info at pulpculture.org wrote:
> it's the same thing that's happening with your claim that yours is a
> moral position against war, while the woman in Moore's film isn't
> taking a moral position! You've defined her position as not moral from
> the get go -- by ingoring the fact that what you've complained about
> is an essentially contested issue in the discipline of ethics itself
> -- no matter what Richard Singer has t say about it!
I think what ravi was raising was whether self interest per se constitutes a moral position. He was suggesting that the woman's support for the war would not have wavered if some other woman's son got killed. Also, he was raising a question for discussion.
>
> This completely ignores about 30 years of feminist critique about such
> claims -- as well as an entire body of thought within ethics itself.
> You have a particular definition of ethics and refuse to concede
> ground to the notion that others have opposing definitions. Instead of
> arguing as to why they are wrong n their views, you simply flatly
> assert it and deny any dignity to others who don't see it your way.
So what is the opposing position? ravi and I would like to know without mastering a body of literature. Give us a hint.
Joanna