tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454161596094447448.post7593623131816896428..comments2024-02-20T12:26:24.682-05:00Comments on language goes on holiday: Does moral philosophy rest on a mistake?Duncan Richterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15708344766825805406noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454161596094447448.post-61398027237472579612011-12-08T10:28:28.825-05:002011-12-08T10:28:28.825-05:00DR: I agree with everything you said. I "Chri...DR: I agree with everything you said. I "Christmas present" analogy is helpful. Thanks for that. (And how timely.)Matthew Pianaltohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16380038537888895216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454161596094447448.post-43217955757193608452011-12-08T09:16:59.269-05:002011-12-08T09:16:59.269-05:00Thanks, Matt and Charles.
being respectful presum...Thanks, Matt and Charles.<br /><br /><i>being respectful presumably means being attentive to the needs, concerns, and values of others, too.</i><br /><br />Sometimes, yes. But if what I respect, or want to show respect for, is life itself, or human life, or the sanctity of marriage, then there aren't any particular others whose concerns, etc. I need to take into account. <br /><br /><i>Maybe this means that what counts as respectful depends upon what can be made out as such within some particular "form of life" </i><br /><br />I think that's true. But Wittgenstein points out somewhere (probably in <i>Culture and Value</i>) that one way to show respect for a manuscript is to burn it, or cut it up into little pieces and distribute them widely, while another way is to preserve it very carefully. There are equally various ways of showing respect for a dead body. And perhaps for living bodies too. Some of this variety might be attributable to different forms of life, but some of it exists within a single form of life.<br /><br /><i>if we get caught up in looking for <i>the</i> answer, then we are probably trapped by a false picture.</i><br /><br />Maybe, although in some ways looking for the right way to (express) respect is like looking for the right Christmas present for someone. There is such a thing as getting it just right. An important difference is that a perfect gift makes its recipient happy, while a perfect enactment of respect might not do so, and in some cases (e.g. respecting a dead body) there is no one to make happy. Perhaps it satisfies those involved, but it's not as if that was the (conscious, intended) point. But the kind of way in which there is a right answer is, I think, very similar to the way in which there is such a thing as the right way to continue or finish a painting or piece of music. It isn't at all a matter of applying an algorithm. (Or if it is then the decision to proceed algorithmically expresses a certain taste rather than the kind of discovery that might guide work in engineering, say. In engineering the bridge must not collapse, so calculations are means to some definite, publicly observable and agreed upon, end. The work of enacting respect is not like that.)<br /><br /><i>Nor some legal questions.</i><br /><br />Right. You can't reasonably escape reference, implicit or explicit, to the standard of the reasonable person.Duncan Richterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15708344766825805406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454161596094447448.post-85084772792063611432011-12-07T16:05:32.223-05:002011-12-07T16:05:32.223-05:00"Try as we might, we cannot turn ethical ques..."Try as we might, we cannot turn ethical questions into technical (or quasi-scientific, metaphysical) ones."<br /><br />Nor some legal questions. According to Judge Posner (who, like many - even among supporters of the outcome - disapproves the decision on its merits), the SCOTUS majority decision was based on assuming a time-varying opposition between the fetus's emerging rights and the pregnant woman's eroding rights, and that the choice of a cross-over point was to some degree arbitrary. Notwithstanding any lack of legal merit, IMO it does have the merit of acknowledging (even if only implicitly) that in such matters, some arbitrariness is unavoidable.Charles T. Wolvertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12309746685166449683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454161596094447448.post-42279849297826562732011-12-07T11:23:42.366-05:002011-12-07T11:23:42.366-05:00I think what you say about respect is good. It mig...I think what you say about respect is good. It might be tempting then to say that what counts as being respectful is hopelessly subjective (or culturally relative), and maybe even that "respect" is more about one's attitude--what stands behind the things one is doing--than what is done. But that, of course, can't entirely be right, since being respectful presumably means being attentive to the needs, concerns, and values of others, too. Maybe this means that what counts as respectful depends upon what can be made out as such within some particular "form of life" (bearing in mind that if by "form of life" we mean the different cultures or whatever, then "forms of life" also overlap and intersect...) And forms of life change, are modified, etc., over time. This might help explain why the kind of "absolute" value W examines in LE looks to be nonsense. But then if you think about that the intersubjective example he gives, involving lying, the nonsense has a recognizable purpose, insofar as it communicates to others one's views about the basic kind of respect one expects from others if they are to continue together within a shared form of life. I'm not sure how any of this would help in thinking about, e.g., the abortion issue, except perhaps to signal that if we get caught up in looking for <i>the</i> answer, then we are probably trapped by a false picture. And maybe that in itself is important to see.Matthew Pianaltohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16380038537888895216noreply@blogger.com