(September 27, 2013 at 8:30 am)genkaus Wrote:(September 24, 2013 at 9:03 pm)whateverist Wrote: I wonder how you conceptualize this difference-making knowledge. Is it the reasoned categorization of the action, or is it an empathetic wince? Does an empathetic wince imply the presence of knowledge? Or does the knowledge have to be consciously held to be the sort you have in mind? I would be willing to concede the body contains knowledge which is actionable without my conscious participation - as when my hand jumps off the hot pan. Or when I wince in empathy for another's pain. Not sure what difference any of this makes in regard to morality .. but as you know that is not a concept I am invested in propping up.
Not sure what you are trying to say here.
Without the capacity to reason, I do not believe morality to be possible. And no, an empathetic wince need not implies a presence of knowledge only so far as you know who to empathize with. And I do not regard unconscious instincts as knowledge.
Well, if we only have knowledge without the empathic wince, would we even bother with a concept of morality? Wouldn't it just be a subset of logic otherwise? It is the special way in which we care which calls for another category. If you can't account for that, then all you have is a logic that can only persuade if one shares various premises. A pretty vapid conception of morality. Too often the defense of morality seems to resolve into a defense of propriety. Not really my concern.
