>Perhaps a new thread could be started along these lines. How does a system
>of ethics reach conclusions that are not in principle revisable depending
>on new evidence, new interpretations, new distinctions made among central
>terms, philosophical traditions. Despite Rorty, how in principle could
>philosophy end? I don't see how such a system could be constructed. And I
>think that constructing systems, engaging in philosophical analysis is as
>real as anything else. Wittgenstein argued that at some point one just
>stops, one hits bedrock and one's spade is turned. Perhaps exhaustion sets
>in. I think the interesting issue here comes down to getting a better
>sense of what kinds of arguments, systems, theories, sets of criteria,
>etc. one is prepared in advance to accept as valid, plausible, etc. On
>what grounds do we choose the theories (systems of ethics) we choose to
>live our live by? For what it's worth, I try (most probably fail) to live
>along the lines of the principle that any belief I hold (in the
>philosophical sense of term) is in principle revisable in the light of new
>evidence. This is an unending, or endless, kind of principle.  It's also
>sceptical, non-idealist, humanist, local, contingent, nominalist, and on
>some definitions, scientific. But for a variety of reasons, I find the
>very prospect of a final permanent conclusion frightening. There is, in my
>view, more freedom in the onging possibility of change for good reasons.
>Part of my thinking on this idea derives, in political terms, from the
>work of Isaiah Berlin. But perhaps more relavant to this list, I think of
>Ahab in Moby Dick. Look what happened to his crew when he went after the
>"conclusion" of the whale.  What does one want? A single, rock-solidm
>marketwise, permanent definition of the Whale, or Moby Dick, one correct
>version of many? Compare the beginning of the novel. 133 definitions of
>the Whale. We're back to monism/pluralism. Like Ishmael, I'm a pluralist.

Best,
Tom Frank

Nasty? Unwarranted? I thought your sense of ethics just poses questions
>and never ever ever ever ever reaches conclusions. But perhaps then
>ethics is not real life eh?



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%