> >Why is it important to be able to say exactly why the attainment of
>equality >or freedom is valuable?
>
>How would I know it is if I wasn't working on more than a gut feeling?
I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you concerned that your bias in favor of freedom or equality is a prejudice that might evaporate if you thought about it hard enough? I'm not. I hope I would understand freedom or equality better if I thought about them harder. But I would reject the law of gravity before I rejected the equality of humankind or the priority of freedom.
>
> >Who are you trying to prove these propositions to?
>
>Myself, and, if I feel certain enough that I'm correct, hopefully others.
>
Well, one'self is OK, But what do you mean "others"--other philosophers? Academics? The cops? George W. Bush? Members of the working class?
> >...which I think are legitimate and fun to think about, just as it is
>legitimate and fun to research 16th century Italian art history or the
>four-color problem in topology.
>
>A line worthy of Posner (and I mean that as a compliment).
Why, thank you.
>Needless to say, because argument has changed my conception of the world
>and what I ought to do while I'm a part of it, I think it's more important
>than other "fun" activities.
Important for you, or for everyone? Or for other "intellectuals"? Would you discourage topologists or art historians from pursuing their crafts? What about lawyers? As for other fun activities, I personally think that sex is more important than moral philosophy, although I do both of them when I can. (Not at the same time.) But then I have been accused on this list of being alawyerw ith a large libido. We'll leave it at that.
>Actually, in my experience, actual argumentation (the sort carried on
>against one's prior beliefs when they're called into question) is more akin
>to a mild sort of torture than it is to an entertainment.
Well, fun is often somewhat painful. I just got back from the gym, which I enjoyed, but my instructor is a cruel woman--Sheila, The Mistress of Pain.
>
> >But, to put a Ponersian and in general a pragmatist question to you,
>would >it shake your commitment to equality if you found that all the
>arguments for >it are problematic?
>
>Yes. It has altered the way I think of equality (including what sorts are
>possible and how desirable they are).
Well, I should hope so. But that is just clarification. I mean, could an argument make you say, oh, shit, now I see! Posner is right, the interests of the bosses are more important than those of the workers! Get me off this list and onto the Mises list!
>
> >But one doesn't arrive at an ethics outside a political framework and
>then >apply to to construct one.
>
>It's a bummer to learn that now, since I've been attempting that very task.
>
Well, you're young yet, so you haven't wasted too much time. I am glad to have saved you the trouble of attempting to square the circle.
You're a philosophy student at Michigan? Talk to Peter Railton, Elizabeth Anderson, and Don Herzog aboutthese things. Tell 'em I sent you. They'll set you right.
--jks
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp