|
|
#301
05-01-2007, 11:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: As the mod, if I want that [censored] to be long, it\'s gonna be lo
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] anyone have any thoughts re: nigerian wife beating, rawlsian veil of ignorance, and cross-cultural gender issue standards? holla [/ QUOTE ] Clearly against it; I'm hugely in favor of Rawlsian moral theory*; question is too broad to answer. P.S. Almost all serious logicians use viz., but I assume that logic is not something you're required to understand for your jock major. * Basically I think contractarianism is the only moral theory that isn't subject to a severe flaw concerning the notion of authority. [/ QUOTE ] And why would we enter contracts? What about those who can't/don't want to enter? That "flaw" concerning authority is still there. You just pushed it back a bit, no? |
|
#304
05-01-2007, 12:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: As the mod, if I want that [censored] to be long, it\'s gonna be lo
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] anyone have any thoughts re: nigerian wife beating, rawlsian veil of ignorance, and cross-cultural gender issue standards? holla [/ QUOTE ] Clearly against it; I'm hugely in favor of Rawlsian moral theory*; question is too broad to answer. P.S. Almost all serious logicians use viz., but I assume that logic is not something you're required to understand for your jock major. * Basically I think contractarianism is the only moral theory that isn't subject to a severe flaw concerning the notion of authority. [/ QUOTE ] And why would we enter contracts? What about those who can't/don't want to enter? That "flaw" concerning authority is still there. You just pushed it back a bit, no? [/ QUOTE ] Negative. We enter contracts because we, as rational agents, believe that we get benefits out of such a shared existence: the protection of laws, etc. Those who can't want to enter (e.g. the severely mentally handicapped, childern) are subject to the contract only in relation to others. Those who don't want to enter, since they somehow fail to perceive the same benefits to themselves from political life perpetually have the option of exiting social existence. Why they should want to is beyond me, but I have no objection to such. The flaw concerning authority is not there because the authority comes from the rational people who enter into the contract themselves. |
|
#306
05-01-2007, 12:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: As the mod, if I want that [censored] to be long, it\'s gonna be lo
dang those gimmicks. I thought fret made a name change. I think we should destroy the gimmick and change his name properly
|
|
#307
05-01-2007, 12:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: As the mod, if I want that [censored] to be long, it\'s gonna be lo
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] anyone have any thoughts re: nigerian wife beating, rawlsian veil of ignorance, and cross-cultural gender issue standards? holla [/ QUOTE ] Clearly against it; I'm hugely in favor of Rawlsian moral theory*; question is too broad to answer. P.S. Almost all serious logicians use viz., but I assume that logic is not something you're required to understand for your jock major. * Basically I think contractarianism is the only moral theory that isn't subject to a severe flaw concerning the notion of authority. [/ QUOTE ] And why would we enter contracts? What about those who can't/don't want to enter? That "flaw" concerning authority is still there. You just pushed it back a bit, no? [/ QUOTE ] Negative. We enter contracts because we, as rational agents, believe that we get benefits out of such a shared existence: the protection of laws, etc. Those who can't want to enter (e.g. the severely mentally handicapped, childern) are subject to the contract only in relation to others. Those who don't want to enter, since they somehow fail to perceive the same benefits to themselves from political life perpetually have the option of exiting social existence. Why they should want to is beyond me, but I have no objection to such. [/ QUOTE ] There you go. You just "define away" the problem. If you just do the very small additional step and link an intuitive account of "social existence" with a little Habermas, you get close to a point where even referring to those who deny themselves to discourse becomes a problem. If you go this all the way to the end, those who don't enter rational discourse, don't even exist. |
|
#309
05-01-2007, 12:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: As the mod, if I want that [censored] to be long, it\'s gonna be lo
[ QUOTE ]
The flaw concerning authority is not there because the authority comes from the rational people who enter into the contract themselves. [/ QUOTE ] And the notion of rationality involved? Does every human being just find that notion magically within himself? Categorical imperative or some such? That's getting pretty universalistic again very fast... Edit: I'm pretty aware that I'm throwing around a lot of silverware here -- I appeal to your complaisant readiness to "do the inbetween math" yourself. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] |
|
#310
05-01-2007, 12:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: As the mod, if I want that [censored] to be long, it\'s gonna be lo
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Point: Frito. [/ QUOTE ] Huh? You talkin' to me? I have no clue about this crap. Freakin' waste of time, too, this philosophy [censored]. [/ QUOTE ] Who the f* are you? |
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
