[lit-ideas] Re: Justifying Moral Principles?

  • From: John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: Lit-Ideas <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 14:47:06 +0900

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rorty/

Readily available to anyone who can use a Google or other search engine.

John

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Adriano Palma <Palma@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Rorty who?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Walter C. Okshevsky
> Sent: 26 February 2015 23:43
> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Omar Kusturica
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Justifying Moral Principles?
>
> Rorty didn't express any optimism or pessimism re the possibilities or
> future of his "ethnocentrism." His claim, pace the realists,
> constructivists, Kantians, emotivists, etc was that this is all we've got
> as a justification strategy.
>
> Remembering fondly the forests of Opatsia, the slivovitz in Slovenia, and
> Katya in Lyublyana.
>
> Dovijenya, Valodsya
>
>
> Quoting Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
> > 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
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>



-- 
John McCreery
The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
Tel. +81-45-314-9324
jlm@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.wordworks.jp/

Other related posts: