Moral argumentation

The liberal rite for treating moral issues is argumentation. (I say "treating" rather than resolving because what generally characterizes this rite is that the argumentation never ceases, and the issue is never resolved.) Any attempts to justify a position based on, say, intuition or tradition, is roundly mocked by liberals.

But what is not done is to demonstrate why argumentation is the right way to resolve moral issues! And clearly it is not the right way to resolve every issue. Imagine trying to walk by having an argument with everyone around you about where your foot should fall next.


  1. It has nothing to do with this particular post, but.. Could you shed light on something for me? In an old post, you say:
    "But, of course, materialists are not empiricists at all: as the logical positivists recognized quite well, all strict empiricism ought to say about, e.g., scientific experiments is that "After I had perceived that I had mixed what I perceived to be chemical X with what I perceived to be chemical Y, I perceived a movement in the mercury of what I perceived to a thermometer of +10 degrees.' "

    Which positivist said that?

    1. No positivist said that: what I wrote is that the logical positivists understood that is what empiricists *ought* to claim.

      It is a straightforward application of the logical positivists rejection of metaphysics: materialism is a metaphysical position, and must be rejected!


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Central Planning Works!

Fair's fair!

More college diversity and tolerance