From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: What's "ethical"?
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 19:10:20 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals

As quoted from <altar.702376896@sfu.ca> by altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar):

> cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton) writes:
> 
> 
> >It's a retreat to reality and common sense.  Ethics ARE subjective.  They are
> >based on a variety of philosophical foundations.  Different ethical systems
> >have DIFFERENT foundations.  You may ELECT to TREAT them as non-relative, but
> >that is an arbitrary choice on YOUR part.
> 
> Well, again Chistopher you are short on arguments and fast with
> "ex cathedra" assertions.  Now, if you wish, I'll repost my
> critique of ethical subjectivism for you to have something concrete  to
> argue against.  

Well again you evade the question.

> >> By calling it "crap", you now are either making an ethical judgement of
> >> some interest, or you are merely stating your own subjective pro-attitudes
> >> which is of no greater or lesser merit than that which you disagree with.
> >> Of course, you believe that it has greater merit, that it is correct,
> >> even true, which would refute your own claim that ethics is merely a 
> >> matter of opinion.
> 
> >You really don't get it, do you?  He just made a RELATIVE valuation of YOUR
> >ethics vs. HIS.  He didn't say you HAD to eat MEAT.  He expressed a disdain
> >for YOUR values relative to his.  Do YOUR values PRECLUDE his ability to make
> >such SUBJECTIVE, RELATIVE judgements?
> 
> What's the point of expressing them if that is all they are.

Because there are others who are either undecided, or who's opinions are 
subject to change.  Is that REALLY so hard to understand?

> Clearly, they are not going match my own.  Since no standards for personal
> opinions exist for us say which are more rational, more justified, more
> factually based, more useful, etc., then there are no means for rational
> persuasion.  All we can do is merely state our personal opinions to
> each other with the sorry purpose of offending each other with our 
> different subjectivities.  Not a very interesting outcome.

Your conception of personal interaction is certainly very truncated.  I    
change other people's minds and they change mine.  It isn't necessary to 
pretend that they have NO ethics, merely because theirs differ from mine. I
utterly despise NAMBLA.  That doesn't mean that they don't HAVE ethics.  They
DO have "ethics" that make me want to retch.  I find it quite illustrative to
induce them to expound on their "ethics".  It never fails to win new adherents
to my point of view regarding NAMBLA.  I frequently have similar experiences
regarding the extreme AR fringe.  I find the process quite rewarding.  Whether
you do or not, is your subjective experience. 

> If you do believe that some points of view are more justified than
> others, then ethical subjectivism is being left behind.  You
> can't have it both ways.

If I believe that some points of view are SUBJECTIVELY more justified than 
others, then ethical subjectivism is validated.  I don't pretend that my ethics
are those of everyone else.  That's special pleading.  What I DO recognize is
that myself and other humans have interests that we can recognize.  If we feel
that those interests are sufficiently threatened by another, we'll take action,
whether that action manifests itself in a letter to the editor or battery-1 of
DP-ICM.  That is FACT, easily demonstrated by a five minute perusal of the 
evening news.  Your assertion is just that ASSERTION, and cannot be proven, or
even SHOWN.  Special pleading is one of the principal manifestations of trying
to have it both ways, and you rely upon it with regularity.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------