Ethics are not principles. (letters to the editor).

I guess that the article "Ethics: Time to Revisit the Basics" by Gregory D. Foster in the March/April 2003 issue of the Humanist more or less adequately makes its point--but I do want to make a few comments.

First, obviously good and evil aren't opposites; holy and evil are, and good and bad are. Second, the title of Kant's little book, first published in 1785 long before Darwin came along and completely changed our outlook on how we view the topic of morals, isn't "The Fundamental Principles" but is best translated as "The Foundations" of the Metaphysics of Morals. For those of us who don't think that ethics is about principles, this is an important point. If you are interested in this topic, then I wholeheartedly recommend the twenty-five-page booklet by Peter Winch entitled Moral Integrity published in 1968.

Thirdly, Foster states (on page thirty-four) that "humans presumably possess abilities" and he goes on to include, among others, "the ability to make moral judgments." I beg to differ. I would argue--since there aren't judicial moral facts--that humans possess the susceptibility to make "moral judgments." That is to say, moral pronouncements clothed as moral judgments.

Douglas Bergmann
South Orange, NJ