Obviously one can be deluded or make mistakes on such matters. (I was just reading a column that observed, "Reagan had absolutely no moral sense about truth or falsity.")
Those things are probably ordered by a universal grammar of human behavior -- like language, subject to quite remarkable regional variations (the province of literature). --CGE
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Carrol Cox wrote:
> "C. G. Estabrook" wrote:
> >
> > So it's more important to believe in the absence of of moral hierarchies
> > than to believe in some other things. And it's the right thing to do...
> >
> > Uh, isn't that a moral hierarchy? --CGE
>
> No, it is a historical (and intellectual) judgment. It does not ascribe
> moral turpitude to those who reject it nor moral high ground to those
> who affirm it. It can be argued in ways in which the assertion of moral
> hierarchies (and in particular the application of any particular moral
> hierarchy) can't be.
>