| CH and X deny that they are answerable to anyone (except as a matter of law), but instead are free to act according to their inner values, however derived. Since they do have moral preferences, they would say that they are not completely outside of the language of morality, in the sense of having concerns that people would refer to as having to do with justice, etc. On the other hand, they are skeptical of the language, and of the ability to take a stand that can be objectively grounded. What might, in different hands, become a useful confession of fallibility, and instigation to strive for more light, begins to appear as a refusal to explain oneself, or make amends, or in any manner acknowledge a standard independent of one's feelings. This, of course, is what you and I (and others) are reacting to. This was, ironically, the basis of my argument with E defending your characterizations of X as being unsubtle but not exactly untrue, awhile back...... |
