Hm ... are you committed to any specific moral theory?
-
-
-
If I’m not mistaken you are averse to the moral relativism that much of postmodernism is committed to? Does that sound right?
-
Yes, I could set out my moral values and I think I have in various essays but I decline to put labels on it because then people pick at off-centre definitions. Enlightenment liberalism, humanism, universal human rights fit me.
-
But the idea that insults violate a moral principle may well be justified with reference to enlightenment thought, no? Utilitarian with reference to net happiness; Kantians, I suppose, would see common courtesy as an imperfect duty.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Also, appeals to "rights" just complicate moral analyses imo.
-
It can be a useful shortcut code sometimes but everyone defines it a bit differently and when people want to infer "rights to not be insulted," we're way out in left-field ethically imo.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
A right to not be insulted? As if insults are perfectively objective defined things?
-
But it's a MORAL right. You can't argue against a right that's MORAL. That's... immoral.
-
You always state things so morally right
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.