BHA: RE: Epistemological relativism and ethics

["Marshall Feldman" <marsh@xxxxxxx>]

Dick's post is quite level-headed. I have one simple question about extreme
anti-social constructivist positions on ethics. If one takes this view, how
would we handle social learning?

For example, in the early twentieth century both left and right had
tremendous faith in the power of science, conceived in a rather positivist
fashion. Lenin, for example, equated communism with electrification and
soviet power. At the end of the twentieth century, with the horrors of the
holocaust and nuclear weapons, most of us have a different view and are much
more suspicious of science. I suspect that this suspicion touches on our
ethical positions as well as on political, epistemological, and other
positions.

If we treat human rights as innate and unchanging, where would social
learning fit into a conception of ethics? Doesn't the 18th Brumaire (sp?)
say something about repeating history as farce?

	Marsh Feldman

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Richard
Moodey
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 3:02 PM
To: bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: BHA: Epistemological relativism and ethics


Hi Viren and others,

I don't think Marko and Tobin should try to meet each other halfway.  This
is not a political debate, in which compromises are the only way for us to
decide upon a course of collective action.  One of the benefits for me of a
discussion such as this is to work towards a better understanding of my own
position, and better ways of stating it.  This is often best done by
clarifying just where it is that I agree with others, and where I
disagree.  I think that Marko, Tobin, and all of us, should try to come to
clearer understandings of just where we agree and disagree.

I have spent some time rereading all the posts on this thread, and it seems
to me that there is general agreement that ethics, or moral philosophy, can
and should contribute to human emancipation.  There also seems to be some
agreement that capitalism is in some ways unethical and an obstacle to
human emancipation.

Marko has come to what seems to me to be a very clear statement of his
position:

  "Constructivist ethics leads to moral relativism. Moral relativism of
course precludes universal emancipation. We are in the happy circumstance
of knowing that science tells us that the ethical faculty is an innate
feature of homo sapiens and that thereby science does not logically
preclude universal human emancipation. "

  I don't think Marko has come to that position lightly, and I think it
explains that aspect of Marko's on-line behavior about which Tobin
complains:

  "In my first post I presented an alternative interpretation of social
construction that was consistent with critical realism and recognized
biological constraint.  Marko refused to even discuss it -- he just kept
talking as though social construction was flatly equivalent to a rejection
of biology and was a type of super-idealism."

Given what Marko believes about social construction, he is not likely to
meet Tobin, or me, halfway.

I say, "or me," because although I have sided with Marko in the idea that
there is a biological basis for a conception of human nature, and that this
is relevant to the development of a variety of "natural law" ethics, I am
much more of a social constructionist than he (which isn't saying much,
perhaps).

I am a firm believer that men and women with different beliefs can
cooperate politically in working for a common good, and I regard human
emancipation as an important element in our common good.

I also believe that we are likely to find support in Bhaskar's texts for
our differing beliefs.

Regards,

Dick



     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---



     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---