Re: BHA: Epistemological relativism and ethics

[Mervyn Hartwig <mh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Dick, all,

I wasn't suggesting a compromise, let alone a political one. Rather,
that the position of each would be truer to the Real if they adopted
something from the position of the other. I.e. - much as I hesitate to
use the term, since it has been appropriated by Blah Blah Blair and
Giddens - there is a third way between social constructionism and
biological reductionism, and that this is a way that Archer, Bhaskar et
al take. (For Bhaskarian warrant for the notion of a third way see the
early pages of PON).

Thanks and best,

Mervyn

Richard Moodey <moodey001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
>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 ---

--
Mervyn Hartwig
Editor, Journal of Critical Realism (incorporating 'Alethia')
13 Spenser Road
Herne Hill
London SE24 ONS
United Kingdom
Tel: 020 7 737 2892
Email: <mh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Subscription forms:
http://www.criticalrealism.demon.co.uk/iacr/membership.html



     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---