I think it is simpler than that. But I agree that past ethics does not cut it. Harm is harm and can be measured. So can its absence. That we fail to perform or act on these measurements is a fault of a system that delivers political power to special interests that themselves bear the brunt of responsibility. The resolution of the ethical problem will be delayed until an intelligent majority rectifies things at the polls and in the offices of those who make laws.
amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:17 PM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 20, 2018, at 4:31 AM, Stephen Curtiss Rose <stever...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > The Pragmaticist Maxim cuts through all these considerations and focuses > on the practical results of thinking, musing, etc Peirce designated > aesthetics and ethics as normative sciences. He was agapaic in his core > understanding of things. This suggests he would have had little interest in > parsing the merits of groups and religions but would have focused instead > on the fruits of their thinking. > > > Many elements of the maxim as applied in this way arise out of Stoic > ethics we should note. John Shook has a good article on this, “Peirce’s > Pragmatic Theology and Stoic Religious Ethics.” Although much of what he > discusses are parallels rather than evidence for direct influence. > > While the agapaic element obviously comes from Christianity, particularly > the fairly platonic Gospel of John, the Stoic elements can’t be neglected. > While Stoicism sees this through reason rather than love, the reasoning out > the place of the individual in terms of the whole through self-reflection > is significant. As is the rather pantheistic conception of God. (Here > meaning how individual signs are parts of the whole) > > Peirce was hardly universalist in his understanding however, having a > blind spot about slavery. I can only assume that now that spot would have > vanished. And that he would see the fruits of considerations in terms of > the degree to which harm is created or prevented. That can and should be > measured. It is not beyond the province of science which is also universal. > > > Sadly blind spots in ethics towards slavery were nothing new. Again this > was a constant problem in Roman ethics I’d say. It is one reason why Stoic > ethics remain somewhat problematic IMO. > > > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
