----- Original Message ----- From: "Carrol Cox" <cbcox at ilstu.edu> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 8:56 AM Subject: Re: Approval and Condemnation: Must they be based on Morality?
>
>
> Ian Murray wrote:
> >
> >
> > =========
> > If there's no moral order, betrayal, itself loaded with moral
> > connotations, is meaningless.
> >
>
> When I wrote that sentence I already had in my mind these various
> responses to it!
>
> :-)
>
> This assumption that any word of approbation or approval is
necessarily
> a moral proposition referring to a "moral order" is merely itself a
> manifestation of the power of moralism. But while Gordon (on
lbo-talk)
> was probably being facetious in his references to god in his
response,
> he should have been deadly serious. Any conception of a "moral
order"
> (aside from principles of unity forged within ever-changing human
> relations -- Yoshie's history) any assertion of a "moral order" is
> either religious or incoherent. Rob refers to Kant, but this is
silly.
> Russell said the last word here. Quoting Kant saying that reading
Hume
> woke him from his dogmatic slumbers, Russell comments that Kant soon
> found ways to put himself back to sleep.
=============
There's a last word on issues of ethics/anti-ethics in
individual-institutional contexts?
Ian