This started with my comment "I think we no longer have a common basis for addressing problems and making decisions."
Yes, I said that's a Myth, that we struggle to find it, ergo ethics was the necessary foundation.
I offered that objective methodology was THE salient missing link. You countered that it it was ethics.
I made no claim to missing links, my claim was to ontological foundation.
Neither of us has argued that the other's choice has no role,
I can live with that.
only that it's not the key role.
If beneficial action is the objective, ethics are the necessary foundation.
Since then I've been trying to communicate why it's methodology and you've been resisting.
I made no resistance to objective methodology, I have just given an example of one.
You justify how ethics is THE salent element.
Hitler had terrifically efficient methods, best in the biz. Look at the harm caused in the absence of an ethical foundation.
I want to see how that scenario looks. Given that I can't imagine it, you'll have to lay it out for me. It seems nebulous to me, not something you could put to work to make something happen. So, how would something happen if it were ethics-centric?
I am not making any argument for ethic-centricity, in fact just the opposite. I said we have to reach back further to find the common basis. Take the meeting in that article. The very idea of having such a meeting in the first place, is an ethical motivation, one made on the basis of common concern. This is a good example of what I'm talking about.
My wife is much better, thank you very much. :) |
