<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Our moral concepts are capable of being ordered (Whether it is a partial- or quasi-ordering is an empirical question). It will be a qualitative ordering, to be sure. But Western moral concepts cannot order actions; they can only classify them. As a result, epistemologically speaking, there is a greater chance that our concepts can aid in the generation of an adequate moral theory than Western theories are ever likely to in their present form.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It is important to note that <b>Ancient Greek, </b>for example, <b>introduced not only the word 'ethica'. The same culture also gave us many substantial treatises on that subject, the most well-known of which is Aristotle's Ethica Nicomachea. </b>If <i>the Indian text, composed around 650- 1200 years ago, does not even have a word for that phenomenon called 'ethics', how could it be an ethical tract at all? It cannot. </i>Hence the reason why the authors discover that the
âtext does not contain one single general rule stated in the prescriptive mode. General rule of conduct may easily be derived from various statements, but it is significant that the rules are not formulated as such. ⦠<b>The statements are written in the evaluative rather than the normative modeâ </b>(p.95). <i>[[[ the author is refering to the indian text here ]]]]</i>
..
How can one speak about 'ancient' India, when one is talking about a text composed during the 'middle ages'? Here, 'antiquity' does not have a particular time-frame as its reference. Instead, it is civilizational: <b>compared to the 'ancient Greeks' (of about 2500 years ago), the Indian civilization of about 700 years ago is more 'ancient' (i.e. more primitive). </b>Of course, this is not made explicit but it is the only possible interpretation, especially in light of their conclusions.
http://s-n-balagangadhara.sulekha.com/blog...renaissance.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It is important to note that <b>Ancient Greek, </b>for example, <b>introduced not only the word 'ethica'. The same culture also gave us many substantial treatises on that subject, the most well-known of which is Aristotle's Ethica Nicomachea. </b>If <i>the Indian text, composed around 650- 1200 years ago, does not even have a word for that phenomenon called 'ethics', how could it be an ethical tract at all? It cannot. </i>Hence the reason why the authors discover that the
âtext does not contain one single general rule stated in the prescriptive mode. General rule of conduct may easily be derived from various statements, but it is significant that the rules are not formulated as such. ⦠<b>The statements are written in the evaluative rather than the normative modeâ </b>(p.95). <i>[[[ the author is refering to the indian text here ]]]]</i>
..
How can one speak about 'ancient' India, when one is talking about a text composed during the 'middle ages'? Here, 'antiquity' does not have a particular time-frame as its reference. Instead, it is civilizational: <b>compared to the 'ancient Greeks' (of about 2500 years ago), the Indian civilization of about 700 years ago is more 'ancient' (i.e. more primitive). </b>Of course, this is not made explicit but it is the only possible interpretation, especially in light of their conclusions.
http://s-n-balagangadhara.sulekha.com/blog...renaissance.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->