Ethical foundations of the left

Justin Schwartz jkschw at hotmail.com
Mon Jul 23 13:45:22 PDT 2001


I'm not sure that it makes a difference whether ethical realism is true. But it doesn't have to matter whether it's true for it to be true. Anyway, I am not strongly attached to moral realism; I just haven't encountered any reasons I consider decisive to say that moral statements aren't true or false. But why should their well-supportedness, which is what is at issue here, motivate? Actually, maybe moral realism does makea difference. The Cornell school think that the initial hypothesis about why people act morally as they do is that their moral beliefs are true. What, though, does that have to dow ith justification? Or with inducing true beliefs by moral reasoning, much less philosophy?

--jks


>From: Jim Farmelant <farmelantj at juno.com>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>Subject: Re: Ethical foundations of the left
>Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 16:03:46 -0400
>
>Justin,
>
>How, if at all does your view of ethics differ from the views of
>non-cognitivists
>like Ayer or Stevenson, or that of prescriptivists such as Hare?
>
>Earlier, you asserted that you were a realist concerning ethics, yet your
>view of moral argument would seem to differ little from that of Ayer,
>who as I recall, argued in *The Central Questions of Philosophy*,
>that he failed to see what difference it would make if realism was
>true or not
>
>Jim F.
>On Mon, 23 Jul 2001 19:39:07 +0000 "Justin Schwartz" <jkschw at hotmail.com>
>writes:
> > I don't go in for this Habermasian metaphysics (sorry, Kells!). Your
> >
> > argument proves too much. It's also uniquely human to baffle each
> > other (and
> > ourselves) with bullshit or blind each other with razzle-dazzle. And
> > to
> > appeal to each other's sympathies, to move each other emotionally,
> > to make
> > rhetorical appeals, etc. And these latter may be more powerful
> > motivationally. King's I Have A Dream Speech expresses a vision, not
> > an
> > argument, and it had more good effect (in less time) than the
> > collected
> > ethical writings of Kant. You misunderstand me if you think I say
> > argument
> > doesn't matter. What I said, rather, is that it doesn't _motivate._
> > That's
> > why I'm sort of a Humean. Reason is the slave of the passions,
> > whether or
> > not it ought to be. And I'm talkinga bout fundamentals. Of course
> > peiole get
> > persuaded about means and about peripheral matters all the time, and
> > even in
> > ways that affect your behavior.
> >
> > --jks
> >
> >
> > >At 06:29 PM 7/23/01 +0000, you wrote:
> > >
> > >>I think I am morte Humean, or Marxian, or something. I think you
> > have
> > >>exaggerated faith in the persuasive and motivational powers of
> > mere
> > >>ratiocination.
> > >
> > >It isn't faith, other than arguing with one another - other than
> > reaching
> > >understanding, there is no way to have a relationship with another
> > person.
> > >It isn't about motivation or persuasion, in a sense... it is about
> > the very
> > >constitution of who we are as human beings. Is all language just
> > >self-assertion? This does not account for how a self comes to be a
> > self,
> > >which is a learning and developmental process. In the assertive
> > model, the
> > >idea of internalization becomes problematic... If we maintain the
> > extreme
> > >thesis that all linguistic utterances are assertive, then we are
> > left with
> > >an extraordinary deficient understanding of
> > cognitive-social-psychological
> > >development (which there is a great deal of support for). In short:
> > >persuasion is the means through which human coexistence is conduct.
> > Even
> > >enemies relate to one another (you have to know you enemy to hate
> > them
> > >properly [and effectively]!). This implies that, as linguistically
> > bound
> > >creatures, we are, for all intents and purposes, doomed to
> > communicate. In
> > >many respects, we can't even choose to be or not to be rational, we
> > just
> > >are. Language is oriented by truth, and this can be brought to a
> > >propositional level through argumentation. We can give up on
> > theory, that's
> > >fine, but this has more to do with knowing that we can know
> > something and
> > >then backing away from it in any event, which is a motivation
> > question...
> > >which can only be understood by communicating with one another...
> > and so
> > >on. A sheerly strategic life cannot be lived.
> > >
> > >> I believe in ratiocination, and I even enjoy it. I hope to hold
> > true
> > >>beliefs, and think that thinking about them is the only way to be
> > as sure
> > >>as one can that they are true--in general. There are, however,
> > fixed
> > >>points, like one I mentioned (freedom is better than slavery);
> > sure, I
> > >>might come up with a brilliant argument to show why. But I am
> > more
> > >>confident in the conclusion that I am in any argument I could give
> > for
> > >>it. To quote myself, I think using this very example: explanations
> > can
> > >>only illuminate these truths. We will take then in the dark if we
> > have
> > >>to. Might we be wrong? Yes, about them or anything. C'est la vie.
> > Anyway,
> > >>I think we have reached an impasse, here. Better stop unless we
> > have
> > >>something new to say.
> > >
> > >You can't use an argument to demonstrate that arguments don't
> > persuade
> > >people. I mean, you can, but it doesn't make much sense. If I
> > accept your
> > >argument, that a good argument for arguments cannot be made, I'm a
> > logical
> > >idiot. So I don't accept it, and you'll have to give reasons, or
> > hit me
> > >over the head with something (which just means you'll have to argue
> > with
> > >someone else, or perhaps barter, for an appropriate object) to
> > dissuade me
> > >otherwise. In any event, reasoning is what we have at our disposal,
> > there
> > >is no point in tossing it away simply because convincing people -
> > arguing -
> > >is a painstaking task (and I've noted that you agree here). We
> > people sit
> > >down together to organize a protest, they are all (for the most
> > part)
> > >interested in the most effective means of success. I'm sure that
> > arguments
> > >/ reasons have a tremendous weight in these situations. Likewise,
> > when
> > >you're trying to fix up the apartment, you give reasons for why you
> > want
> > >the desk in the blue room instead of the red room, it might be
> > trivial, but
> > >if we're going to live together, that's how it gets done. And,
> > through some
> > >sort of weak messianic power, we an agreement is actually reached,
> > there is
> > >a sense of communicative gratification: that something one has
> > struggled
> > >for, through action and thought, has been realized. It might suck
> > to see
> > >happiness as a result of communicative / successful understanding,
> > but
> > >after that - you pull out the wine, the chocolates... and take a
> > stroll
> > >on... well, wherever!
> > >
> > >To drapes this a little less intimate.. if there is a 'Leftist'
> > ethic, then
> > >this is it: it is ground immanently in the experience of
> > intersubjective
> > >interaction. We can argue about whether or not this can be turned
> > into a
> > >principle of discourse or something like that, but to some degree,
> > the fact
> > >of reason is manifest in the process of understanding, which is
> > essential
> > >not only to our lives, but also to of immediate perceptual
> > consciousness.
> > >This is most richly developed in a communicative ethics, whereby
> > >communication can be understood as communication only under
> > specific
> > >material and social circumstances. If we're going to chat,
> > domination
> > >*must* be eliminated, otherwise anything communicated cannot be
> > said
> > >without suspicious of being ideology / false consciousness and so
> > on. It
> > >might be a bit of a stretch to say that from our very first word
> > we
> > >presuppose a universal discursive moral theory... but...
> > >
> > >hugs,
> > >ken
> > >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
> > http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
> >
> >
>________________________________________________________________
>GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
>Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
>Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
>http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list