McEvoy was referring to 'considerations' dependent of nationality and those
independent of nationality and how this touches on direct v indirect
discrimination.
It may be argued that Walker is making a MORAL point, not a legal one.
Thus, it may be pointed out that a conceptual-analytic approach to law is
incomplete, since surely some meta-ethical ingredient is needed. On the other
hand, I would submit, a problem-solving approach to the philosophy of law IS
meta-ethic, but only in the 'way' of 'utilitarianism', since a solution to
a problem is judged a good one in terms of its usefulness. So there may be,
to echo Prichard, a motivation vs. interest complication here. Or not, of
course.
Give my regards to the Caspardians.
In a message dated 3/5/2016 6:16:37 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
rpaul@xxxxxxxx writes, wisely:
"When the Caspardians saw the Roman Legion percipiently cresting the hill,
they flew helter-skelter in every direction, leaving the women and old men
to fend for themselves. The Romans-on-the-Ridge, however, thought this
quite unseemly, not to say unmanly, still wisely pointed out that as the
Caspardians were now Romans — like it or not — they had an obligation to do
nothing but mill about in despair for that was what Romans now did — like it
or
not — upon being overrun by Romans, from the other side othe ridge. It is
said that in later times, Phelonorus, became known as 'The Great
Reconcilist,' largely for his clever alacrity in leaping from one side to the
other,
with the condition that there really were two sides. I thank JL for having
made Berkeley and its eucalyptus trees."
You're welcome!
as the Caspardians were now Romans -- like it or not.
