Folks -- Returned mail. Our computer services are involved in hooking up our phones to the cyberspatial world and messages are being returned. I have a high-tech new phone that even makes coffee. Of course, I can't figure out how to do an outgoing voice-mail message. Pardon the delay. Cheers, Walter MUN Quoting wokshevs@xxxxxx: > I had thought that the fallacy of ad hominem consisted in the illegitimate > attempt to discredit an argument by appeal to some characteristic of *the > individual* making that argument, rather than to the validity and soundness > of > the argument itself. John seems to read the fallacy to refer to some > characteristic shared by all members of the human species that would > disqualify > the soundness of an argument presented by a representative of that species. > John may have come up with a new informal fallacy: argumentum ad species? > ("You > believe that because you're human." Consider the alternative.) > > Regarding specification of a maxim: The factors John identifies below, > factors I > purportedly "artfully ignore," are of course all possibly relevant to the > identification of a maxim and the assessment of its moral > permissibility/impermissibility. I do not dispute that. I dealt with a much > simpler yet still quite realistic case in order to address points made by RP > - > considerations which did not, in my mind, require a more comprehensive > articulation of the maxim in question than the one I provided. Is some > aspect > of Kant's moral theory falsified or rendered unsound in some way once a > maxim > is more fully articulated/specified? > > Walter C. Okshevsky > Memorial University > > Quoting John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>: > > > I have been following with great delight Walter and Robert's > > dissection of Kant. It is always a pleasure to watch professionals in > > action. But amateur as I am, I feel bit uncomfortable with the > > statement appended below. Here it seems to me that the philosopher > > makes one of those sudden descents from elevated analysis to > > idealistic ad hominem that is likely to discredit the whole business. > > Asking why the analysis might strike one as silly, he appeals to a > > character flaw, euphemistically described as a "human tendency." At > > the same time he artfully ignores such material considerations as (a) > > does the flower picker own the meadow and have every right in the > > world to pick the flowers in question, especially since she herself > > had scattered the seed earlier in the year or (b) does she know full > > well that the flower in question is not a rare species growing in a > > highly trafficked park where if everyone who passed by plucked a > > flower all the flowers would soon be gone but instead a common variety > > located in a rarely visited meadow that she herself took several hours > > of hiking to reach and, thus, that plucking a flower or two for her > > pleasure will have no perceptible effect on the meadow or its ecology? > > Instead, we are asked to imagine a hypothetical meadow with flowers > > conceived as a collection of points in a zero-sum game, so that > > picking even one is a small but significant step toward total > > degradation, giving no thought to anything else. Now that does seem > > silly. > > > > John > > > > > > > > The reason why so much of this analysis might strike one as just plain > > silly is > > > because our very human tendency to think "Oh come on, one (bunch) of > > flowers > > > isn't going to harm anyone/anybody." Or: "What a beautiful meadow; I > know > > I > > > shouldn't really disturb its pristine wonder, but perhaps only this once > > and > > > this is such an isolated place that surely there won't be many more > people > > > coming by to pick flowers." That is precisely the structure of the kind > of > > > illegitimate self-exemption Kant's CI-procedure intends to identify. > > "After > > > all, there is nobody in the world just like me; I'm special; my > interests > > and > > > desires are thus privileged. I have a right to be a free-rider. And even > if > > I > > > don't, who cares?" (This attitude will be part of the "Coming World > > Crisis.") > > > > > -- > > 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 > ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html