>A
>>moral judgement made about the action doesn't neccessarily have to be
>>accompanied by a moral judgement about the actor, does it?
=================
>In at least some cases it does:
>"Hitler ordered the deaths of millions but that doesn't mean he was an
> >evil
>person." I think we can see the problems in those kinds of judgements.
Mmmmm. Depending on how you define "evil" I could agree with you.
>I think it's more fruitful, in terms of analyses as a
>guide to action, that we think of capitalism as a form of collective
> >action constantly pursued by those within the capitalist class in the
> >manner Martin Sklar suggests.
Sure, I'll go along with that. It's a good "shorthand" description. I just get wary when people bring up individual responsibility, especially in what I interpreted as a "strong" form of it in your words.
>We have no Archimedean point "outside" the current
>system to say just what kind of system we'll end up with precisely >because
>history is not a teleological deus ex machina driven by the >law of
>unintended consequencses.
Heavens! I thought we were just talking about responsibility, and now you're giving me historical theory criticism. Did I touch a nerve or something? !{)>
>I think pointing out the responsibility of consumers makes sense as >long
>as it doesn't drift into "moralizing" and it opens a channel of
> >communication with citizens to talk about the current regime[s] of
> >production itself.
Ok, fine with me; I'm just a "slippery sloper" about responsibility, and this context just touched my nerve.
>But we shouldn't kid ourselves that we're not making judgements, let >alone
>make the judgement that we shouldn't make judgements as best we >can given
>our circumstances.
Right.
Carrol never has struck ME as post-modern.
And I figure some pomposity is par for the course around HERE, no?
Todd !{)>
_________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail