You may want to withhold judgement of my capacity for this stuff; my confidence level is not so great. I've read and debated about it a bit but not in a while and the subject just always seems rife with potholes. One thing I'll say about Stich's diagram is that it seems complicated, though I couldn't argue for eliminating any of its elements. I found the tribal examples very digestible and relatable. The one thing I find most interesting is the emotional element. Why on earth do our moral judgements have to be filtered through emotions? Likely this is evolutionary, but it seems quite counter intuitive. Logic and reason are the only filters that seem relevant, so why do emotions have to butt into the party?
My overall reaction here is that I see nothing to disagree with. This all seems to jive with my knowledge and experiences and certainly there are historical references that support such assertions. I'm a fan of Roman history and the prevailing consensus on morality or ethics of the Romans suggests that they had quite different values than modern people, to the extent that many of us wouldn't be able to relate.
My overall reaction here is that I see nothing to disagree with. This all seems to jive with my knowledge and experiences and certainly there are historical references that support such assertions. I'm a fan of Roman history and the prevailing consensus on morality or ethics of the Romans suggests that they had quite different values than modern people, to the extent that many of us wouldn't be able to relate.
Why is it so?
~Julius Sumner Miller
~Julius Sumner Miller