Sure, there has to be enough minimal agreement to get the project going. No, we will not be able to persuade Osama bin Ladin or Hitler to play ball. So what? Yes, if we cannot intimidate or overall people like that, as we mainly do pathetic neo-Nazi groups in the US, we have to call in the cops or the army. So what? How does the fact that we cannot pursuade everyone or that we must sometimes defend with force our hard-won achievement --itself, as Carrol notes, won in part by force, cast doubt on it as the only possible method of dealing with differences that civilized people can seriously imagine? jks
Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
Ted Winslow wrote:
>
> Miles Jackson wrote:
>
> >
> > What's important, as Justin keeps emphasizing, is a good method
> > for adjudicating between people with different moral beliefs and
> > practical objectives.
>
> On your premises, there's no basis for agreement about this either.
> Why would individuals valuing sadistic domination and exploitation of
> others, for instance, and having this as their practical objective also
> value "a good method for adjudicating between people with different
> moral beliefs and practical objectives"?
There is no such basis in the abstract. . . . . But those needed 'moral' premises have no existence prior to or autonomously of human practice (struggle). An institution as deeply grounded as was slavery in the whole of u.s. life was not going to be morally condemned except as it was repudiated in blood struggle.
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20040902/af43ee75/attachment.htm>