On the basis of argument, I long ago (if that's possible someone who's 18) rejected the primacy of both freedom and equality over all else. I did this before I was introduced to formal philosophy because it seemed more plausible to me that both freedom and equality are of great instrumental value in promoting general well-being. Now, perhaps such a conversion is only possible for one with a natural affinity for argument, and said affinity has now drawn me to activities like taking philosophy courses and subscribing to lbo-talk. But, I think (or maybe I just intuit) that the truth is that argument is quite persuasive when reasoning creatures engage in it.
> Well, one'self is OK, But what do you mean "others"--other philosophers? >
Academics? The cops? George W. Bush? Members of the working class?
My experience leads me to believe that I'll have my greatest success with the latter three. Oneself, philosophers, and academics are tough nuts to crack.
> 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 a lawyer with a large libido. We'll leave it at that.
In my experience, taking a sufficient degree of interest in one's chosen career or sex life is something most of us do with little prompting. I'm not so sure that that's true when it comes to moral argument (even Bertrand Russell preferred fucking).
> 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!
If the bosses happened to be "utility monsters," yes. But I think there's a better chance that someday the Posners of the world will recognize that market arrangements don't serve the interests of anyone but the bosses. I'd quote Keynes regarding "The wickedest of men..." if I could remember the rest of it off the top of my head.
> 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.
I'm a sophomore trying to decide between English and philosophy. In any event, I plan on whoring myself out as a lawyer.
-- Luke
----- Original Message ----- From: "Justin Schwartz" <jkschw at hotmail.com> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 11:42 AM Subject: Re: Ethical foundations of the left
>
>
> > >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