tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30379986.post767719779094416726..comments2023-12-10T07:55:27.177+00:00Comments on kenodoxia: GrauniadJames Warrenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02262258553733864003noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30379986.post-76549220486433157742010-03-01T17:34:01.085+00:002010-03-01T17:34:01.085+00:00Charity indeed. It sounds as if even on your prop...Charity indeed. It sounds as if even on your proposal 'exclusively' is doing double-duty. In the first case, moral expertise is not exclusive in the sense that everyone (not just the religious) can be a moral expert. In the second case, moral expertise is not exclusive because no one is solely a moral expert. Even so, it seems that the first sentence rejects the idea that being religious is a sufficient condition ('just because') for moral expertise, not that it is a necessary condition.James Warrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02262258553733864003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30379986.post-55599136670666431862010-03-01T16:15:26.599+00:002010-03-01T16:15:26.599+00:00I think the the charitable interpretation is to un...I think the the charitable interpretation is to understand the 'a moral expert' in sentence 1 to mean something like 'exclusively morally expert'. The inference in 2 would then be 'Everyone can be F, so no one is exclusively F', making the inference less of a catastrophe. You might still think it false that we can all become moral 'experts'. <br /><br />I also like the idea of re-punctuating to:<br /><br />"We need to learn that just because someone is religious, doesn't mean they are amoral. Expert: There is no such thing in a democracy, for we can all become experts." :)Matthew Duncombehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15033995555918460291noreply@blogger.com