[lit-ideas] Re: Univocal philosophy as the value of transcendental claims?
- From: "Phil Enns" <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 13:39:34 +0700
I had written:
"Would Robert be equally disappointed if I claimed that every case of
breaking the law was a crime?"
to which Robert replied:
"Yes. If that were offered as an explanation of what constituted a
crime, although I don't see the analogy between this and saying that
theft is wrong because inherent in the concept _theft_ is the
understanding that it is wrong. One who did not believe that what
others call theft was always and everywhere wrong would be
disappointed, I think, to have it argued against him that theft was
wrong by definition."
I don't think I have ever talked about what constituted morality or a
moral prohibition. If I did, it was a mistake. What I have tried to
focus on is the nature of the moral imperative (i.e. either "Don't!"
or "Obey!") as well as the nature of moral claims (i.e. combination of
particular actions and universalizability).
Robert suggests that perhaps we are caught up in a Euthyphroian
circle: Is something morally prohibited because we say it is wrong or
do we say something is morally prohibited because it is wrong. My
suggestion is that there is a circle but not a causal one. Rather it
is descriptive. Something is morally prohibited because we say it is
wrong _and_ we say something is morally prohibited because it is
wrong. Stealing is wrong because we say that _this_ particular act of
taking what is not one's own is wrong. Also, we say that _this_
particular act of taking what is not one's own is wrong because we
believe that no one should do it. Morality flies by going around this
circle fast enough that eventually it gets off the ground.
The analogy I gave was to the legal system. An act is a case of
breaking the law because we, through our legislative representatives,
say that it is a crime. We say something is a crime because it breaks
the law. If someone asks me whether stealing is a crime, I say 'Yes'
because it breaks the law. If someone asks me why stealing is a case
of breaking the law, I say 'Because it is a crime'. If someone asks
me what constitutes a crime and they are disappointed by the above
circle, I have to admit that I am not sure what else I would say
except, 'Well, that is what we do'.
Robert continues:
"It occurs to me that to call something a crime because it violates
some law or laws makes it impossible to distinguish between violations
of unjust laws and violations of ones that are in place to preserve,
as much as possible the safety of and equality among citizens"
I think Robert is right on this point. However, this is only one part
of the circle. The other part of the circle is to ask why a
particular act is a case of violating some law or laws. At this
point, it would be possible to raise the question of whether a law was
just. Again, I think all that is needed is to go around the circle
fast enough.
Sincerely,
Phil Enns
Yogyakarta, Indonesia
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
