If you're a Kantian, I suppose. Actually no, it's bullshit even here, since Kant rather famously denies the possibility of metaphysics and was an archantifoundationalist, the FOUNDER (haha) of modern antifoundationalism. In fact the Metaphysics of Morals contradicts the precepts of Kant's a priori moral theorizing at many points (such as the categorical imperative), because it is a practical work, and it is not literally meant to be a metaphysics.
--- On Fri, 3/20/09, Eubulides <autoplectic at gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Eubulides <autoplectic at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Glenn Beck breaks down in tears, blubbers on-air AGAIN
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Friday, March 20, 2009, 1:22 PM
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 9:59 AM,
> Chris Doss <lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Aristotle's ethics were not foundationalist. They were
> descriptive.
> >
> > Morality has nothing to do with metaphysics. Except in
> your febrile Calvinist imagination.
>
>
> ====================
>
> http://philosophy.eserver.org/kant/intro-to-metaphys-of-morals.txt
>
> 1785
> INTRODUCTION TO THE METAPHYSIC OF MORALS
> by Immanuel Kant -- translated by W.
> Hastie
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>