<DIV>OK, I am little puzzled here and need some clarification. There are apparently things about which other cultures can be demonstrably wrong, just not moral things? So the Nazis can be wrong that the Jews are "inferior" in some nonmoral sense, or maybe that the Jews were a powerful group that was plotting to get them, or that there are races, or something like that. But they were not demonstrably wrong that it is wicked to gather up large numbers of people and machine gum them into ditches or gas them in extermination camps? </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And the reason there is this difference is, what, that people disagree agree about one sort of issue, the moral ones, but not the other sort of issue, the nonmoral ones? That is Miles' view. But that can't be right, people disagree about the nonmoral issues too. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Or maybe that there are procedures for resolving the firsts ort of disagreement but not the second? Maybe be "rational" people would be forced to agree that it would be a mistake to accept a belief about the power and intent of the Jews in the face of observable evidence, but there's no observable evidence that would weigh in favor of or against it being wrong to murder millions of people? </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But are rational people really ever <EM>forced</EM> to agree by mere evidence or its absence? I mean, most of us here, including me, believe in the face of a mountain of evidence that it is possible for working people to organize a stable society that would meet their needs better than the present one without capitalsts owning the means of production, and that they could and may well someday actually create such a sociery. Are <EM>we</EM> irrational, the way most people think we are?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Of course, maybe <EM>we</EM> think that scientific or whatever procedures, properly applied, are enough of a basis to give rational confidence to believe that the working class can bring about socialism. But isn't the situation exactly the same in the moral case -- people disagree, about the procedures, about what counts as a reason to believe something, about the evidence, about the outcomes. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So there are some questions about the supposed universality or confidence we can have in nonmoral ideas versus moral ones.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But (full disclosure here: I am a former student of Rorty's myself, anda self-identified pragmatist), I <EM>also</EM> don't understand why I should feel embarassed about saying that modern liberal Western moral views really are superior to the views of the Nazis or the slaveholders or the Islamic fundamentalists or other people whose views we here all in fact dispise and hate.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I think we are a  whole lot more confident about the notion that it is wrong to murder millions of people, kids, old folks, etc., merely because they belong to a  certain religion or nationality than we are confident that there are atoms or that the world is round or even that, say, Fermat's last theorem is true.  Does anyone here honestly have a shred of doubt in her heart that we are right and the Nazis were utterly morally wrong? That even if the Jews had been a powerful group plotting against them that wasn't the way to dealw ith the problem, and that in fact we were totally justified in smashing the Nazi culture by force and attempting to extirpate its values entirely?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Of course as good tolerant liberal Westerners like Chris and Miles and Carrol, we also are a little bit unhappy with appearing intolerant, and we are aware that others have held strong views that turned out, we now think, indeed are certain, to be wrong or evil, so we liberal Westerners are a little nervous about being overly sure of our views. And we know that moral certitude has often accompanied bad causes -- causes we <EM>know</EM> to be bad, like Islamic or right-wing Christian fundamentalism.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But that isn't a reason to doubt that those fundamentalisms are bad, is it? That hardly makes sense. It is because we <EM>know</EM> those views are bad, because we know that in the past people have been to certain about things we now know were wrong (like that slavery was OK), that we are nervous. But we haven't a specific reason to doubt specific modern liberal Western values, why should we doubt them? Indeed, how can we? </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In fact, we don't. That goes for Chris and Miles and Carrol too. Maybe we think -- as modern liberal Westerners, that we shouldn't go around using force to impose our values on other people who don't share them -- but that is because tolerance is once of our values, right? And we don't think that just because Osama bin Ladin's values don't include tolerance that tolerance is OK for us, but it's just fine for him to impose his values on us. That would be stupid, right?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Maybe there's a special worry about white people, especially men, from rich countries, disapproving morally of that people of other races do in countries that our countries have oppressed and exploitated. But if so, isn't that because we are sure that oppressiona nd exploitation are wrong? And we want to be really careful not to do it, for example, by rushing in and smiting people whose values may be different but not wicked? However, the smiting issue is one thing and the disapproval is another. And can't we make a  distinction between practices that may be different, like polygamy, or even ritual facial scarring, where we might not want to do it, but if someome else does, well, what bsuiness is it of ours, and female genital mutilation, which we think is appallingly oppressive to women, which as good liberal Westerners we think is our business. Even if we don't think that it would right invade some country taht did to make them stop.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So help me here, I don't see what exactly is wrong with -- in the end -- thinking that our own moral views, the ones we hold -- are correct. Maybe I am missing something. Please tell me what it is.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>jks</DIV> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"><BR>From: Chris Doss <BR><BR><BR>There's a slight conflation of ideas here. The Nazis<BR>wre demonstrably wrong about things other than just<BR>their moral worldview (I happen to agree with Miles<BR>here, vaguely and approximately, and am really turned<BR>off by the Rortyesque "the Western liberal as moral<BR>yardstick" line). </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><p> <hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!?<br> <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/100/*http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail/static/efficiency.html">New and Improved Yahoo! Mail</a> - 100MB free storage!