[lit-ideas] Re: Justifying Moral Principles?

  • From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:23:34 +0100

A pointed gun is a persuasive reasoner.

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:47 AM, John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> 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: