desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) (03/16/86)
In article <607@hoptoad.uucp> laura@hoptoad.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes: > >I think that a fundamental distiction which Dworkin misses out on in this >essay is the objective or subjective nature of ``the good''. Dworkin >keeps on plugging for ``a conservative believes that a virtuous society >determines the good'' (which is moral subjectivism) whereas all the >conservatives I know are moral objectivists. How is it even possible to discuss political theory with a "moral objectivist" (and by the way what is wrong with the symbol " which everyone on the net seems to avoid)? You seem to know more than I do (i.e. any) so maybe you can explain it to me. If you start out with a characterization of what is good, then it seems you just end up with whatever society has been predefined as good, and little room for debate. I think Dworkin is just trying to characterize these beliefs in a logically consistent way, although I think he still fails to avoid circularity (maybe I will reread the posting and examine this point later). As you note even the moral objectivists are not quite sure where their beliefs really come from. Obviously in reality (whether they attribute them to divine revelation or whatever) they are somehow a product of the supposed "virtuous society" in which they live, right? -- David desJardins
laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) (03/18/86)
In article <12427@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins) writes: > How is it even possible to discuss political theory with a "moral >objectivist" (and by the way what is wrong with the symbol " which >everyone on the net seems to avoid)? You seem to know more than I do >(i.e. any) so maybe you can explain it to me. If you start out with a >characterization of what is good, then it seems you just end up with >whatever society has been predefined as good, and little room for debate. The second question is the easiest. One of the things which I used to do is typeset books. And I am a troff hacker. In the world of typesetting there is no ``"'' character. You want nicely balanced parenthesis. So it would never occur to me to type ``"'' -- I had to look to see where the key was again -- since it is not what I want. I didn't realise that the majority of people on the net also do not use it. But you seem to believe that for the conservative ``what society is'' determines ``what is good''. This is exactly backwards. The conservative already knows what is good -- his problem is to create a society which promotes these virtues. And since the society will always fall short of an ideal society, there is constant room for speculation -- but of a very different sort than that engaged by other political groups. For instance, you could probably get all conservatives to agree that justice and mercy are both virtues. Now, how should you create a judicial system which is both just and merciful? There is usually a trede off between one and the other. So the conservative has an interesting problem. > > I think Dworkin is just trying to characterize these beliefs in a >logically consistent way, although I think he still fails to avoid >circularity (maybe I will reread the posting and examine this point >later). As you note even the moral objectivists are not quite sure >where their beliefs really come from. Obviously in reality (whether >they attribute them to divine revelation or whatever) they are somehow >a product of the supposed "virtuous society" in which they live, right? No. There are two things here. First of all, most people do not know where their beliefs really come from -- I did not mean to single out the conservatives as being particularily deficient in this respect. And, secondly, the virtues in which the conservative believes are not considered to be a product of any society, rather they are believed to be *independent* of any society -- this is what makes political theory difficult. You attempt to create a society which reflects known virtues, rather than deciding that what is a virtue is what exists in society. If the latter was the case then political theory would be easy -- create a society, and then, whatever is -- is good. -- Laura Creighton ihnp4!hoptoad!laura utzoo!hoptoad!laura sun!hoptoad!laura toad@lll-crg.arpa