> I'm not guilty of that one. "Folk" science sometimes turns out to be
> consistent with "modern" science (like passing double-blind medical
> experiments), while official modern science itself isn't always right.
========
I never said you were guilty of anything.
> Not if enough people are upset. If enough people are marching in the
> streets protesting the "space shield" (and they're doing it in a way that
> points out the problems with that shield rather than their own problems),
> the powers that be have to listen. Look at the way the "battle of Seattle"
> had an effect. It's true that the ruling circles will continue to push for
> their programs and will likely give only lip-service to popular concerns,
> but that indicates the need to continue pushing.
========
Duh. I live in Seattle, remember?
>
> > > I didn't say I was against "moral/judgmental concepts." Rather, I was
> > > _distinguishing between_ moral/judgmental concepts and moralism. It helps
> > > if we bring in the distinction between the abstract and the concrete.
> > > Moralism stays abstract, talking about what's good or bad with no reference
> > > to the concrete situation. Moral/judgmental concepts are abstract, but have
> > > to be modified in practice, when we take into account concrete conditions.
>
> Ian writes:
> >You misunderstand "moralism" which is why I posted the link.
>
> Maybe I misunderstand how _you_ use that word. But it's not like there's a
> hidden reality out there in which "moralism" exists and our definitions are
> mere "shadows on the cave wall," i.e., efforts to attain a perfect
> approximation to that hidden reality. That is, it's not like there's a
> unique "correct" definition of any concept (especially since the meaning of
> words varies with context). Rather, definitions are conventional and often
> multiple, resulting from how people use terms in practice in the real
> world. I was using one definition that is within the broad scope of
> conventional usage (as I understand it). You are clearly using another.
==========
Considering you never explicated your meaning of moralism when you expressed
dissatisfaction with you colleague's debating style, you left lots of room for
interpretation.
>
> One way to see what conventions are is to look at dictionaries. The first
> definition of "moralism" is "moral teaching; moralizing." The first
> definition of "moralizing" in my handy-dandy WEBSTER'S NEW WORLD
> DICTIONARY refers to thinking, writing, or speaking about matters of
> right and wrong, often in a "self-righteous or tedious way." A "moralist"
> is "a person who seeks to impose his morals on others" (3rd definition).
=========
Duh. Your students must love you.
>
> Despite these quotes, it's clear that the dictionary doesn't exactly agree
> with my usage, since they don't make as clear a distinction between
> morality and moralism as I do. [After all, dictionaries aim to clarify
> convention, in order to allow communication, not to make distinctions in
> order to further theoretical understanding.] However, my definition doesn't
> contradict theirs and I made it as clear as I could what I was talking
> about (and I was NOT attacking morality). I think it's okay to use words
> even in unconventional ways if they're defined clearly, though of course
> it's better -- for communication purposes -- to avoid contradicting
> convention. (I'm not the "Nowhere Man" for whom words have meanings only
> according to his definitions.)
>
> If you want to conflate morality and moralism, that's fine too, since
> definitions necessarily involve arbitrariness and subjectivity. But don't
> assume that I do so.
========
What don't assume that there's no plasiticity or arbitrariness in your discourse so
that others might not read what you type in exactly the sense[s] you intended and
when they raise questions it's always them that are at fault, never with you?
>
> >Would I be remiss in suggesting Marx's "On the
> >Jewish Question" whereby he engages in a form of eliminativist discourse?
>
> we all eliminate at one point or another, unless we're very constipated. ;-)
>
> are you attacking Marx for being an eliminativist? is that a sin like
> essentialism?
==========
No, I'm suggesting that Marx held an eliminativist perspective on morality and moral
discourse of any kind as have many others. While I and many others are very
sympathetic with his perspective on this issue, it creates as many problems as it
solves in debating substantive issues of public concern as in the case of you and
your colleague. Did you tell him you felt he was engaging in moralism? How did he
respond?
>
> In any event, I can't tell whether you're being remiss unless you provide a
> reason for believing in your attack on Marx.
===========
Where did I "attack" Marx?
>
> >To the extent moral discourse occurs/refers at all, some will always
> >accuse others of
> >"moralism"; that is due to the very contestability of concepts we
> >associate with
> >morality and the issues and contexts we debate/argue with the terms of
> >morality. Im
> >not sure eliminating moral concepts will improve our conflict resolution
> >skills or
>
> I am NOT -- repeat, NOT -- in favor of eliminating moral concepts. Please
> stop this nonsense!
===========
Reflexivity alert. Who cares if you're not in favor of eliminating moral concepts.
It's a question of which moral concepts are used when a debate ensues over whether
moral concepts are enjoined. There are substantive reflexivity problems in accusing
others who disagree with you/or me or anyone of "moralism", whether from a moral
perspective that is at odds with the "opponent" in a debate or with an amoral
perspective; the pot calling the kettle black and all that. Is accusing another of
nonsense a moral/epistemic category used to achieve a sense of the "cognitive high
ground" when they may be doing nothing more than disagreeing with you? Not all
disagreements have winners and losers or are zero-sum adversarial games. They become
so when words like moralism are thrown around because the other person disagrees. If
you "accused" your colleague of "moralism" he may have merely thought you were being
self-serving; the usual, tired, male one upmanship bullshit that we all love/hate.
That's especially true of debates of a "left" -"right" type which is why so many are
disgusted with issues of political-economy and political philosophy.
Ian
