>
>This exchange suggested a series of questions I've got for both of
>you. Do you think there is a foundational ethics, and that that
>foundation is rational?
Luke does, he thinks utilitarianism is foundational. I don't, I don't think anything is.
>
>If there is no such foundation, then what of the philosophical
>justifications for law, governance, and formal social institutions?
They are useful to sharpen and deepen our understandings of these institutions, but our confidence in those institutions does not turn on the strength of the philosophical justifications we can advance in their favor. It turns on our experience with them and the alternatives.
I am actually at presdent writing a paper that deals with this, defending my
view that (as Rorty puts it) democracy is prior to philosophy. If people
want, I'll put it on the list when I am done with the current draft in a few
weeks. Or I could put the relevant section on. Most of the paper would not
interest folks here.)
>
>On the other hand, if it is only a question of power, might makes
>right, then what of humanism, social justice, and progressive reform?
>
That's not the alternative. The short version of the argument is, we start where we are, within liberal democracy. I don't think that any arguments for it are less contentious than the conclusion that liberal democracy is a non-nefotiable framework for discussion. We might give up up if we found a better alternative, but (sorry, Chuck) we can't imagine what that might be. Democracy does not depend on philosophy. Philosophical justifications (as I once wrote about freedom) can illuminate it, but we will take it in the dark if we have to.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx