[lit-ideas] Re: Some of you may remember ... ueber-gaffe
- From: wokshevs@xxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:16:58 -0230
Responses to Eric Yost on moral epistemology, chess and sexually illicit
practices (not to be confused with illicitly sexual practices)
---------------->
Quoting Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>:
> Volodya: This makes sense politically where the
> source of authority is consensus by the polity but it
> is nonsensical as a ground of justifiable moral judgement.
>
>
> But your concern was precisely, "how 'culturally
> inappropriate' can intelligibly be divorced from the
> 'should' in this case."
>
> So I provide you with an example of the divorce by
> appeal to the authority of polity. And you respond with
> an argument appealing to the authority of "justifiable
> moral judgement." And this leaves me to stutter and
> begin sentences with conjunctions. So it becomes a
> matter of "which authority?" as to how we proceed.
---> My position is that the "authority" of the polity, which I understand to be
equivalent to the authority of consensus or the general will, bears no epistemic
status or authority. The only authority that counts in epistemic terms is
agreement under epistemic conditions of discourse. Any other candidate is mired
in a pre-post-metaphysical era. The question of "which authority" only makes
sense with reference to ethical matters, not moral matters.
> It's like I say this chess opening has transposed from
> the Nimzovitch Defense into a Queen's gambit, and you
> reply that it was a Queen's Gambit all along. Sure,
> from the point of view of a Queen's Gambit at move
> twelve it may be, but from the point of view of the
> original opening moves, it's a Nimzo turned into a QGD.
----> If Eric's point here is that some explanations are incommensurable, I fail
to see the applicability of the point to matters regarding moral judgement
within a constitutional democracy (which is but a form of governance entailed
by the rationality of argument as such).
> Hence if you demand "to say something in the domain of
> the latter not the former," you will, regardless of my
> intervention.
--> I lose Eric here. Come again? Prostsitsi pozhalosta.
Walter O.
>
> Eric
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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:
