[MD] Capital Punishment

[Platt Holden]

Good morning Ham, 

> My interest in Value has to do with a concept rather than word
> definitions
> or etymology.  I'm of the opinion that Value is more than a qualitative
> measurement.  Value connotes an essential reality that exists
> independently
> of man's experience, which (incidentally) I do not infer from  Quality
> (MoQ).  What I've been looking for is evidence that I'm wrong in this
> conclusion. Hence, the question: Is Quality Value?

I'm not sure why you use "value" to describe reality if the word to most
people means something other than what you intend it to mean. Why fight
common understanding of what words mean? If one is trying to persuade, isn't
it good practice to use words that are readily comprehended? 

> "Category" has a special meaning when attached to moral principles, which
> is
> why Kant constructed the term "categorical imperative".  Here is the
> note
> from Runes' Dictionary of Philosophy under "Category":
> 
> "(Gr. Kategoria) In Aristotle's logic (1) the predicate of a
> proposition;
> (2) one of the ultimate modes of being that may be asserted in
> predication,
> viz: substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, state,
> action,
> passion.  (In Kant) Any of twelve forms or relating principles of the
> understanding, constituting necessary conditions of experience.  Kant
> sought
> to derive an exhaustive list of pure forms of the understanding from
> the
> forms of judgment in the traditional logic.  His list of categories
> comprises three each of quantity, quality, relation, and modality."

Reminds me of what Pirsig said about a particulary high-blown explanation by
an anthropologist: "Poor Kluckhom, Phaedrus thought. With that lead balloon
as a vehicle there was no way he could succeed." Philosophy would be so much
more attractive to people if philosophers disciplined themselves to use
plain, everyday English. In that regard, they would do well to follow
Pirsig's model.

> [Ham, previously]:
> > If you accept this definition, then I think you would have to
> > conclude that autonomy is an "absolute principle" insofar as
> > it applies to "free choice" in a relativistic world.  Any form of
> > slavery works against this principle, hence is immoral by definition.
> 
> [Platt]:
> > Here you invoke an absolute while previously you've denied
> > the existence of absolutes except for Essence.
> > Am I just being honery? (I've been accused of such in the past
> > and hope to avoid that impression in the New Year.)
 
> Since Freedom is absolute in principle, I don't believe I'm inconsistent
> in
> asserting that slavery is immoral by this definition.

I see no inconsistency either when it comes to slavery, but I do see an
inconsistency in your previous assertion that only Essence is absolute and
now your claim that individual autonomy is an absolute principle. That makes
two absolutes it seems. But, I could be wrong.

Finally, shall I give up any hope that you might consider the behavior of
atoms and animals as being limited by physical and biological rules much as
human behavior is limited by societal and intellectual rules? In other
words, can you entertain the thought that morality extends beyond the
insular world of man?

Best,
Platt 

 



-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/