[extropy-chat] Re: Moral Relativism

[Dirk Bruere]

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Once they reach an answer in their moral calculation
>>>(either a good one or a bad one) the objectivists will hold that the
>>>stepfather ought to do what he ought BECAUSE it is his duty,
>>>regardless of whether it is his desire or not. The subjective
>>>component of decision, desire, falls out of the equation. 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Not really, because you have not examined why one feels 'duty bound'.
>>    
>>
>
>Am I correct, Dirk, in saying your argument is that there is no
>difference between one persons desire to live morally and another
>persons desire to live licentiously, that both lifestyles are
>desire-based?
>
>  
>
Not really. I was just pointing out that 'duty' was not defined, nor was 
there any analysis of why people accept some duties and not others.
However, saying that everything is desire based at some level is a 
truism and rather unhelpful.

>The problem is that one involves the application of reason to structure
>ones life, while the other is merely a base reaction to ones
>instinctual urges without reasoning, reflection, introspection.
>
>  
>
And why would one *desire* to apply reason? The only reasons I can see 
are mindless conditioning or success of outcome.
And what is the *desired* outcome?

-- 
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.8 - Release Date: 10/05/2005