[lit-ideas] Universalizability
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:05:17 -0400 (EDT)
or Universalisability, if you must. -- and metaphysics...
In a message dated 3/12/2013 6:02:03 P.M. UTC-02, wokshevs@xxxxxx writes:
we live in a
post-metaphysical world, as argued for by such Kantian Constructivists as
John
Rawls, Christine Korsgaard, Juergen Habermas and Thomas Scanlon, amongst
others. ... "public speech/reason" (Rawls) or
"discourse" / "argumentation (Habermas) ought not to include metaphysical
commitments and arguments (either of a religious or secular sort) in
support of
policies and actions since these are not universalizable. The father of
such a
claim I believe is Kant: his prioritization of moral law over conceptions
of
the good/authentic life, and the differentiation of "public reason" from
"private reason."
-----
I was trying to expand on the alleged reason why metaphysical commitments
and arguments SHOULD not be included in "discourse" in support of policies
and actions "since these are not universalizable".
It may do to revise what the wiki says about this long word, below.
Cheers,
Speranza
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universalizability_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universalizability)
and from Blackwell:
"The idea that moral judgments should be universalizable can be traced to
the Golden Rule and Kant 's ethics. In the twentieth century it was
elaborated by Hare and became a major thesis of his prescriptivism. The
principle
states that all moral judgments are universalizable in the sense that if it
is right for a particular person A to do an action X, then it must likewise
be right to do X for any person exactly like A, or like A in the relevant
respects. Furthermore, if A is right in doing X in this situation, then it
must be right for A to do X in other relevantly similar situations. Hare
takes this feature to be an essential feature of moral judgments. An ethical
statement is the issuance of a universal prescription. Universalizability
is not the same as generality , for a moral judgment can be highly specific
and detailed and need not be general or simple. The universalizability
principle enables Hare to avoid the charge of irrationality that is usually
lodged against non-cognitivism , to which his prescriptivism belongs, and his
theory is thus a great improvement on emotivism. “I have been maintaining
that the meaning of the word ‘ought’ and other moral words is such that a
person who uses them commits himself thereby to a universal rule. This is
the thesis of universalizability.”".
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
