Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!ucbvax!brahms!desj
From: desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Moral Objectivism
Message-ID: <12427@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Sun, 16-Mar-86 05:34:47 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.12427
Posted: Sun Mar 16 05:34:47 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 17-Mar-86 22:30:18 EST
References: <364@gargoyle.UUCP> <607@hoptoad.uucp>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 24

In article <607@hoptoad.uucp> laura@hoptoad.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes:
>
>I think that a fundamental distiction which Dworkin misses out on in this
>essay is the objective or subjective nature of ``the good''.  Dworkin
>keeps on plugging for ``a conservative believes that a virtuous society
>determines the good'' (which is moral subjectivism) whereas all the
>conservatives I know are moral objectivists.

   How is it even possible to discuss political theory with a "moral
objectivist" (and by the way what is wrong with the symbol " which
everyone on the net seems to avoid)?  You seem to know more than I do
(i.e. any) so maybe you can explain it to me.  If you start out with a
characterization of what is good, then it seems you just end up with
whatever society has been predefined as good, and little room for debate.

   I think Dworkin is just trying to characterize these beliefs in a
logically consistent way, although I think he still fails to avoid
circularity (maybe I will reread the posting and examine this point
later).  As you note even the moral objectivists are not quite sure
where their beliefs really come from.  Obviously in reality (whether
they attribute them to divine revelation or whatever) they are somehow
a product of the supposed "virtuous society" in which they live, right?

   -- David desJardins