Monday, May 26, 2008

on the alleged duty to save the pelt . . .

yo, Cabin Boy . . . I seem to remember a long-ago Maine grouse camp at Camp Haccamatack by the shores of Lake Spider-gitchee-gumee, where you entertained us (and kept us all awake half the night) attempting to do some kitchen animal control yourself.

I don't recall whether you saved the pelt that night? I do remember a whopping headache from having someone's hunting journal thrown at my noggin.

Ahhh, the memories.

Leave the drilling at home

1 comment:

KGT said...

The headache was the bottle of single malt scotch you consumed.

Ah yes, the mouse hunts. I have deep regrets about wasting those pelts. Could have made a thumb puppet.

Hey, if supererogation can be any morally good actions that are not morally required, even if there are such actions, how come they are optional or supererogatory?

I find it interesting that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says "the status of supererogation in ethical theory is important in exposing deep problems about the nature of duty and its limits, the relationship between duty and value, the role of ideals and excuses in ethical judgment, and the connection between actions and virtue. Supererogation raises interesting problems both on the meta-ethical level of deontic logic and on the normative level of the justification of moral demands."

Now, go get em tiger.

By the way, starlings go straight to the burn barrel round here... talk about specieism.