From: Richard.Kouchoo@firstdata.com.au
Date: Sun Sep 14 2003 - 21:07:40 EDT
>>>As an example of the first strategy, it seems to me that Daniel Dennett
in
his recent book _Freedom Evolves_ opts for the first strategy by pushing a
definition of freedom that doesn't, in my opinion, fit our common sense of
the term. This might be considered a slight of hand move that seems to
offer an answer to the anathema but it really doesn't.<<<
I haven't seen this work but there is nothing new in this _Freedom Evolves_
idea.
There is a great problem with the suggestion that freedom, per se, can
evolve. This would effectively render universal justice ineffective and
impotent. If for example, freedom is seen as varying from one age to the
next, then what may have been deplorable in one epoch (as far as human
morality is concerned) could be radically redefined in another era. This is
not practical for obvious reasons.
This idea is really a rehash of moral relativism.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Sep 14 2003 - 21:08:08 EDT