<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV></DIV> <P>Why i it important to be able to say exactly why the attainment of equality or freedom is valuable? Who are you trying to prove these propositions to? I should say that I have spent a good deal of time and effort on these sorts of questions, 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. 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? I think it should not: there are things we can be justified in believing unless specific grounds for doubt arise, even if they are not supported by argument. </P> <P>I don't think left or any politics depends on argument. I don't just mean this in the obvious Posnersian sense that argument doesn't move people. I mean it in the deeper sense that politics doesn't have a foundation; it is the foundation, or better, the framework for action and for ethical thinking. Of course argument has many uses within that framework. It can be use to adjust and improve one's views within it; it can be used to discredit opposing views; it can be used to enhance our confidence that we are right; it can guide specific policy and actoon choices within a framework, But one doesn't arrive at an ethics outside a political framework and then apply to to construct one. One starts out from where one is, and tries to make sense of one's views, which can involve changing them, within a political perspective. This is surely Marx's view--it is why he gave up philosophy as a seperate activity.</P> <P>--jks</P> <P> </P> <P>> </P> <DIV></DIV>>Interesting idea. I know Rorty wishes that the distinction between <DIV></DIV>>literature (among other modes of discourse) and philosophy would "dissolve" <DIV></DIV>>(in the parlance of analytical philosophy). Perhaps the distinction between <DIV></DIV>>politics and ethics is illegitimate. The reason I introduced this thread in <DIV></DIV>>the first place, though, was to find out the moral grounds for left goals. <DIV></DIV>>It's quite easy to espouse a desire for, say, equality, but quite another to <DIV></DIV>>state exactly why you believe its attainment to be a desirable end. I fear <DIV></DIV>>that sometimes a given Marxist's value set is scarcely more a result of <DIV></DIV>>critical reflection than that of his counterpart in the Christian Coalition. <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>-- Luke <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>----- Original Message ----- <DIV></DIV>>From: "Kenneth MacKendrick" <KENNETH.MACKENDRICK@UTORONTO.CA> <DIV></DIV>>To: <LBO-TALK@LISTS.PANIX.COM> <DIV></DIV>>Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 7:32 PM <DIV></DIV>>Subject: Re: Ethical foundations of the left <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>> > At 01:04 AM 7/18/01 -0700, you wrote: <DIV></DIV>> > <DIV></DIV>> > >Does that mean that you deny the existence of ethics because there is no <DIV></DIV>> > >plausible test for verification? <DIV></DIV>> > <DIV></DIV>> > I'm wondering if we should rethink the distinction between politics and <DIV></DIV>> > ethics. As far as I can read, ethics and politics are pretty much <DIV></DIV>> > interchangeable terms. <DIV></DIV>> > <DIV></DIV>> > minima moralia, <DIV></DIV>> > ken <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at <a href='http://go.msn.com/bql/hmtag_itl_EN.asp'>http://explorer.msn.com</a><br></html>