Ethical foundations of the left

Luke Benjamin Weiger lweiger at umich.edu
Fri Jul 20 00:50:51 PDT 2001



> Probably. Analytical philosophers and lawyers tend to literal and
> unsympathetic readers, and I am guilty of both sins. "Obtuseness" is not a
> neutral word. Many people would be insulted. However, lawyers and
analytical
> philosophers are also moderately thick skinned.

"Obtuseness" should've been qualified with "intentional." It appeared to me that you were deliberately misinterpreting my misstated prose for "laffs." I'm glad that you don't feel insulted since no slight was meant.


> What did you think of the Posner/Singer debate in slate
> >(assuming that you read it)? Both of the philosophy graduate students I
> >spoke with felt that Singer got the better of him.
>
> Did read it. The philosophy grad students would think that, wouldn't they?
> What was the debate about?

The debate was about animal rights and whether ethical arguments and/or goverment regulations should/could be of any service in promoting them. I'm perplexed by your statement that the grad students would naturally side with Singer. One was a Kantian with libertarian political leanings and little concern for the interests of animals (I actually agree with him that many non-human animals don't meet any reasonable criteria for personhood). He wondered if Singer would be dissapointed after such a weak challenge. Basically, Posner stated that even a superior ethical argument carried to its logical conclusion must give way if faced with a powefully contrary intution. Wait a second... I think I'm begining to see why the grad students would be inclined to side with Singer.

-- Luke



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list