On Sun, 6 Apr 1997, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Actually I don't think that most people want to murder - even if they could
> get away with it. But I'm a humanist of a sort. I'm trying to get at the
> reason that anti-humanists, or partisans of the anti-morality of the sort
> encapsulated in the Foucault quote that started this thread, disapprove of
> murder, assuming that they do.
>
> Doug
>
>
I have no trouble stating my opposition to murder in a kind of
rule-format. And I could refer to this rule, I suppose.
No unprovoked attacks on passers-by.
But that's awfully narrow! And it admits of exceptions. But are you saying
an act cannot be moral if it is not rationalized in terms of some
categorical imperative type rule?
Or is it more like this: I am a human being and this puts me in a rare and
precious category of beings, uniquely able both to reflect upon and
transform the natural and political world. When I respect the opinions,
rights, and life of another human, what am I doing but honoring the one
quality that most deeply constitutes my own life?
The problem is that these very abstract and vague notions allow for a lot
of interpretation when applied on the ground and so fail to do the work
assigned to them. That's not just the postmodernists' problem -- but I've
already pursued this in an earlier post and so won't repeat.
--John
> Actually I don't think that most people want to murder - even if they could
> get away with it. But I'm a humanist of a sort. I'm trying to get at the
> reason that anti-humanists, or partisans of the anti-morality of the sort
> encapsulated in the Foucault quote that started this thread, disapprove of
> murder, assuming that they do.
>
> Doug
>
>
I have no trouble stating my opposition to murder in a kind of
rule-format. And I could refer to this rule, I suppose.
No unprovoked attacks on passers-by.
But that's awfully narrow! And it admits of exceptions. But are you saying
an act cannot be moral if it is not rationalized in terms of some
categorical imperative type rule?
Or is it more like this: I am a human being and this puts me in a rare and
precious category of beings, uniquely able both to reflect upon and
transform the natural and political world. When I respect the opinions,
rights, and life of another human, what am I doing but honoring the one
quality that most deeply constitutes my own life?
The problem is that these very abstract and vague notions allow for a lot
of interpretation when applied on the ground and so fail to do the work
assigned to them. That's not just the postmodernists' problem -- but I've
already pursued this in an earlier post and so won't repeat.
--John