dr_who@umcp-cs.UUCP (07/18/83)
From wex@ittvax: 4) Absolute morality is doomed to failure. If Kant couldn't do it, what makes you think you have a better idea? The word "absolute" is vague. Does "absolute morality" mean (a)one that is "binding" on all human beings?, or (b)one that is binding on all rational beings?, or (c)one that can never be overridden by non-moral considerations?, or (d)all of the above?, or (e)other (please specify)? Because Alan Wexelblat uses the vague word "absolute," I'm not sure what he is claiming in point 4). And I'm not sure what the relevance to the Golden Rule is. But anyway, I'd like to object that maybe Kant DID do it, whatever "doing it" means... Kant's moral philosophy has been subject to much misinterpretation, and though I'm not a student of Kant's works, I would like to suggest that it is necessary to read a wide variety of suggested interpretations of Kant, before judging the success or failure of Kant's arguments. I am not accusing Alan Wexelblat of basing his views of Kant on another philosopher's misinterpretations, but it is a possibility to be wary of. 5) Without non-moral goods existing, there CANNOT be moral goods. I think I agree -- if Alan Wexelblat means by "moral" that which refers to one's responsibilities to others. I got the impression that that's what he means when he used the case of "a world of perfect altruists" to argue for 5). What do you mean, Alan Wexelblat? -- Paul Torek, U of MD College Park P.S. I CAN receive mail now.