mitchell wilson wrote:
>it seems that Foucault was saying that morality should not be
>communal. Rather that one should not demand of another commensurable
>ethical standards.
Ok, I'm asking this seriously, and not in the spirit that Malgosia accused
me of a couple of weeks ago (i.e., of someone entering a Marxism list and
asking the participants to justify the Gulag). If morality shouldn't be
communal, then why wouldn't it be moral for me to kill you? Or gouge out
the eye of a passerby? Not in the legal sense, since obviously both would
be felonies, but in the moral/ethical sense. Nietzsche might not have a
problem with answering this, since there's one morality for slaves and
another for masters. Presumably most of us don't accept that.
Doug
>it seems that Foucault was saying that morality should not be
>communal. Rather that one should not demand of another commensurable
>ethical standards.
Ok, I'm asking this seriously, and not in the spirit that Malgosia accused
me of a couple of weeks ago (i.e., of someone entering a Marxism list and
asking the participants to justify the Gulag). If morality shouldn't be
communal, then why wouldn't it be moral for me to kill you? Or gouge out
the eye of a passerby? Not in the legal sense, since obviously both would
be felonies, but in the moral/ethical sense. Nietzsche might not have a
problem with answering this, since there's one morality for slaves and
another for masters. Presumably most of us don't accept that.
Doug