[lbo-talk] "Ought" from "Is" (Was: I'm not sorry)

[Curtiss Leung]

I'd say it's a real stretch to connect this to 
the various conceptions of UG (said the non-linguist.)
It indicates he believes in human nature and that
moral principles are part of that human nature, but
doesn't indicate that he holds that these moral
principles are involved with/subordinate to UG.
(I have a dim recollection of the man disclaiming
any connection between his linguistic work and 
his political work in an interview in the _Chomsky
Reader_.  Standard disclaimer about my memory applies.)

If you meant that the man holds that there's such a 
thing as human nature, or that he holds we have innate
ideas, then this is just pedantic quibbling.  Sorry.

OTOH, regardless of how to best understand the relation
of his linguistic and activist work, do you buy his line
that "the reason people differ is because they assess 
circumstances differently?"  Seems equivalent to saying
there's no disagreement over principles, only controversy
over their applications.  It's of a piece with his
"Just the facts, ma'am" position and, to me, as dubious.

Curtiss


> It's a point he makes frequently, more or less 
> formally.  Here's a casual example, from an interview in 1998:
>
> "Our moral nature is as much a part of us as our legs or 
> arms. It leads to conceptions of justice which you can 
> chart and refine. It enters into every aspect of life 
> from children playing together up to international 
> affairs. The reason people differ is because they 
> assess circumstances differently. For example, we 
> can look at the Russian invasion of Afghanistan as 
> unjust. Or we can look at the Russians defending the 
> Afghans from terrorists supported by the CIA. Americans 
> took a similar view when they invaded South Vietnam."