----- Original Message ----- From: "Justin Schwartz" <jkschw at hotmail.com> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 9:20 PM Subject: Re: perversely wrong
> I don't know the debate with Singer and didn't comment on it.
My bad. I referred to it during a larger conversation on pragmatism and I'm pretty sure you agreed with what I passed along secondhand (i.e. we should not allow the best of arguments to persuade us to act counterintuitively). While Singer gave reasons for his views, Posner repeated himself. If you have five minutes, you can read it for yourself: http://slate.msn.com/?id=110101
> Posner is at
> least as good as Dworkin as a technical philosopher (he might not take
that
> as much of a compliment),
Dworkin must be some rhetorician, then, because his counterarguments to Posner have always appeared persuasive to me.
> and much better as a lawyer.
Not pertinent.
> That's not surprising: Posner's been a
> practicing attorney and a judge who has to decide real cases. As for the
> philosophy, hell, read The Problems of Jurisprudence. It's very
> accomplished.
I wouldn't doubt it. But an AP's range should extend beyond the philosophy of law. Wasn't Posner's most ambitious stab at ethics was the former thesis you mention below?
> There's a lot I disagree with, but that's the game. Posner can
> say silly things sometimes. Dworkin beat him into a wicker basket over his
> former thesis that wealth was a good without concerns of distribution. But
> he at least had the good grace to admit it. He's awesome. He deserves
sharp
> criticism, but solid respect. jks
I make no attempt to deny his brilliance. I've heard his economic theory of law is quite interesting. But I can't understand what's distinctly philosophical about it.
-- Luke