the impression i typically get whenever i encounter this stuff, which is definitely an over-simplification, and which may be a radical misinterpretation, is that what they're saying is that any claim on the part of a proposed moral system to be equal-across-identity-groups is always a pretext for smuggling in the values and entrenched advantages of the historically dominant groups as presuppositions, and that therefore the only fair response is a to explicitly adopt a moral code that explicitly makes reference to culturally important identity categories (that is, which is literally ____-ist, albeit for progressive/compensatory/corrective sorts of reasons).
this line of argument always strikes me as resting on an equivocation between empirical facts about the moral orders of real societies (about which it seems largely sensible, give or take various qualifications, exceptions and footnotes) and sweeping claims about the nature of foundational principles in the theory of morality (about which it seems ridiculous and possibly evil).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
regna
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-05 12:00 am (UTC)this line of argument always strikes me as resting on an equivocation between empirical facts about the moral orders of real societies (about which it seems largely sensible, give or take various qualifications, exceptions and footnotes) and sweeping claims about the nature of foundational principles in the theory of morality (about which it seems ridiculous and possibly evil).