[lit-ideas] Re: Justifying Moral Principles?

  • From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 08:24:34 +0100

And over there you have Al Capone, too. ;) Greetings to Ken. (Did I
remember the name correctly ?)

O.K.

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:22 AM, Ursula Stange <ursula@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> One of my earliest dates with my husband was to see West Side Story....we
> enjoyed it (or each other) so much that we just sat there for the next
> showing.....you could do that in Chicago in those days.   Culture, yes.
>
>
>
> On Feb 23, 2015, at 6:07 PM, Mike Geary <jejunejesuit.geary2@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> 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: