[lbo-talk] choices [was: trash talking the lumpenproletariat]

[Nick C. Woomer-Deters]

> You would certainly agree that there is a difference between an exiled
> intellectual agreeing to be a Nazi agent, and say, a Gestapo prisoner
> betraying his comrades under torture.  The first is choice, the other one
> is
> compulsion.  In my view there is a clear distinction between the two, and
> everything else being equal, most reasonable people would agree with it.

There is certainly a difference, yes, but not one of kind -- more one of
degree.  Instead of asking the still unresolved metaphysical question 'do
people make choices? yes or no?' or 'is there such a thing as free will?', I
would submit that it is more productive to ask the normative question "to
what extent ought this person's 'choice' count as his or hers?"

Even though children, the insane, and the mentally retarded can all be said
to make "choices," it is more or less agreed that these choices don't count
as theirs.  If a child or an insane person commits a crime, we attribute the
crime to youth or insanity -- not to the person him or herself.  In these
cases we say that something foreign  (e.g., mental illness) makes the
'choice.'  But why should we stop with youth, insanity and mental
retardation?  Why shouldn't we count poverty too (at least to some extent)?

Of course, there might be good reasons to count some people's choices as
"theirs" but not others, but these are ethical and political value
judgments.  To pretend otherwise strikes me as a little naive.

-N
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <../attachments/20061113/45f3fdc3/attachment.htm>