tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post8846507747364006630..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Aristotle vs Rawls and the meaning of fairness, part IIUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-87301171520005146192013-01-24T09:44:29.055-05:002013-01-24T09:44:29.055-05:00No apologies necessary. I respect passion in one&#...No apologies necessary. I respect passion in one's convictions, especially when it comes to ethics.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-589602615425503502013-01-24T09:39:09.848-05:002013-01-24T09:39:09.848-05:00Massimo,
Thanks for allowing me to have this arg...Massimo, <br /><br />Thanks for allowing me to have this argument with you. Apologies if I lacked civility during the argument. Tom D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16005219519644708237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1721945624021255212013-01-23T11:24:37.456-05:002013-01-23T11:24:37.456-05:00Tom,
> It is “fairness” that is the issue here...Tom,<br /><br />> It is “fairness” that is the issue here, not “love of offspring”. <<br /><br />Yes, and Asma makes an argument that fairness isn’t the no-brainer most people believe. And I agree, within limits, from a virtue ethical perspective.<br /><br />> Neither I nor Piety is denying that people have attachment to their children. They do. The question is whether such attachment allows one to ignore the obligation to respect the rights of others – especially to the point of ignoring the right of others to exist. <<br /><br />Within limits, yes. If I had to choose between the life of my daughter or that of another child I would unhesitatingly choose my daughter’s, and I think there are good *moral* reasons for that. But if it were my daughter against ten, or a hundred children, then I would not. And neither would Aristotle, by the way.<br /><br />> I also invite the readers to return to Part One of this discussion and judge whether or not the treatment of Asma’s book there constitutes “promotion” i.e. “the publicization of a product, organization, or venture.” <<br /><br />I wish you really got off that particular fixation. Promotion implies endorsement, and I end up criticizing both Asma and Piety by the end of the second piece, so drop it.<br /><br />> For my part, I will be content to quote the relevant passage on omnicide from page 1-2 of Asma’s book (below) and let your readers decide <<br /><br />Ah, yes, but do you want readers to go on and read beyond those passages? Because Asma then immediately puts his provocative introductory remark in the context of the emotional lessons he learned when becoming a parent. Then he starts talking about Jesus having favorites and it becomes clear that his actual target is *universal* egalitarianism, and so on. Oh, and a few pages later he refers to the favoritism/egalitarianism divide as a *false* dichotomy, and even rejects Ayn Rand-style selfishness. It doesn’t sound like Hitler to me. Finally — once more — I do *not* agree with his wholesale rejection of egalitarianism anyway, though I do think he has a point in terms of special *moral* duties toward one’s kins and friends.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-48987181932648192232013-01-23T09:34:51.115-05:002013-01-23T09:34:51.115-05:00Massimo,
I’d say our argument revolves around wh...Massimo, <br /><br />I’d say our argument revolves around whether or not Asma does indeed endorse omnicide.<br /><br />If he does not, then comments made by myself and Piety are clearly out of line. But if Asma does endorse omnicide, then the comments made (including comparison to Nazis, which you describe as being the “bottom level” of discussion) would be apt and there would be no “charitable” reading towards Asma’s endorsement (unless you want to drop down in a basket from cloud cuckoo land to defend omnicide). <br /><br />Suppose that Jim makes the following statement: “If there were a button that would kill every Jew on earth, then I would push it in a microsecond”. <br /><br />Should Jim be read charitably and exonerated on the basis of his making a hypothetical statement? I would say “no”, as it is clear that Jim’s *intention* to kill all the Jews is actual (and reprehensible), while it is only the *means* that Jim is imagining that is hypothetical.<br /><br />The title of Asma’s book is NOT “Let Me Tell You How Much I Love My Son”, the title is “Against Fairness”. It is “fairness” that is the issue here, not “love of offspring”. Asma is claiming that providing for his son trumps all other considerations, including any obligation to be fair to other people or recognize that others have any rights. It is misleading in the extreme to portray that as a “hypothetical situation to remind people of the strong emotional attachment all mammals have to their offspring”. Neither I nor Piety is denying that people have attachment to their children. They do. The question is whether such attachment allows one to ignore the obligation to respect the rights of others – especially to the point of ignoring the right of others to exist. <br /><br />For my part, I will be content to quote the relevant passage on omnicide from page 1-2 of Asma’s book (below) and let your readers decide whether Asma asserts that family ties trump others’ right to exist, or if Asma is merely describing a “hypothetical situation to remind people of the strong emotional attachment all mammals have to their offspring”.<br /><br />Let the readers decide, and I’ll leave it at that. <br /><br />P.S. I also invite the readers to return to Part One of this discussion and judge whether or not the treatment of Asma’s book there constitutes “promotion” i.e. “the publicization of a product, organization, or venture.” <br /><br />From “Against Fairness”, pages 1 and 2 ([i] and [/i] indicate italics): <br /><br />“I would strangle everyone in this room if it somehow prolonged my son’s life.” That’s what I blurted out into a microphone during a panel discussion on ethics. I was laughing when I said it, but the priest sitting next to me turned sharply in horror and the communist sitting next to him raised her hand to her throat and stared daggers at me. Why was I on a panel with a priest and a revolutionary communist? Long story – not very interesting: we were debating the future of ethics with special attention to the role of religion. The interesting part, however, is that at some point, after we all shook hands like adults and I was on my way home, I realized that I meant it – I would choke them all. Well, of course, one can’t be entirely sure that one’s [i]actions[/i] will follow one’s intentions. The best-laid plans of mice and men, and all that. But, given some weird [i]Twilight Zone[/i] scenario wherein all their deaths somehow saved my son’s life, I was at least hypothetically committed. The caveman intentions were definitely there. <br /><br />If some science-fiction sorcerer came to me with a button and said that I could save my son’s life by pressing it, but then (cue the dissonant music) ten strangers would die somewhere…I’d have my finger down on it before he finished his cryptic challenge. If he raised it to one hundred strangers, a million, or the whole population, it would still take the same microsecond for me to push the button. <br />Tom D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16005219519644708237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-37895175792841341642013-01-22T11:28:11.992-05:002013-01-22T11:28:11.992-05:00Tom,
> Perhaps one way to distract yourself fr...Tom,<br /><br />> Perhaps one way to distract yourself from dwelling on the sanctimonious attitude you assume I have would be to confine your attention to my actual arguments <<br /><br />It would be easier if I were not distracted by said sanctimonious attitude.<br /><br />> I think it is a bit disingenuous for you to deny promoting Asma’s book. <<br /><br />I'm sorry, you must be using a meaning of the term "promoting" that I'm not familiar with.<br /><br />> Yes, I am frequently uncharitable towards people who boastfully speak of their willingness to destroy the whole human race. <<br /><br />Again, you are reading that phrase uncharitably and out of context, which undermines the credibility of your critique.<br /><br />> It is like portraying Eichmann’s statement <<br /><br />Well, you know you've reached bottom level in a discussion when the Nazi are invoked as a comparison.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-90202756862952997162013-01-22T09:46:18.429-05:002013-01-22T09:46:18.429-05:00Massimo,
Well, this post may get me kicked off o...Massimo, <br /><br />Well, this post may get me kicked off of your website, but here goes: <br /><br />I don’t know what you are referring to when you speak of my having a “holier than thou” attitude. I take the moral positions that I genuinely feel – if they differ from yours then so be it. I do not allow that it is sanctimonious to speak out against genocide. Perhaps one way to distract yourself from dwelling on the sanctimonious attitude you assume I have would be to confine your attention to my actual arguments and statements regarding the issue, let your perception of my attitude be, and reconcile yourself the to fact that our moral sensitivities differ. <br /><br />I think it is a bit disingenuous for you to deny promoting Asma’s book. I recently assisted a professor in writing a book that was published last February, and we would have *loved* to have the promotion that you afforded to Asma (see part I): full color photograph of the book’s cover, book title and author’s name mentioned, and a full discussion of the book’s subject matter via a related essay written by the author, albeit with critical analysis by Piety. You seem to take the position that the discussion should have been confined to the two essays. But, need I remind you that I did not introduce Asma’s book into the discussion – you did. You went on to say that the essay would serve as a “summary” of the book you introduced. Now you claim that the book itself is off limits when offering evidence, and deny that your displaying the book and its related information as prominently as you did constitutes promotion? <br /><br />Nowhere did I use the phrase “justification of genocide” that you put in quotes. But I will not deny that was the thrust of my argument and that Asma attempts to do that. <br /><br />You wrote that I read Asma “uncharitably”. Yes, I am frequently uncharitable towards people who boastfully speak of their willingness to destroy the whole human race. <br /><br />Asma says, “I realized that I meant it – I would choke them all”. He then goes on to say it would make no difference if the situation were raised to a million people or the entire population. In other words, he says he is comfortable committing genocide (he says he would do it in a "mircosecond"). <br /><br />To attempt to portray Asma’s statement as some dry discussion of the “strong emotional attachment all mammals have to their offspring” is absurd. It is like portraying Eichmann’s statement, “I laugh when I jump into the grave because of the feeling that I have killed 5,000,000 Jews. That gives me great satisfaction and gratification" as Eichmann reminding people in a hypothetical situation about the value of having a cheerful attitude of acceptance towards mortality. <br /><br />You criticized (with a holier that thou attitude?) Piety for calling Asma’s writing “incoherent and morally reprehensible tripe”. But I am sorry that you do not express a similar concern for the pro-omnicide statements by Asma that brought on Piety’s critique (and mine). <br />Tom D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16005219519644708237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-22050203789290856142013-01-21T21:48:49.636-05:002013-01-21T21:48:49.636-05:00Great article. I like the idea of combining the tw...Great article. I like the idea of combining the two. Can't stand some of the trolling I've seen in the comments though (and in other articles written on RT). People need to calm down and argue with some civility.petehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12969621709127674152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-74877920511337558402013-01-21T14:07:21.574-05:002013-01-21T14:07:21.574-05:00I say, as Patrick said first, and Damasio said bef...I say, as Patrick said first, and Damasio said before that, emotional maturity is an intelligently determined process. You said it isn't. <br />Even an emotional masochist could, if not should, have recourse to an intelligent process that gets that.Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1743730944654033012013-01-21T12:58:23.823-05:002013-01-21T12:58:23.823-05:00Baron,
as usual at the end of our exchanges I hav...Baron,<br /><br />as usual at the end of our exchanges I have no idea what you are talking about. And yet I keep coming back for more. Must be the unintelligent but emotional masochist inside me...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-12372020931028947012013-01-21T12:14:54.296-05:002013-01-21T12:14:54.296-05:00Massimo asks,
"What “intelligent” strategies...Massimo asks, <br />"What “intelligent” strategies?"<br />Damasio wrote: "making life more survivable by taking care of a danger, of taking care of an opportunity"-"modified by our experience so individually we have variations on the pattern."<br />Taking care of danger for example was the intelligent strategy that not only allowed but caused life on earth to survive and evolve the emotional intelligence that all species, including ours, have found to be the most important functional system that life has.<br />The emotional intelligence in other words that as a term, Massimo, you said "I don’t actually like." And said, "I think we should be talking about emotional maturity." <br />I think emotional maturity means nothing if you don't see maturity as not somehow accidental or automatic, but as an intelligently determined process.Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-19992716659152396462013-01-21T10:00:14.990-05:002013-01-21T10:00:14.990-05:00Massimo: Scandinavian countries are likely the clo...Massimo: <i>Scandinavian countries are likely the closest (with the possible addition of Japan, in a very different sense) to embody my suggestion of a personal virtue ethics coupled with a society-wide egalitarian type of contractarianism. </i><br /><br />Yeah, Japan makes for an interesting comparison case here. For example, it rivals Sweden in terms of both "secular-rational values", income equality (in spite of much lower personal tax rates), and social well-being. Yet Sweden is at the extreme in terms of its embrace of "self-expression values" and Japan is closer to the middle of that spectrum, nearer to non-Nordic European countries, like Germany, France, and Spain.<br /><br />The USA is somewhere in between Japan and Sweden on the "self-expression values" spectrum (closer to Sweden), but on the "secular-rational values" spectrum, the USA is closer to Poland, Romania, and India - in other words, countries that place more emphasis on "the importance of religion, parent-child ties, deference to authority and traditional family values" [<a href="" rel="nofollow">source</a>]. <br /><br />Who knows? Perhaps if the culture of the USA were to shift more in the direction of "secular-rational values", which "place less emphasis on religion, traditional family values and authority", it might approach Nordic levels of social well being.<br /><br />Or, to use your terms, the USA could perhaps use more of an emphasis on a "society-wide egalitarian type of contractarianism" (which seems both secular and rational enough) and less of an emphasis on "personal virtue ethics" (e.g. as currently defined by an austere, but not always so harmonious, combination of conservative Judeo-Christian and liberal economic traditions).mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-20743488225577089452013-01-21T08:49:06.046-05:002013-01-21T08:49:06.046-05:00Baron,
as it often happens, I don’t understand wh...Baron,<br /><br />as it often happens, I don’t understand what you are getting at.<br /><br />> So then mature emotions are not based at all on more intelligent strategies learned from experience and adopted by our emotional brain systems? <<br /><br />What “intelligent” strategies? And did I not say that emotions and intelligence (in the narrow sense of analytical thinking) do interact constantly in a healthy human being? The quote you posted from Damasio contradicts nothing I’ve said on this topic.<br /><br />mufi,<br /><br />> I don't think this info undermines your basic argument. After all, Scandinavians still have families (if more so out-of-wedlock) and friends. Just sayin.' <<br /><br />No, that’s exactly right. Scandinavian countries are likely the closest (with the possible addition of Japan, in a very different sense) to embody my suggestion of a personal virtue ethics coupled with a society-wide egalitarian type of contractarianism. If only it wasn’t so fracking cold there...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-10005328164009237162013-01-20T21:00:44.005-05:002013-01-20T21:00:44.005-05:00Massimo said: Interestingly, though, a major chara...Massimo said: <i>Interestingly, though, a major characteristic of life in many European countries is that people do practice and value family ties and friendships, despite living in an otherwise Rawlsian environment.</i><br /><br />Agreed, but it seems worth pointing out that - compared with other Europeans - the Nordic countries (which, as you pointed out, usually top the list in terms of metrics of social well-being) are - perhaps ironically - more culturally individualistic than others that are more family-based, and also happen to be more secular-minded. <br /><br />As this report to the World Economic Forum put it:<br /><br /><i>...data from the World Values Survey [indicate]...that the Nordic countries stand out as a cluster of societies in which people put a strong emphasis on the importance of individual self-realization and personal autonomy. In the language of WVS, the Nordics are characterized by their embrace of “emancipatory self-expression values” on the one hand, and “secular-rational values,” on the other.</i><br /><br />and<br /><br /><i>[Older theories of social trust assume] that trust arises in small, closely-knit communities where there is large degree of interdependence. More recent research has shown, however, that it is precisely the most modern and individualistic countries, most notably the Nordic countries, that are characterized by a broad social trust extended beyond the intimate sphere of family and friends to include other members of society.</i> <br /><br />[See pg. 16 <a href="http://www.globalutmaning.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Davos-The-nordic-way-final.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a>] <br /><br />I don't think this info undermines your basic argument. After all, Scandinavians still have families (if more so out-of-wedlock) and friends. Just sayin.'mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-40283803012757717622013-01-20T20:16:47.917-05:002013-01-20T20:16:47.917-05:00mufi,
Yes, I was thinking about Michael Dukakis 1...mufi,<br /><br />Yes, I was thinking about Michael Dukakis 1988 debate blunder. He was asked whether he would support the death penalty should his wife Kitty be raped and murdered. Dukakis replied "No, I don't, Bernard, and I think you know that I've opposed the death penalty during all of my life. I don't see any evidence that it's a deterrent, and I think there are better and more effective ways to deal with violent crime."<br /><br />It turned out that it was too much Spock-like, whatever the merits of his position were.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-28712922892518500362013-01-20T20:10:53.325-05:002013-01-20T20:10:53.325-05:00There's no such thing as virtue contractarian ...There's no such thing as virtue contractarian either, so why not virtue utilitarian? I hold that if it is virtuous of Obama to sacrifice his family for the betterment of his state, it is virtuous of me to do the same for the betterment of the world. It is a virtue to maximize utility.<br /><br />Lesswrong's Clippy would argue that maximizing the number of paperclips in the universe is the most virtuous thing one can do. Why not? It's a higher ideal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-77528431771186483682013-01-20T17:12:42.251-05:002013-01-20T17:12:42.251-05:00Damasio at bigthink, http://bigthink.com/ideas/230...Damasio at bigthink, http://bigthink.com/ideas/23022<br />"And an emotion consists of a very well orchestrated set of alterations in the body that has, as a general purpose, making life more survivable by taking care of a danger, of taking care of an opportunity, either/or, or something in between. And it’s something that is set in our genome and that we all have with a certain programmed nature that is modified by our experience so individually we have variations on the pattern."Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-8226757488754987402013-01-20T16:47:57.727-05:002013-01-20T16:47:57.727-05:00@Massimo: "nor does anything that Damasio say...@Massimo: "nor does anything that Damasio says justify the co-opting of the term “intelligence” and its substitution for the term “maturity” when referring to emotions."<br />So then mature emotions are not based at all on more intelligent strategies learned from experience and adopted by our emotional brain systems? <br />Reread Damasio.Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-7437871503457435802013-01-20T16:10:04.178-05:002013-01-20T16:10:04.178-05:00Semantics aside, I highly recommend the book "...Semantics aside, I highly recommend the book "Emotional Intelligence" by psychologist Daniel Goleman (even though it's bit dated now), along with its sequals, "Social Intelligence" and "Ecological Intelligence."<br /><br />Interesting to learn that Damasio has adopted that term. mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-59551029969065952622013-01-20T15:45:16.646-05:002013-01-20T15:45:16.646-05:00brainoil,
you seem to be confused about virtue et...brainoil,<br /><br />you seem to be confused about virtue ethics vs utilitarianism. First of all, nothing that we have been discussing has anything to do with a “perfect” world, whatever that means. Second, for a utilitarian the concept of virtue makes no sense at all. Utilitarianism is not about character, it is about maximizing “utility” (usually increasing happiness and decreasing pain) overall. Utilitarians *always* treat everyone exactly as everyone else, so the idea of a virtuous utilitarian is an oxymoron.<br /><br />Tom,<br /><br />first off, I’m getting a bit tired of your holier-than-though tone, please bring it down a notch or two. Second, I’m not promoting anything, I’m simply trying to wrap my mind around two interesting positions in moral philosophy. Third, no I did not read Asma’s book (or Piety’s, for that matter). it should have been clear from the first post (did you read it?) that I was using those two authors’ essays as background for my own musings about contractarianism and virtue ethics. Lastly, I went back and read those first two pages of Asma’s book, and at the very least (and not surprisingly) you read him very uncharitably. He brought up a hypothetical situation to remind people of the strong emotional attachment all mammals have to their offspring. Hardly a “justification of genocide,” as you put it.<br /><br />Baron,<br /><br />> Damasio tells us that emotional feelings are evidence of intelligent reactions, and that we couldn't think analytically about our daily circumstances without them. <<br /><br />I’ve read Damasio, thank you. Nothing in what I said implies that emotions are not crucial for a balanced human being, nor does anything that Damasio says justify the co-opting of the term “intelligence” and its substitution for the term “maturity” when referring to emotions.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-33921163398527834812013-01-20T13:49:32.398-05:002013-01-20T13:49:32.398-05:00@Massimo: 'I don’t actually like the term “emo...@Massimo: 'I don’t actually like the term “emotional intelligence,” I think we should be talking about emotional maturity.'<br /><br />Damasio tells us that emotional feelings are evidence of intelligent reactions, and that we couldn't think analytically about our daily circumstances without them.<br />And it would also appear that we can't consider maturity on an analytical level if we weren't discussing the intelligent aspects of our less conscious emotional analysis.<br /><br />And if Massimo really thinks we (and thus he) should be talking about emotional maturity, I presume that one of these days he'll actually discuss that subject here.<br />Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Descartes, Hobbes, Hume have all philsophical theories of emotion, or so I'm told. <br />And accordig to the essay at SEP, emotions (or at least many of them) are adaptations whose purpose is to solve basic ecological problems facing organisms (Plutchik 1980; Frank 1988). <br />Is fairness connected in any way to ecology? I'd say so, if there were environmental purposes involved with human activity.<br /><br />Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-64161788660206009382013-01-20T12:27:52.431-05:002013-01-20T12:27:52.431-05:00I agree.
It is one of the points I tried to raise...I agree.<br /><br />It is one of the points I tried to raise in the first part of this series: any idea can be ridiculed by taking it to an extreme. <br /><br />Look how often Asma uses superlatives in his writing (marked by “**”):<br /><br />>One of the more deeply engrained assumptions of Western liberalism is that we humans can *indefinitely* increase our capacity to care for others, that we can, with the right effort and dedication, extend our care to wider and wider circles *until we envelop the whole species* within our ethical regard.<<br /><br />>They [Rifkin/Singer] have different prescriptions for arriving at ethical *utopia*.<<br /><br />>Like mathematics, which can continue its recursive operations *infinitely* upward…<<br /><br />>Singer seems to be suggesting that I arrive at *perfect* egalitarian ethics by first accepting *perfect* egalitarian metaphysics.<<br /><br />>Singer has famously pushed the logic further, arguing that we should do *everything within our power* to help strangers…<<br /><br />>In the utilitarian calculus, needs *always* trump enjoyments.<<br /><br />> …I’ll need to sell the tennis shoes too; *and on, and on, and on*.<<br /><br />>…the idea that we can *infinitely* stretch our domain of care.<<br /><br />> …quixotic view that empathy is an almost *limitless* reserve. <<br /><br />> He sketches a progressive, *ever widening* evolution of empathy.<<br /><br />[Well, that’s not all of them, but I got tired of doing these – look for yourself!<br /><br />Also, as Phiwilli noted, the problem has historically been too much inequality rather than too much generosity (accompanied by too little regard for kin).] <br />Tom D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16005219519644708237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-10221176519632288342013-01-20T12:04:09.520-05:002013-01-20T12:04:09.520-05:00[Tom D.] > Asma pushes his advocacy of greed an...[Tom D.] > Asma pushes his advocacy of greed and selfishness to the societal level – asserting his right to exterminate the entire population to achieve his personal goals. <<br /><br />[Massimo] >Where exactly does that? Certainly not in the article I linked. <<br /><br />My God! Didn’t you even *read* the book you are promoting on your website?<br /><br />See “Against Fairness”, pages 1 and 2. <br />Tom D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16005219519644708237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-33575400659607642352013-01-20T11:47:27.896-05:002013-01-20T11:47:27.896-05:00This scenario reminds me of an episode of "Th...This scenario reminds me of an episode of "The West Wing", in which Pres. Jed Bartlet's daughter was kidnapped by a terrorist group, at which point Bartlet stepped down, temporarily ceding the presidency to the next in line of succession (who happened to be the Speaker of the House - and a member of the opposing party). Bartlet didn't trust himself to act in the best interests of his country, as opposed to those of his own family alone. <br /><br />[Spoiler alert!] Fortunately, Bartlet's daughter was still rescued, without any damage to the country (although the terrorists didn't come through so well), but the decision to go ahead with that rescue attempt nonetheless was supposedly arrived at in a more "utilitarian" (in the limited sense of "state-interested") way.<br /><br />I mention this because, in this version of the kidnap scenario, I find that the president comes across looking a lot better than the one in which he lets his family "be murdered and raped for a higher ideal." Indeed, even if Bartlet's successor had decided that the rescue attempt was too risky and that the Bartlet girl would have to be sacrificed, the fact that Bartlet recused himself from that decision endears him to me in a way that the hypothetically Spock-like Obama does not.<br /><br /> That said, what's endearment got to do with ethics (and politics, for that matter)? If moral sentimentalists are even roughly correct (as I believe they are), then quite a lot. <br /><br />After all, I didn't only vote for Obama because I perceived his ability to reason abstractly and dispassionately. I also voted for him (twice, actually) because I perceived that he shares my values (i.e. values that I hold dear), which include (but are no means limited to) care for and protection of one's family. <br /><br />Simply put: Bartlet was skillful enough to reconcile his competing obligations in a way that seems intuitively more virtuous than the hypothetically Spock-like Obama - both of which are fictional characters, btw.mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-59103487257996198512013-01-20T09:55:36.693-05:002013-01-20T09:55:36.693-05:00In that case, if it is possible for Obama to let h...In that case, if it is possible for Obama to let his wife and daughters be raped and murdered for a higher ideal and still be virtuous, that higher ideal could easily be extreme utilitarianism. <br /><br />I could become an extreme utilitarian and call that a virtue. After all, Obama let his wife and daughters be murdered so that he could save his perfect state. So why can't I treat my kin a little less well in order to make the perfect world? There's no way that making the perfect state could be such an important ideal, but not making the perfect world. So extreme utilitarians are still virtuous.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-92107582316787883382013-01-20T09:08:41.065-05:002013-01-20T09:08:41.065-05:00brainoil,
> Some crazy group of people kidnaps...brainoil,<br /><br />> Some crazy group of people kidnaps Obama's wife and kids, and threatens to torture, rape and finally kill them if he doesn't give them thing-X. But if he gives them thing-X, they'd use it to kill two thousand white kids by blowing up few schools, and Obama cannot prevent that. <<br /><br />I have not been arguing that loyalty toward your kins trumps everything. Nor, for that matter, would Aristotle. The ancient Greeks sacrificed themselves and their kin all the times in the name of higher ideals.<br /><br />Tom,<br /><br />> Asma doesn’t acknowledge that HIS start is very selective, completely arbitrary, and that other foundational selections of what may be called “virtue” (“cooperation” instead of “loyalty”) may work as well or better. <<br /><br />I seriously doubt that cooperation would be excluded by any list of good traits. Asma doesn’t actually give a list, Aristotle does, you can find it in the Nicomachean Ethics.<br /><br />> Asma pushes his advocacy of greed and selfishness to the societal level – asserting his right to exterminate the entire population to achieve his personal goals. <<br /><br />Where exactly does that? Certainly not in the article I linked.<br /><br />> Intellectuals should be held accountable for the likely consequences of what they advocate. <<br /><br />Meaning what, exactly? He is being criticized in an open forum, what other sort of “accountability” are you talking about?<br /><br />> I can’t believe that you are promoting this warmed-over Nietzschean crypto-fascism on your web-site <<br /><br />I can’t believe you jumped to that characterization of either my position or Asma’s.<br /><br />Patrick,<br /><br />> I’m sorry Massimo I didn’t mean to insult you and I never meant to imply that ethics doesn’t require thoughtful reflection. <<br /><br />No insult taken! Besides, I actually agree with most of your previous comment, I just focused on the couple of bits where we diverge.<br /><br />> I pointed out that you have referred to emotional intelligence but I can’t figure out how in your approach to ethics emotional intelligence comes into play. <<br /><br />I don’t actually like the term “emotional intelligence,” I think we should be talking about emotional maturity. At any rate, it fits right into a virtue ethical perspective, since the Greeks were talking about character development, and one of the characteristics of a good character is precisely emotional maturity (or “intelligence”).<br /><br />> We can separate the emotional and factual aspects for the sake of analysis but if all we do is deal with the facts, then we have not adequately dealt with values. <<br /><br />Correct. Which is why I reject Harris’ form of scientism. But the whole point of moral philosophy is to deal with values, not just facts.<br /><br />> 50 years ago in this country many white men felt revulsion at the thought of being friends with a black man. Today friendships between whites and blacks are common. <<br /><br />Again, this sort of consideration makes it all the more important that we talk about the logic of our ethical judgments, not just the emotional component.<br /><br />> Where does this dialogue he is referring to fit in with your system? <<br /><br />Moral philosophers have very much contributed to the dialogue in question throughout human history. Socrates was talking to the regular folks, not to other academic philosophers. And even in modern times, people like Peter Singer or Martha Nussbaum very much engage the public in an open dialogue.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.com