----- Original Message ----- From: "Justin Schwartz" <jkschw at hotmail.com> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 10:17 AM Subject: Re: Marxism At Yale
> Didn't mean any belittlement, sorry, it's a problem with tone on the
> Internet.
That's OK. I found your mini-exposition to be sufficiently informative to provide one answer (Doug gave another interesting one) to my admittedly vague query. However, I didn't know why you'd conclude your response with a seemingly rhetorical "so what's you question?"
> I didn't understand what your question was. Now, are you asking
> why I don't like the VI?
Yep.
> The short answer is that it abstracts from the
> actual motivations we have that, when we know we have them, make it
> overwhelkmingly unlikely that we will act to our own disadavantage if that
> is what is required by principles reached under the VI.
Sounds like your outlining the practical problem of putting principles into action, which, I guess, can be sidestepped by declining to explicate any principles whatever. I don't know why intuitionism would fair any better in the abstract.
> I discuss this at
> length in Relativism, Reflective Equilibrium and Justice, 17 Legal Studies
> 1997, available on the web. Ian Murray found it if you can't. jks
Thanks for the suggestion.
-- Luke