Robin Faichney <robin@faichney.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Moral judgements are always a substitute for understanding.
> To judge someone as morally wrong, is factually wrong. To
> cling to a moral judgement is to cling to a delusion, and
> therefore to prepare the way for your own defeat.
My understanding of moral judgments is that they are similar to emotions --
that both serve as intellectual shortcuts that can give quick answers. If
one has too many false ideas heavily ingrained into ones emotions, of
course, such a system can give wrong answers.
So yes, moral judgments are a substitute for *thinking* -- but if you have
trained them properly, they will not be delusions. (note that coercion is
the primary way this system gets screwed up)
In an argumentative place such as this, it is probably safer to remain with
full-fledged thinking rather than judgmental / emotional shortcuts. You
never know when the latter might mislead you...
ERiC