[lit-ideas] Re: Max Boot

  • From: wokshevs@xxxxxx
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 17:38:29 -0330

For anyone still wondering what a "serious philosopher" is all about, have a
looksie below. (This endorsement does not extend to a blanket acceptance of the
author's views on Kant's or Habermas's moral theories.:-)


Walter O.
Direktor,
Festivities Division,
Holy Trinity Greek, Russian and Serbian Orthodox Church,
Oxford, England


Quoting Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx>:

> Lawrence Helm wrote:
> 
> 
> "[C]onsider those who recently demonstrated that they couldn't tell the
> difference between a terrorists act and the act of someone fighting
> terrorism.   I continue to think that this problem is one of education.  We
> no longer teach logic."
> 
> The problem isn't one of logic, since we are operating in the realm of
> discussion and debate.  For example, people will operate with different
> premises and logic won't be of much help in addressing these differences.
> Nor do I think it is an issue of education.  This list has some very well
> educated people who disagree with each other.
> 
> In my opinion, the problem with many of those who claim a similarity between
> a terrorist's act and the act of someone fighting terrorism, is their
> inability to articulate satisfactorily the differences.  Often, this failure
> is a result of a commitment to the claim that mores are expressions of
> social structures.  For example, on this account, the difference between a
> criminal shooting a person in a drive-by and a police officer shooting the
> criminal in the course of making an arrest, is one between conflicting
> social groups.  The criminal most likely comes from a background of poverty
> and abuse while the police officer represents primarily the interests of
> those who are established and privileged.  On this account there is little
> or no grounds for condemning the criminal and justifying the police officer
> because there is no recourse to an independent standard for making
> judgments.  There are only descriptions of who people are.  Intuitively we
> know that the criminal is wrong and the police officer is justified, but how
> is this intuition to be articulated?  One can, of course, introduce talk of
> 'criminals' and 'terrorists', but these are terms relative to a particular
> social structure.  Few would self-identify as being a criminal or terrorist.
> So one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, and each is an
> expression of a particular social milieu.
> 
> But, again, intuitively we make the moral judgment that there is an
> important difference between the criminal and the police officer that is not
> satisfactorily accounted for with descriptions of social structures.  The
> commitment to explaining the differences solely through descriptions cannot
> account for the seemingly universal belief that certain acts are wrong no
> matter who does them.  The terrorist is different from the person attempting
> to stop the terrorist because what the terrorist is doing is wrong, no
> matter their background.  The person who refuses to draw on a standard
> beyond social structures is unable to satisfactorily account for this 'wrong
> no matter who they are'.
> 
> For those of us who are religious, or believe that there are grounds for
> making general moral claims, it is then possible to articulate satisfactory
> accounts of the difference between terrorists and those trying to stop them,
> even though we may disagree.  But without those grounds, all one is left
> with is descriptions noting similarities and differences, unable to make
> judgments.
> 
> I should also note that the 'all is social structures' crowd includes those
> who advocate 'spreading democracy' or defending 'the American Way'.  In both
> cases, 'wrong no matter what' is collapsed into 'our ideals' and so getting
> people to acknowledge right and wrong is identical to having them adopt
> 'our' way of doing things.  I say this to guard against the misconception
> that the issue is one of 'right' and 'left' or 'conservative' and 'liberal'.
> 
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Phil Enns
> Glen Haven, NS
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
> 



------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: