(Return to main path )

I'm not sure there is a way to avoid what you are calling the scientific model without sacrificing rationality itself.

Maybe I'm wrong here. I really don't know. But consider this: Suppose A says that killing person X is morally wrong. What's to prevent B from asking why it is morally wrong to kill X. Now A is being pushed to give some sort of reason that covers the case of X. Let's suppose A says "Because B is innocent of all wrong doing, and it's wrong to kill an innocent person." Now B may raise difficult cases. What about a case in which it is only by killing a few innocent people that we can save a large number of other innocent people. Is it still wrong. Now A will try to formulate some answer. Perhaps he will try to carefully distinguish different classes of cases. Or perhaps he will try to develop a theory of rights in order to defend his position. My point is that as soon as we allow open questioning about our moral judgments, we are inevitably pushed toward generalizations and theory building.

I don’t see how generalizations and theory building can be avoided unless we simply shut down discussion. But shutting down discussion is one way of sacrificing rationality itself. But that's what you're asking for, isn't it?