"To Be or Not To Be"
#18
(05-23-2010, 10:19 PM)Lagrange Wrote: By the PECI principle do you mean principle of equality ? If so, I am familiar with it - treat all like interests equally (species, race etc being irrelevent - only the quality of the interests is the issue). As he formulates it, I would disagree with it, because I reject an egalitarian approach it presupposes - which again, is solved via a different worldview, by positing a hierarchical created order - in which case, interests should not be disassociated completely from the type of being which has them.

I commend your efforts by the way to attempt to accept - for the sake of argument - some of Singer's metaphysical presumptions, and work ''within'' his framework to criticise it.  I guess what I'm trying to say though is the modern philosophy is so far away from a catholic philosophy, that ultimately, it comes down to very different metaphysical assumptions.     

Yes, and as I'm sure you know, I don't disagree. I am definitely a Thomist and am fond of Aristotelian ethics, but I decided to accept his principle and then show how, even he, should not maintain the position he holds. I have actually written a variation of the argument I presented in the article, one that spends less time making distinctions and more time exploiting the flaw. I appreciate your feedback, and, again, I don't disagree with you. I started to read the article you linked and have saved for my later perusal (perhaps tonight). It seems that the argument(s) proposed in it are, more or less, what we as Catholics already know. But I am excited to see this scholastic approach objecting to Singer. I was confused, however, because your arguments completely rejected PECI whereas my article accepted it.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
"To Be or Not To Be" - by INPEFESS - 05-13-2010, 09:10 PM
Re: "To Be or Not To Be" - by Lagrange - 05-15-2010, 10:01 AM
Re: "To Be or Not To Be" - by Vetus Ordo - 05-15-2010, 01:11 PM
Re: "To Be or Not To Be" - by INPEFESS - 05-16-2010, 12:42 AM
Re: "To Be or Not To Be" - by Lagrange - 05-16-2010, 03:59 AM
Re: "To Be or Not To Be" - by INPEFESS - 05-16-2010, 10:06 PM
Re: "To Be or Not To Be" - by INPEFESS - 05-16-2010, 10:20 PM
Re: "To Be or Not To Be" - by INPEFESS - 05-16-2010, 10:47 PM
Re: "To Be or Not To Be" - by Lagrange - 05-17-2010, 01:38 AM
Re: "To Be or Not To Be" - by INPEFESS - 05-17-2010, 09:01 AM
Re: "To Be or Not To Be" - by INPEFESS - 05-17-2010, 05:09 PM
Re: "To Be or Not To Be" - by Lagrange - 05-18-2010, 08:34 AM
Re: "To Be or Not To Be" - by INPEFESS - 05-20-2010, 10:46 AM
Re: "To Be or Not To Be" - by Lagrange - 05-23-2010, 03:45 AM
Re: "To Be or Not To Be" - by INPEFESS - 05-23-2010, 01:36 PM
Re: "To Be or Not To Be" - by INPEFESS - 05-23-2010, 01:37 PM
Re: "To Be or Not To Be" - by Lagrange - 05-23-2010, 10:19 PM
Re: "To Be or Not To Be" - by INPEFESS - 05-24-2010, 08:31 AM
Re: "To Be or Not To Be" - by INPEFESS - 05-24-2010, 08:03 PM
Re: "To Be or Not To Be" - by INPEFESS - 05-27-2010, 04:08 PM
Re: "To Be or Not To Be" - by Historian - 05-27-2010, 05:21 PM
Re: "To Be or Not To Be" - by INPEFESS - 05-27-2010, 05:41 PM
Re: "To Be or Not To Be" - by INPEFESS - 05-27-2010, 05:46 PM
Re: "To Be or Not To Be" - by INPEFESS - 05-27-2010, 05:51 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)