> > 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,
Not the problem I am getting at. My point is that principles have to be such that they are socially realizable. Ought implies can and all that. Principles recahed behind the VI are almsot especially desisgned not to be realizable. If you think what the VI is supposedto do you will see that this is almost obviously true.
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.
Je suis ne pas un intuitioniste. I believe in reflective equilibrium, which involves squaring our considered judgments and our explanatory principles. So do you, so does everyone. It's called thinking.
>
> > 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.
>
You cal also look up the journal in the law library. The web version is not quite final.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp