SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: one_less who wrote (60032)9/26/2002 6:45:56 PM
From: The Philosopher  Read Replies (2) of 82486
 
Hold on.

Two very different things.

One: f you are going to violate a
social norm that you have judged to be wrong according to an underlying moral standard, then you should have based
your behavior on a conscious prejudgement of the situation.


In theory, okay, probably, though you may not be able to articulate it. I think you can know in your heart of hearts that something is right or wrong without being able to articulate why.

Two: Seems common sense that such a person should be prepared to
account for the violation on that basis.


Nope. To account for a violation means you accept the right of others to judge your behavior. And again, you have to be able to articulate it.

You used the example with X of non-scientists talking about science. What if I'm the only person capable of understanding the moral imperatives behind my actions, and trying to explain them to you would be like you trying to explain a scientific principle to someone without the background. The argument wouldn't make sense.

I agree you need to have reasons.

i don't agree that you need to be able to articulate them in terms others can understand. And I don't agree that you need to be able to justify them according to principles others would agree with.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext