action means a willingness to address it not in terms of personal
preference, but in terms that would be plausible to others with a shared set of
reference points.
Why? Why am I obligated to defend my actions at all?
Also, does the shared set of reference points have to be your set? We had this discussion earlier of whether everybody justifies in their own minds everything they do. If they do, then they are already, presumably, justified under a set of reference points they accept. Why do they have to justify themselves against your set of reference points?
a well- functioning society will engage in self- criticism,
There have, then, been very few well functioning societies in the history I've studied. Very few societies will engage seriously in self-criticism unless forced to it. For starters, it has to be a society with sufficient leisure time to engage in such activity. Societies which spend all their time gathering food and firewood don't have much time for self-criticism.
It has
now been proven that women are not mentally and morally inferior to men, given our experience in the modern world.
Oh, really? Not that I necessarily disagree with the premise, but proven?????? |
