Morality Again -Reply

Lisa Rogers EQDOMAIN.EQWQ.LROGERS at EMAIL.STATE.UT.US
Wed Aug 16 10:15:35 MDT 1995


Leo,
Do you intend your 4 or 5 assertions [plus implications] as an
explanation or a basis for moral claims?  Each one seems problematic
to me, except that "morality does not have to be religious" and
"rules are social constructions".  Those I can go along with, as I
believe I have mentioned before.

I've been expecting something more philosophical from some others.

Look, Leo, see how your level of analysis suddenly switched when you
came to number 4.  1-3 were talking generally [abstractly] about
social rules and individual internalization of those rules.  Then 4
speaks from _within_ a particular set of rules.  While I'm asking for
the moral basis for choosing that set of rules over another.
Lisa

>>> <LeoCasey at aol.com>  8/15/95, 02:50pm >>>
1. All human cultures need rules ...

2. ... humans almost universally adopt for themselves some moral
sense of right and wrong...

3. Such rules are social constructions.

4. ... cultures and individuals should be reflective about the nature
of these rules. A thought out and consistent morality is far better
defended than a tacit morality.




     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---

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



More information about the Marxism mailing list