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

[Lisa & Ian Murray]

>>>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