Cybersilliness

Justin Schwartz jkschw at hotmail.com
Tue Oct 24 11:51:09 PDT 2000


.
> >
> >"But why?" asks Johnny.
> >"Because thats what is fair," is the response.
>
>
>This passage epitomizes the poverty of utilitarian thinking (and philosophy
>in general) - it takes conventional notions as understood by the
>philosopher and raises them to the level of absolute truths , supposedly
>valid for every human being ever.

No, no. This is not utilitarianism, which would tell you that the correct division of goods, or rule for distributing prizes, is what maximizes social welfare. that of course will vary with the circumstances, so it may not be the same rule at all times and places. Moreover, there is almost no philosopher, utilitarian or not, who says tht you can utterly ignore circumstances and consequences in proposing ethical principles--not even Kant, although he DID argues that one one should ever lie. (However this is not an obvious immediate consequence of his practical philosophy.)

The idea that there are moral rules that are valid for everyone at all times and places is not stupid--it may not be right--but it does not lead to caricatures of the sort presented here, if the universality and objectivity of ethics is understood with a shred of plausibility. I mean, I can have grand fun making fun of stupid relativism, and when I attack pomo I do. But smart relativism is a hard target for objectivists like me, and smart objectivism is no less tough for relativists. It's no fun beating up on the helpless; we should pick on doctrines our own size or bigger.

--jks

_________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list