Quote:
Originally Posted by TimMason
I don't see how this overcomes the objection. Indeed, I do not see that your use of the term 'natural' differs in any crucial way from my own. If our ethical determinations spring from our being in the world, then they have no more than local extent.
|
I think we agree that human morality is ...human...that there is no access to anything outside human being against which we might measure our judgments. Where I think we disagree is on a particular set of implications the you draw from this and that I don't. If I understand you right the particular implication that you draw is that given this limitation then the specificity or context-boundness of any moral judgment in some way disbars it from being a genuine moral judgment, (since, to be afforded the status of a genuine moral judgment such a judgment would have to be underpinned by something transcendental to human being). My argument is that given the inescapability of such context-boundness, there exists no other mechanism for making moral judgments, and pointing at this limitation is tilting at philosophical windmills.
That different groups of people make different judgments about the moral status of a behaviour - whether it's female infanticide, putting shampoo in rabbit's eyes or raising animals for the sole purpose of killing them - is, it seems to me, a reason to engage with the discourse, not a reason to declare the discourse invalid and/or impossible.