[lit-ideas] Re: Justifying Moral Principles?
- From: palma <palmaadriano@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 22:10:43 +0200
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:
