My point is as follows:
You say that you do not care about someone's basis for a particular conception of a right.
They say that the basis is the most important thing -- the thing that makes something a right (couldeven be the right itself) is the value serviced by obedience.
I say that your pragmatic approach will never satisfy the true beleiver, whether he has a libertarian concpetion of rights, or she has a religious conception.
You say that is fine with you, as you are "a totalitarian democrat."
However, I do not understand then how you can say "I
don't even think that democracy needs justification."
>From the perspective of the true believer, you are
saying "you must cede to the will of the majority even
as to a propostion on which you know the majority is
wrong." That is precise moment that you need a
justification for democracy.
As for the unwashed comment, it refers to those persons "out of the know" as to the proper governing principle and was not a class based reference.
--- Justin Schwartz <jkschw at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yoiu're losing me here, Eric. If I understand you
> correctly, you object to
> any position that anyone might disagree with as
> involving commitment toa
> nything. If a prag says, i don't care what your
> basis is so long as you more
> or less agree with what I think is right, you say,
> well someoine may well
> care that others agree. In sort, you have set the
> conditions for putting
> moral discourse inoractice impossibly high. So, yes,
> I am a totalitarian
> democrat. That is my moral metaphysics and theology,
> Vox populi vox Dei.
> Submit to the majority decision, subject to
> constitutional protections, or
> we'll send the cops after you. No apologies. I plead
> guilty to that charge.
> I don't even think that democracy needs
> justification, I will not deign to
> answer your sneers at the great unwashed. Who should
> be in charge. the
> well-showered? jks
>
> >From: virgil tibbs <sheik_of_encino at yahoo.com>
> >Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> >To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> >Subject: Re: rights, rights, and still more rights
> >Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 11:15:03 -0800 (PST)
> >
> >I think ALL rights talk is moral (ideological as
> >well)and ALL moral talk is metaphysical (more
> >precisely, I believe it to be teleological -- an
> >Aristotelan I am).
> >
> >Even if as a pragmatist you are agnostic as to the
> >precise metaphysical nature of rights, when you say
> >that the metaphysical truth of a particular
> conception
> >of a right should yield to the dominant consensus
> or
> >to a particular conception of utility is to make a
> >distinctly moral claim. The problem with democracy
> is
> >that it says, in part, truth does not matter.
> >Certainly, a proposition's truth can be an
> >individual's justification or reason for action,
> but
> >in a democracy what matters is not the truth of the
> >proposition, simply a majoritarian acceptance.
> >
> >This is the dichotomy that gets the Right and the
> Left
> >so worked up: if Truth matters at the individual
> >level, it must matter at the social level. Thus,
> when
> >certain of us bemoan the adamance of the "true
> >believers," we are responding, to the belief that
> >social governace MUST reflect particular
> conceptions
> >of Truth and Justice.
> >
> >Any social order is a theocracy of sorts: whether
> the
> >prevailing ordering principle is the Natural Law of
> >Catholocism or Socialism; the moral rightness of
> the
> >order is guaranteed by the moral rightness of the
> >ordering principle. I take pragmatism to be of a
> >kind: whatever the utility served by a particualr
> >conception of pragmatism, that is the order
> dictated
> >to the unwashed.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--- Justin Schwartz <jkschw at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >To say that a "rights regime" is a pragmatic
> rights
> > > >regime is to dictate the proper conception of a
> > > >"right," which is the precise subject of debate
> --
> > > a
> > > >theocracy of pragmatism as it were.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not at all. It's to say that I don;t care to get
> > > into it--you can believe
> > > that rights were delivered by Zeus in a sidecar,
> > > Nozick can think that they
> > > inhere in The Objective Order, and I can think
> they
> > > are social conventions
> > > based in facts about conditions for fair
> > > cooperation. For the purposes of
> > > talking about which rights there are, we need
> not,
> > > and probably should not,
> > > discuss our views about their bases. --Yes, I
> know,
> > > we prags are
> > > infuriatingly banal and diffident. We picked up
> the
> > > trope from Rorty. I
> > > come by it honestly. He was my teacher.
> > >
> > > jks
> > >
> > >
>
>_________________________________________________________________
> > > MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print
> > > your photos:
> > > http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
> > >
> >
> >
> >__________________________________________________
> >Do You Yahoo!?
> >Yahoo! Greetings - send holiday greetings for
> Easter, Passover
> >http://greetings.yahoo.com/
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
> Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:
> http://mobile.msn.com
>
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Greetings - send holiday greetings for Easter, Passover http://greetings.yahoo.com/