[lit-ideas] Re: Justifying Moral Principles?
- From: John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Lit-Ideas <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 17:00:52 +0900
Persuasive perhaps. But a reasoner? The only one I know is fiction, a very
smart gun, indeed, in a science fiction novel *The Star Faction
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star_Fraction> *by Ken Macleod.
John
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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/
>>
>
>
--
John McCreery
The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
Tel. +81-45-314-9324
jlm@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.wordworks.jp/
Other related posts:
