(July 22, 2012 at 5:29 pm)liam Wrote: I see what you're saying but I don't feel you've entirely addressed what I said, nonetheless it would be beneficial to reflect on what you have said.
A lack of understanding in certain people is an inevitability that cannot be controlled, this is true of every theory and this would suggest to me the kind of understanding proposed in Searle's 'Chinese room'. I don't disagree that an individual can be an absolutist in the theory but rather I'd argue that it always attempts to assimilate them into the idea that such and such an action is always good, this seems to be the case for all theories and this is all I wished to state. I agree that there is very little upon which to base morality but nonetheless we should still try and find the safest ground possible. I'd argue that while these social and cultural influences can't be ignored, they can be removed by rational reflection and a doubt about one's own society and/or culture, even if not fully.
I'm assuming the "it" here refers to the moral theory. I guess that's the only point of disagreement left between us. While you see the idea that such and such action is always good as inherent in the theory, I see it as a result of human need for certainty and easy answers - even if that human happens to be the philosopher propounding that theory.
