Ethical foundations of the left

[Ken Hanly]

But if all you mean is that good arguments (philosophical or otherwise) do
not convince people who hold intuitions contradictory to the conclusion why
not say that? Why use the word trump? The intuitions dont win. In fact the
person with the intuition loses when the argument is sound and the premisses
true. A person with a strong intuition that God will save him or her when he
jumps out of an airplane at 10,000 feet with no parachute may not be
convinced by being reminded of elementary physical facts. Of course
restraining the person not argument would probably be the appropriate course
of action not argument. The fact that an argument may not be pragmatically
useful in convincing someone with strong intuitions opposed to the
conclusion tells only against its pragmatic usefulness in these
circumstances.

Cheers, Ken Hanly

----- Original Message -----
From: Justin Schwartz <jkschw at hotmail.com>
To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 2:39 PM
Subject: Re: Ethical foundations of the left


> 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
> >>