[lit-ideas] Re: Justifying Moral Principles?
- From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 15:37:55 +0100
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Perhaps I could try to play an anthropologist for a moment and try to
> evaluate Rorty's arguments not in terms of validity but of persuasiveness.
> What kind of people would tend to find Rorty's arguments persuasive ? Which
> countries would we expect them to live in, which social class would we
> expect them to belong to, and what kind of institutions would we expect
> them to be employed by ?
>
> O.K.
>
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:30 PM, John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>> The problem is that you are beating a straw dog. Cultural ethnocentrism,
>> the belief that every culture always gets it right in whatever terms it
>> chooses is both nonsense and counterfactual and not, on my reading,
>> anything that Rorty ever espoused. Zealots aside, all cultures leave room
>> for questioning and when what seem to be better ideas come along cultures
>> change. To say that, as a matter of empirical observation, we all make
>> judgments in terms of what we take to be right at the point the judgment is
>> made and that what we believe to be right is likely to be what we learned
>> by growing up in a certain group does not alter the ample historical record
>> that even people in the same group frequently change their minds when they
>> become aware of what they take to be new evidence or more persuasive
>> propositions. A pragmatist has no problem with that.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On 2015/02/27, at 19:45, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Another problem with cultural ethnocentrism is that it fails to explain
>> how people like Buddha or Socrates or Jesus came to hold moral beliefs that
>> had not been previously widely shared in their respective cultures, and how
>> their views proved persuasive to others. In other words, the view of
>> culture that is held in the age of air travel and telecommunications is,
>> amazingly, one of a closed, uniform, and unchanging system. Go figure.
>>
>> O.K.
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:02 AM, palma <palmaadriano@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> this has nothing to do with anything moral. confused idiots like
>>> propaganda/advertising and so forth. thereby they out high premium on the
>>> spin they put on the wares they peddle. it the same for the lawyers, the
>>> sophist, the clowns, the thespians.'
>>>
>>>
>>> it is a conceptual truth that persuasion has nothing to do with morals,
>>> in either the public or the private sphere. once c manson convinced &
>>> persuaded shitheads that sharon tate had to be slaughtered, the persuasion
>>> has nothing to do with the morality of the speeches he gave or the acts he
>>> fostered
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> All kinds of discourses can be persuasive. Hitler's speeches were
>>>> persuasive to an audience that had some predisposition to be persuaded by
>>>> them, the Germans of the 1930s. You and I might not find them so persuasive
>>>> today, but that is because we are not their intended audience. Persuasion
>>>> need not have much to do with reasoning.
>>>>
>>>> O.K.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:00 AM, John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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 *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/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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:
