[lbo-talk] Blue Dogs cashing in

[Matthias Wasser]

What if for P to follow her non-universal principles it is neccesary  
that she attempt to get Q to follow them as well? You can say this  
makes them universal in a sense, because P wants everyone to  
acknowledge them, but it hardly makes them universal in the sense of  
being derivables from the eternal principles of god/nature/reason.

On Jul 26, 2009, at 8:00 AM, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:


> Michael Smith wrote:
>>
>> What may be confusing Carrol, and is certainly confusing me, is
>> this: what does "morality" mean to you if not "abstract universal
>> principles"? Most of the philosophy of morals consists of trying
>> to find a basis for such principles -- and it hasn't been a shining
>> success.
>
> I think non-abstract non-universal moral principles mean a warm fuzzy
> feeling inside. I suppose such private principles can, possibly, be
> derived from vulgar liberalism: "Do as you please as long as you don't
> hurt others." But that would get confusing since in practice moral
> principles are only fun if you can use them to point a finger at those
> who don't live up to those "non-universal" principles which don't  
> apply
> to those who don't follow them. As you say, it's a bit  confusing. If
> P's non-universal moral principle only applies to P and friends, it
> seems a trifle odd for them to go around objecting to Q's failure to
> follow the non-universal principle which because it is non-universal
> doesn't apply to him/her, so why should he/she follow it?
>
> Carrol
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk