[lit-ideas] Re: Justifying Moral Principles?
- From: Mike Geary <jejunejesuit.geary2@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 17:07:04 -0600
Culture, culture, culture, culture, I got your culture right here, baby:
I like to be in America,
okay by me in America.
Girl: Every thing's free in America,
Boy:For a small fee in America!
GirI: l like the city of San Juan.
Boy: I know a boat you can get on.
Girl: Hundreds of flowers in full bloom.
Boy: Hundreds of people in each room!
Automobile in America,
chromium steel in America.
Wire spoke wheel in America,
very big deal in America!
Girl: I'll drive a Buick though San Juan.
Boy: If there's a road you can drive one.
Girl: I'll give my cousins a free ride.
Boy: How you fit all of them inside?
I like the storys in America,
comfort is your's in America.
Knobs on the doors in America,
wall to wall floors in America!
Girl: I'll bring a T.V. to San Juan.
Boy: if there's a current to turn on.
Girl: Everyone there will give big cheer.
Boy: Everyone there will have moved here!
Immigrant goes to America,
many hellos in America.
Nobody knows in America,
Puerto Rico's in America!
Girl: When I will go back to San Juan.
Boy: When will you shut up and get one?
Girl: I'll give them new washing machine.
Boy: What have they got there to keep clean?
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 2:10 PM, palma <palmaadriano@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> yes
>
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 10:10 PM, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>> Well, academics have to earn their salaries somehow, and since most of
>> them have no interesting or fresh ideas to put forward they have to sing
>> praises to 'their culture.' Egyptian priests did the same in third
>> milennium B.C.
>>
>> O.K.
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 9:03 PM, palma <palmaadriano@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> interestingly if you look at interdiscipline, anthropologist correctly
>>> point out that culture is in essence academic bullshit, a concept to be
>>> eliminated from the range of interesting questions, see e.g. the
>>> discussions even on pop sites lik edge
>>>
>>>
>>> http://edge.org/annual-question/what-scientific-idea-is-ready-for-retirement
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If I were rich enough to spend one weekend in Monte Carlo and the
>>>> next one in Hawai, I think I wouldn't worry about 'my culture' too much. As
>>>> it is, 'my culture' is all I have, so I identify with it. I don't know how
>>>> to define it and I'd be hard pressed to list its virtues, but I am sure
>>>> that there must be some.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 7:58 PM, Mike Geary <
>>>> jejunejesuit.geary2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Being rather ethnocentric myself, I confess that I'm not familiar
>>>>> enough with the history of Yugoslavia either long ago or yesterday, such
>>>>> that I can comment on Omar's remark about what was at stake in Yugoslavia
>>>>> around 1990, nor competent to comment on how it was resolved, apparently
>>>>> not to Omar's liking. Nevertheless, my ignorance has never kept me from
>>>>> voicing my astute observations. Phil Enns fills in his opinion (which is
>>>>> in agreement with Rority -- with whom I too travel) with a quote from
>>>>> Stanley Fish: "Politics, interest, partisan conviction, and belief are the
>>>>> locations of morality ("morality" seems a bit too parochial a term to
>>>>> me,but what the hell, It's the melody, not the lyrics that make the song)
>>>>> that it is in and through them that one's sense of justice and the
>>>>> good lives and is put into action." This was offered in response to
>>>>> Walter's cry for some justification for: "Categorical Imperative,
>>>>> Principle
>>>>> of Equal Respect for Persons, The Original Position, Principle of
>>>>> Discourse,
>>>>> etc... etc.." Now, unless I misconstrue Fish-Enns' meaning, I would
>>>>> construe that my soul-source -- "culture" -- is far and away the better
>>>>> answer. We are simply our culture which includes all our behaviours which
>>>>> spring from the beliefs handed to us by our culture. It is only when we
>>>>> see that the cultural way of thinking and/or doing isn't quite working
>>>>> that
>>>>> we either go to war or begin to question our beliefs, values, traditions
>>>>> and make little teeny-tiny adjustments (or total revolution). Everything
>>>>> is culture. Even the method and manner and degree of cultural change.
>>>>> Damn, I should have been a sociologist. But what do they know of poetry?
>>>>> By the same token what the hell do I know? Here's one from moi:
>>>>>
>>>>> If ifs were ares
>>>>> I'd own forty cars,
>>>>> But I'm just a lonesome
>>>>> Cowboy.
