Comments on: ARRRRGGGGGHHHH. Or Possibly, ARRRGGGHHH 2. http://blog.janehaddam.com/2009/04/29/arrrrggggghhhh-or-possibly-arrrggghhh-2/ Jane Haddam’s WordPress weblog Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:27:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.4 By: robert_piepenbrink http://blog.janehaddam.com/2009/04/29/arrrrggggghhhh-or-possibly-arrrggghhh-2/comment-page-1/#comment-767 robert_piepenbrink Wed, 29 Apr 2009 20:33:31 +0000 http://blog.janehaddam.com/?p=496#comment-767 Excuse me? I thought this started with an observation that the study of the Western tradition was not enough. Perhaps I'm having difficulty with my Cantonese tones. As for any widespread agreement among humankind on such matters, find your copy of THE DEVIL'S DICTIONARY, and look up "Moral." Sneer at philosophers at your pleasure, but ignore Ambrose Bierce at your peril. Excuse me? I thought this started with an observation that the study of the Western tradition was not enough. Perhaps I’m having difficulty with my Cantonese tones.

As for any widespread agreement among humankind on such matters, find your copy of THE DEVIL’S DICTIONARY, and look up “Moral.” Sneer at philosophers at your pleasure, but ignore Ambrose Bierce at your peril.

]]> By: cperkins http://blog.janehaddam.com/2009/04/29/arrrrggggghhhh-or-possibly-arrrggghhh-2/comment-page-1/#comment-766 cperkins Wed, 29 Apr 2009 11:44:40 +0000 http://blog.janehaddam.com/?p=496#comment-766 If you're saying that the humanist can use the great tradition to determine whether or not it should be permissible to eat a willing human, surely you are using the great tradition to make a moral decision? And if you are adding that each individual can, on being told that eating people is treating them as objects, and other societies that do that tend to treat people badly, make their own decisions - those people must then make their own moral choices based on what? the information provided by the humanist? (I'm reminded of a certain character in Old Harry's Game who would undoubtedly choose treating other people as object so long as he wasn't one of them!). And you now say you only need a consensus to make this work, but you previously said you couldn't get a consensus for a religious moral code. I can't see that you'd get any more of one this way. (Personally, I've always liked the idea of the speaker and listener being on different wavelengths in these situations!) If you’re saying that the humanist can use the great tradition to determine whether or not it should be permissible to eat a willing human, surely you are using the great tradition to make a moral decision? And if you are adding that each individual can, on being told that eating people is treating them as objects, and other societies that do that tend to treat people badly, make their own decisions – those people must then make their own moral choices based on what? the information provided by the humanist? (I’m reminded of a certain character in Old Harry’s Game who would undoubtedly choose treating other people as object so long as he wasn’t one of them!).

And you now say you only need a consensus to make this work, but you previously said you couldn’t get a consensus for a religious moral code. I can’t see that you’d get any more of one this way.

(Personally, I’ve always liked the idea of the speaker and listener being on different wavelengths in these situations!)

]]>