--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