Re, Wow! Re: Marx and Woman (was Re: Gender & Free Speech)

Lisa & Ian Murray seamus at accessone.com
Thu Mar 23 15:10:22 PST 2000



>>>Not really. The burden the proposition carries is to head off two,
perhaps three, kinds of debate: a) what I would call metaphysical moralism (and I guess Justin calls moral realism), b) legalistic arguments, and c) individualist arguments (i.e. arguments that assume, as did Milton, Hobbes, Spinoza, Kant,and neoclassical economists, the existence of what Marx called the "abstract -- isolated -- individual." I don't know, really, whether it would have been "politically wise" or not. What I do know is that I don't like such questions as "What would 'you' ("I," etc) have done had you been alive in 1938?" or "Would it have been moral to assassinate Hitler?" The first question is incoherent, the second metaphysical (i.e., religious).

Carrol

==== Actually, you completely misinterpreted my counterfactual and then, to top it all, you switched terms, although I don't think it changes the issue I was trying to get at; namely, are there situations where murdering someone is a moral act or rather a non-immoral act? Is there a moral difference between murder and assassination to egalitarians?

Ian



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list