>>>>> So this is what I'm going to do,
>>>>> Saddle up my horse
>>>>> And say "tootle-loo."
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The idea that people should be as ethnocentric and partisan as
>>>>>> possible and that the clash of radically defined opposing interests will
>>>>>> somehow work out for the best was rather widespread in the former
>>>>>> Yugoslavia some time around 1990. The things did work out eventually, but
>>>>>> arguably not for the best.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> O.K.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Walter O. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "We justify our judgements and actions through the giving and
>>>>>>> assessing of reasons. In doing so, we appeal to one or more moral
>>>>>>> principles for purposes of securing satisfactory levels of impartiality
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> objectivity. But can the principles themselves be justified? Could
>>>>>>> Rorty"s
>>>>>>> "ethnocentrism" really be the last word on the subject? On that
>>>>>>> meta-ethical view, any attempt to justify a moral scheme or "vocabulary"
>>>>>>> would prove to be question-begging since the justification would have to
>>>>>>> appeal to principles, norms and criteria internal to its own
>>>>>>> vocabulary. So
>>>>>>> how then do we justify the Categorical Imperative, Principle of Equal
>>>>>>> Respect for Persons, The Original Position, Principle of Discourse,
>>>>>>> etc..
>>>>>>> Are these really but articles of political faith?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't find Rorty's position as problematic as Walter does, for
>>>>>>> two different reasons. First, for Rorty, the ethnocentrism really kicks
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> only when public debate reaches an impasse, and we are only left with
>>>>>>> acknowledging that these are the beliefs that 'we' hold. It seems to me
>>>>>>> that this is similar to the situation that leads Kant to acknowledge the
>>>>>>> fundamental asocial sociability of human beings, in 'Idea for a
>>>>>>> Universal
>>>>>>> History', or that nature separates people, in 'Perpetual Peace'. In the
>>>>>>> end, there can be no Utopia or World government because there are just
>>>>>>> too
>>>>>>> many differences for there to be a single set of laws. For Rorty,
>>>>>>> ultimately, we are bound to our particular histories, but falling back
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> this particularity is what should happen only when public reasoning has
>>>>>>> gone as far as it can.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Second, the list that Walter gives, i.e. Categorical Imperative,
>>>>>>> Principle of Equal Respect for Persons, etc., require judgment, and I
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>> prefer that judgment ultimately come under politics. For Kant, judgment
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> the activity of putting experience under universal rules or laws, so
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> the CI, we evaluate specific activities by deriving maxims of action
>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>> them and attempting to make them universal laws. Because this activity
>>>>>>> always requires judgment, that is, how the particular comes under the
>>>>>>> universal, there will always be the problem of how to overcome
>>>>>>> differences.
>>>>>>> Kant recognizes that nature divides people, and the one way nature
>>>>>>> divides
>>>>>>> is in giving people different interests and goals. So, while in a very
>>>>>>> Hobbesian fashion, Kant urges people to pursue their interests in as
>>>>>>> selfish, in other words rational, manner as possible, the
>>>>>>> reconciliation of
>>>>>>> differences between people will require a political solution. This
>>>>>>> political solution will bring about an equilibrium of competing forces
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> interests, most likely established through a 'spirit of commerce', and
>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>> likely in the formation of a Republic. I realize that Walter will not be
>>>>>>> happy with this, but what comes to mind is a quote from Stanley Fish:
>>>>>>> 'Politics, interest, partisan conviction, and belief are the locations
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> morality. It is in and through them that one's sense of justice and the
>>>>>>> good lives and is put into action.'
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In short, yes, I am quite happy with Walter's list being articles
>>>>>>> of political faith and I see this as very much being within the vision
>>>>>>> Kant
>>>>>>> outlines for his hope for a peaceful future.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> palma, etheKwini, KZN
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> palma
>>>
>>> cell phone is 0762362391
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *only when in Europe*:
>>>
>>> inst. J. Nicod
>>>
>>> 29 rue d'Ulm
>>>
>>> f-75005 paris france
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> palma, etheKwini, KZN
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> palma
>
> cell phone is 0762362391
>
>
>
>
> *only when in Europe*:
>
> inst. J. Nicod
>
> 29 rue d'Ulm
>
> f-75005 paris france
>
>
>
Other related posts:
