Miles writes:
> I've made this argument already with Brian, and he doesn't seem to
appreciate the force of it.
If it had any force I would. Theories do not cut much ice with me; I am impressed with practical means to end injustice.
> Well-intentioned, intelligent people differ in their moral beliefs; that's
just a reflection of the profound complexity of social relations and social
structure. I don't get why Brian ignores the ubiquity of moral
disagreements.
I do not ignore the ubiquity of moral disagreements; I am just seeking a method for arbitrating between them. I find cart-before-the-horse proceduralism to be useless in preventing persecution and injustice. (And please do not ask me again what I would have in its place. Its seems that is the first question out of any Rawlsian's mouth when proceduralism is questioned [I got exactly that response at my LBGT philosophy meeting this weekend when I raised this issue.]. I am trying to figure out what to replace liberal proceduralism with. All I have figured so far is that liberalism is whacked.)
> What's important, as Justin keeps emphasizing, is a good method for
adjudicating between people with different moral beliefs and practical
objectives.
But any such method will require the drawing of moral distinctions. In theory, all moral belief systems are equal, just as in theory a fire can be extinguished by air. In reality, moral belief systems are not equal since they result in different consequences, just as water, and not air, will put out an actual fire.
> Encouraging judges to make legal judgments on the basis on their own moral
sentiments rather than law only exacerbates the problems.
How about judges making judgments based on a law's agreement with the underlying social contract that provides the foundation for law-making in the first place? Laws that contravene the underlying social contract make for a system that is nonsensical.
ravi asks:
> would the method be derived from a shared set of beliefs and objectives?
Theory Land Answer: yes, of course.
Real World Answer: no.
The method is derived from the beliefs/objectives of the elite that wrote the underlying social contract.
> but is the law (and its application) well-defined?
The law is defined by the social contract that was agreed to at the begining by the elite. This social contract was created by them for their own profit and enrichment. Even Rawls described his imaginary friends as being householders.
jks writes:
> But that must be very minimal and not presuppose any controversial beliefs
about what is good, or any metaphysics of the self.
Isn't liberalism based on the metaphysical notion of an individual self endowed with certain rights?
Are beliefs in a divine being(s) controversial and should they be excluded? Is it controversial to base beliefs on empirical reality readily experienced by everyone?
> It has to be superficial, shallow, uncontroversial, lowest common
denominator.
Doesn't empirical reality meet this standard?
> Acceptance of democratic procedures for making decisions
So long as it doesn't become majoritarian mob rule. And when democratic procedures lead to the persecution and suffering of minorities, are minorities just supposed to take it on the chin? I know that Rawls theorizes that minorities will band together in order to prevent such things from happening, but once again reality has been contrary and not followed Professor Rawls' dictates.
> respect for law
Is this a respect for law in the abstract/theorectical realm, or a respect for law based on an empirical examination of the consequences of its implementation?
>Acceptance of basic civil and political rights
What are these basic civil and political rights? Who determined/determines them and on what basis? The United States was founded by mostly white male slaveowners. The government they created passed the Fugitive Slave Act. According to you that law was legitimate since it was enacted by the most democratic system around at the time. I am sure the Ancestors will rest easier knowing that their persecution and suffering was implemented by the most democratic society around at the time.
Ain't theory grand?
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister