[lit-ideas] Re: Malt, Coffee & Chuck Taylor

  • From: wokshevs@xxxxxx
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 16:17:54 -0230

I choose to respond to this message from John rather than his other one which is
not as philosophically interesting. Please see specific replies below ("W")

Quoting John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>:

> Walter,
> 
> Thank you for a very interesting and informative response to my
> provocation. I salute you as a true philosopher. 

W: You are very welcome. I try to do my best, mired as I am in pedantry and
naivete. I am honoured to be saluted by a true philosopher.


> I have a couple of
> questions to ask, but first I would like to solicit your opinion of
> the account of Kant's moral philosophy found at
> 
> http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/5i.htm
> 
> The practical fact of the matter is that the chances of my reading the
> Critique of Practical Reason any time soon are remote. I would,
> therefore, like a Kant scholar's opinion of whether the summary
> presented by this source is a reasonably good representation of what
> Kant had to say.

W: I would recommend Onora O'Neill, Roger Sullivan, Allen Wood, Barbara Herman
or Christine Korsgaard. My view, for what it's worth, is that the account is a
reasonably accurative introduction to Kant's moral theory. I pass on the Third
Critique, as I haven't ever managed to get through more than half of it. Roger
Sullivan has a wonderful introduction to Kant's moral theory, precisely so
entitled. (And it's in paperback. His other text on Kant's moral theory is far
more complex and technical, but also excellent, in this novice's estimation,
anyway.)


> One serious question that I will pose in passing is this. Like Kant,
> as described in the source above as well as your own remarks, you
> place a great weight on the intention of universality. Yet, could it
> not be said of all the great figures of what Karl Jasper calls the
> Axial Period (Confucius, Gautama, Socrates,Jesus, Mohammed...) that
> each fully intended his prescriptions to be universal, applying to
> everyone everywhere whatever the circumstance? Which is how each
> became the inspiration for transcendental movements, called
> transcendental precisely because they refused limitation to any
> particular tribe or place? But when push comes to shove, the moral
> frameworks they envisioned differ radically?
> 

W: The intention to universalize a maxim is not equivalent to a maxim being
universalizable. Whether a case of the former is a case of the latter is a
moral (philosophical) question. Why, or how it is that, some people who intend
their maxims or doctrines to also hold as moral laws manage to inspire social
and historical movements is an empirical question. I would ask a historian,
sociologist or a psychologist. 

Walter C. Okshevsky
Memorial University

> Cheers,
> 
> John
> 
> On 6/16/06, wokshevs@xxxxxx <wokshevs@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > There is much here that I don't understand. But I will venture to query why
> we
> > are to understand Kant's moral theory as but the expression of "the morals
> of
> > 18th. century Prussia" which is what I believe John McC. to be implying
> below.
> > Kant certainly didn't intend his moral theory to be Prussian in any way;
> just
> > as Newton didn't think of the theory of gravity as being Polish or British
> or
> > Latvian. (The "starry heavens above" and "the moral order withinn" both
> comprise
> > ordered, coherent wholes: "Cosmos"). Rather, Kant understood his, and any
> other
> > moral theory, as an account articulating and justifying a necessary
> > and objective imperative of respect for law (the autonomy and dignity of
> > personhood) validly applicable universally to all rationally autonomous
> agents
> > (and rational beings as such). If he's right, and I think basically he was,
> the
> > choice is not between one moral space and other moral spaces, but one
> between
> > being/acting/willing in a morally worthy way and b/a/w in a morally
> > impermissible way. More generally, the choice is between a form of life
> that
> > understands the nature of rationality, constitutional democracy (Kingdom
> of
> > Ends), education and morality and one that interprets these categories in
> some
> > heteronomous manner (i.e., education = training or socialization) or
> institutes
> > alternatives to them (i.e., theocracy or totalitarianism).
> >
> > John them goes on to suggest that moral progress is somehow connected to
> greater
> > numerical acceptance of a moral framework. This smacks of a woeful
> consensus
> > theory of morality/moral rightness, subscribed to in Canada by the likes of
> our
> > present Prime Minister, and I'm not sure that John really wants to join
> that
> > camp.
> >
> > Of course, history hasn't ended (last time I looked, anyway). But much of
> the
> > agency that constitutes history is of a moral kind, and the only way we
> have of
> > recognizing and experiencing such agency is in terms of principles and
> concepts
> > that are themselves transcendental to history, i.e., that are grounded in
> our
> > capacity for rationality and autonomy.
> >
> > Walter C. Okshevsky
> > Memorial University
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Quoting John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>:
> >
> > > On 6/14/06, wokshevs@xxxxxx <wokshevs@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > P.P.S. Does Taylor allow for the possibility that moral spaces or
> > > frameworks
> > > > admit of moral assessment on grounds or criteria that are not
> themselves
> > > part
> > > > of any moral space or framework? If not, why not?
> > >
> > > Don't know. Haven't finished the book yet.
> > >
> > >  Is Kant wrong?
> > >
> > > No. Kant is partially right, as Newton was partially right. Empirical
> > > research suggests that some framework, composed minimally of a set of
> > > concepts glossable as "space," "time," "cause," "self," "good" and
> > > "bad" is a necessary part of the human condition. It also shows that a
> > > framework composed of homogeneous space and time, cause as a simple,
> > > logical thing (If X then Y), selves as unitary wholes, and good and
> > > bad defined in terms of the morals of 18th century Prussia is only one
> > > of numerous possibilities. Which, of course, leaves open the question
> > > how to choose between them.
> > >
> > > Is there really
> > >
> > > > no non-circular, non-question-begging justification of a moral
> > > space/vocabulary
> > > > as Rorty would have us believe?
> > >
> > > If the only admissable non-circular, non-question-begging
> > > justification is one whose assumptions are clear and self-evident
> > > truths from which the space in question can be deduced, no. If one
> > > allows a reasonable doubt and based-on-the-evidence-we-have-in-hand
> > > approach, opening the possibility of change if new evidence is brought
> > > forward, sure. There are lots of possibilities. Some will survive.
> > > Some will not. Some progress can be made, i.e., toward frameworks more
> > > widely accepted and more widely acceptable to larger numbers of
> > > people. History doesn't end. To ask the question as though it could is
> > > naive.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > John McCreery
> > > The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
> > >
> > > US CITIZEN ABROAD?
> > > YOU'RE THE DECIDER!
> > > Register to Vote in '06 Elections
> > > www.VoteFromAbroad.org
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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
> 
> US CITIZEN ABROAD?
> YOU'RE THE DECIDER!
> Register to Vote in '06 Elections
> www.VoteFromAbroad.org
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. lit-ideas
  3. Archive
  4. 06-2006