I think you're right.
--- On Fri, 7/24/09, Matthias Wasser <matthias.wasser at gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Matthias Wasser <matthias.wasser at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Blue Dogs cashing in
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Friday, July 24, 2009, 8:56 AM
> I think part of the confusion might
> be that Carrol is using "moral" in a
> more specific sense than the rest of us. To many people, if
> you see someone
> getting beaten on the street, get angry, and do something
> to help, that's
> "morality," even if you understand that your desire not to
> see people suffer
> is an irrational product of culture/evolution/whatever.
> Carrol seems to
> think it requires moral realism; that for an objection to
> be moral it would
> have to be grounded in reference to a transhistorical True
> ideal. Carrol
> sees people say "moral" and thinks they're engaging in
> metaphysics. Doug (or
> whoever) sees Carrol say "moral" and thinks she's claiming
> not to care about
> things.
>
> There's an empirical component here, of course ("what do X
> leaders in the
> Democratic Party think they're trying to accomplish?") but
> that seems to
> be comparatively clear.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>