>The "uninteresting empirical question" is not in reference to the abstract
>matter of whether one agent can be a better judge of what's good for
>another
>person than the person herself (which I take to be obviously true, and I
>think most every parent on this list would agree), but the application of
>the principle to my alleged sexism.
It's still not clear why that is an empirical question. And while you are right about children, we were not talking about children. Most of us would agree that competent adults the best judges of their own best interests, and, moreover, that even when they're wrong they have the right to make their own mistakes. Tie this more tightly to a real case. Were you talking about women in Afghanistan who prefer to wear burkhas, or what?
>
> > In any case, you
> > are drawing your circle too tightly. This way has gone a long way
>towards
> > destroying civil liberties in America, not just for aliens, and it's not
> > going to stop there. Where does that go on your calculus? jks
>
>Is the restriction of civil liberties a function of the war, or an
>independant response on the part of the Bushies that would've occurred
>regardless of any military actions?
Without the war they wouldn't have dared to go anywhere near this far, and you know it.
I'll admit that I have a hard time
>calculating the value of civil liberties. The communist/consequentialist
>within me wants to say that their importance pales in comparison to overall
>material well-being, of which freedom is only a single ingredient.
>
This is too abstract. Rawls has a useful way of putting it. In a society that is too poor to support any principles of justice, he says we are outside the circumstances of justice, and questions of the proper distribution of freedom do not arise. In somewhat richer societies, he suggests that freedom can be traded off against equality and material needs. In reasonably wealthy societies where, if things were arranged properly, people could be brought up to abide by principles of justice, freedom comes first.
I note that your low evaluation of freedom is not shared by many ordinary people throughout history, who have struggled and died to win the freedoms we have. You have to understand that freedom is tied to self-respect, that thinking of oneself as a free person is central to many people's self of self-worth. Moreover, there is the Millean point that genuinely benevolent dictators are few and far between. Go reread On Liberty, which cam be taken as a consequentialist defense of the priority of liberty.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp