"I've learned not to put things in my mouth that are
bad for me."
-- Monica Lewinsky, on CNN's Larry King Live,
discussing her Jenny Craig weight loss. <snort>
ken h writes:
>This post help quite a bit.
i must first apologize be/c i sent it accidentally. hit send instead of spell check and hadn't proof read. so it was mucked up, esp in one part.
I think to a considerable extent we are talking past
>each other.
> I admire this aspect of his work as well as
>the fact that he tries to defend the values of truth, rational consensus, and
>critique. I wish you luck in trying to apply hid and pomo theories to muck.
well, i actually am rather ecclectic about theory. i went to grad school to do philsophy of social science and went to what was once a dept known for its speciality in theory and historical sociology. between the time i accepted the fellowship and the next fall, the almost dead white guyz [theory people] had been dethroned in favor of feminists and empiricists who abhorred theory. the guy who recruited me told me there was no way in hell i'd get out without doing empirical research. so, my goal has been to work between theory and research, between the almost dead white guyz and the feminists/pomos/etc. glutton for punishment.
so, what interests me about H is not really his theory of communicative action. i only appreciate that as a way to ground social theory without recourse to foundationalism. otherwise, i was more interested in legitimation crises and social movements as exemplary of instances of resistance to capitalist domination and state rationalization. i've since expanded that to examine other spheres which might be instances of resistance to market/state domination and oppression, most especially in the workplace and now in terms of contradictions in the real estate market and low interest home buying programs. so, voila! i actually do move back and forth between theory and muck.
> You are right that I was extending the discussion from whether moral
>disputes can be settled by science to their being settled by appeal to
facts in
>general. However, I assume that Habermas would also claim that moral disputes
>cannot be settled by any sort of appeal to facts. I was not thinking of
science in
>terms of theory but in terms of applied science as in carrying out tests and
>collecting data to see if genetically modified plants can successfully
pollinate
>related species etc.There are a couple of points that still need a bit of
>clarification.
i guess i still don't understand how that is a moral dispute? whether we should produce crops of genetically modified plants is a moral dispute yes?
but whether we can grow them successfully isn't, is it? whether we should test in the first place would be a moral dispute too, right?
> You miss my point. I specifically noted that moral disputes occur even
when
>their is agreement on values. I take this to be a moral dispute because it
is a
>dispute about the obligations of the professor.
they both agreed that saving a life is an obligation that trumps showing up to class on time. the dispute was over whether to judge the prof for being late. the student with, apparently, no brain or life experiences to think more abstractly couldn't imagine anything other than his/her own needs and what others owed him because of what he'd done for them. the first student distrusted the prof as likely acting selfishly. but the student who could think abstractly and imaginitively could imagine possibilities where the professor would be excusably late for class. the second student trusted the prof to be a good person and do the right thing. i mean it sounds like a dispute between a dumbass and a chump. ;-)
>Of course when the fact of the rescue is pointed out the dispute is
dissolved.
>That both participants share the moral position that the obligation to
come to
>class is not as stringent as the obligation to save a child is neither
here nor
>there. Your next step is just to disallow my position by stipulation. You
say that
>the students could not have been having a moral dispute because as I note
they had
>not changed their moral positions at alL Well I faill to understand. Are you
>saying that it is necessary for participants to change
no, i still maintain that there was no moral dispute between students.
> You say the professor faced a moral dilemma: Save the child or show up
for
>class on time.
what i was trying to point out was that singer and you say there is a moral dispute but there isn't one. rather, what you described was a difference in assessment about someone or an event and what the other person ought to do. but there is no choice facing the students in order to judge what the professor ought to do because they know nothing other than that the prof isn't in class and hasn't fulfilled an obligation they expect that he ought to. there is no debate, as yet, over what the professor ought to have done.
once the story is in and an option is provided the students agree, and yet as i point out the second student could have pointed out reasonable possibilities and still secured a concession from the first student that he really didn't believe that the prof had an overiding duty to be in class no matter what.
now, it is possible that they could have had a dispute even if they'd had the right story. for ex, the imbecile could have said, "well why is he at the hospital then? why didn't he have someone else take the kid to the hospital. he should be here."
nowthere would be a reasonable moral dispute because it's conceivable that good natured, milk of human kindness student would say, "of course he should stay by the child's side and take her to the hospital.' whereas it's likely that numbnut student would likelyl say, "no schmuck has an obligation to be in class on time and if he's at the hospital, has made a phone call to dept secy, and there has been time to relay the info to student three, then schmuck could very well be here and doing his job. he must have called at least 15 minutes ago. had he left the hospital right away he could be here since hospital is 3 blocks away and it's not rush hour. and godamnit i pay tuition and i am owed an education and probablly deserve an A for the amount my daddy o is paying for this dump. schmuck is probably lying about the girl and is out fucking one of his grad students"
hows that for reality?
you maintained earlier that a moral dispute is about a difference over ends or goals:
>" Moral disputes are disputes about what we ought to do" [ken h.]
can you please explain to me how the difference of opinion between the students was a dispute over what ought to be done? the only dispute involving an ought was one over whether the prof should be judged before all the facts were in and/or if there were conditions underwhich the dissenting student would agree that ought to be doing something other than being in class.
>Uh. What planet are you from?
men are from mars women are from hell.
kelley