Tuesday, March 23, 2004


Amusing: My critique yesterday of an article by big-time Princeton philosopher Gilbert Harman produced a very rapid backdown. Prof. Harman emailed me a brief reply, the key sentence of which was "My article was intended only to point to certain developments in social psychology" -- a much more modest claim than he in fact originally made. For instance, he originally said "Character based virtue ethics may offer a reasonable account of ordinary moral views. But to that extent, these ordinary views rest on error". A climbdown from "error" to "certain developments" is quite a plummet. Given the way he had ignored half the evidence on his topic, a backdown was of course all that was available to him.

Being an old guy, I have long ago decided (and got into print) what my views are on most of the major questions of analytical philosophy. Keith Burgess-Jackson's various posts on philosophical questions have however reminded me what fun philosopical questions can be so my interest in thinking about them has revived somewhat. Keith and I do not however agree on many of our conclusions. I suspect, in fact that there are NO two philosophers who agree with one-another on all philosophical questions. So I am sure that Keith will not take it amiss if I make a few comments (in my usual "take no prisoners" way) about his theories. He will probably just give my theories a hard time in reply.

In particular, Keith has a theory of "rightness" that is deontological. A deontologist believes that at least some actions have little bits of rightness or wrongness attached to them in some mysterious, mystical and unobservable way. Keith's own version of deontology seems to be peculiar to him: He thinks that uncontracted actions (contracted actions being actions done or refrained from pursuant to some sort of contract) can only have wrongness attached to them, not rightness. That oddity aside, however, he seems (in his major paper on the subject) to give NO reason why he believes that some actions have moral attachments nor does he say how we find out what those attachments are or resolve disputes about what they are.

That really puzzles me. I could understand such a view in a religious believer -- as religious believers believe in lots of mysterious, mystical and unobservable stuff -- but Keith is an atheist! I am forced back onto the view espoused by John Maze that Keith and those like him are simply making a mistake about how uncontracted actions come to have rightness or wrongness. Maze (See: Maze, J. (1973) "The concept of attitude". Inquiry, 16, 168-205) says that because moral properties are sometimes spoken about in the same way as physical properties (the statement "X is right" is of the same form as "X is pink"), some people mistakenly conclude that moral properties must have a separate and distinct existence of their own similar to physical properties. They don't, however. As most people readily see, "X is right" is an entirely different sort of statement from "X is pink". They see that "X is is right" is a value judgment whereas "X is pink" is a statement of fact. It is easy to detect, measure and agree on pinkness. None of that is true of rightness.

That "rightness" is a value judgment does not however mean that it is unimportant. As I think almost all psychologists would agree, values are very important indeed. I spent most of my research career studying them.

I also made a very brief comment yesterday about how I believe rights (as distinct from rightness) come about. Keith asked in reply whether or not I think that babies have rights. The ancient Greeks certainly thought that newborn babies had no rights at all. A father has the right (up to a certain age) to say whether a baby lived or died. So it seems to me that we GIVE babies rights. They are not BORN with rights. If babies are born with rights that are independent of any human law or custom, where do we find those rights? -- under the baby's fingernails? If not there, where? Or do we merely assert them without proof or evidence? And how come the Greeks could not find them?



There is a very interesting article in "Spiked" which blames terrorism on the risk-aversion that the politically-correct brigade have engendered in Western society. We look so chicken-livered to the rest of the world that they think they can easily intimidate us into doing what they want. And the lack of cojones among the Spanish has reinforced that impression. Thank goodness for the resolve of GWB in Afghanistan and Iraq!

The NYT has used the occasion of declaring the famously polluted "Love Canal" clean to revive all the Greenie myths about it. Wayne Lusvardi writes: "Times reporter Brian De Palma is incorrect that in 1978 "hundreds of families were evacuated from the working-class Love Canal section of Niagara Falls, N.Y., after deadly chemicals started oozing through the ground into basements and a school, burning children and pets and causing birth defects and miscarriages." The truth is that after decades of research, there is no scientifically substantiated incident of harm, not even so much as catching a cold, that ever occurred to humans at Love Canal due to exposure to so-called toxic chemicals, as documented in the book by Aaron Wildavsky: But Is It True? A Citizen's Guide to Environmental Health and Safety Issues -Harvard University Press, 1995.

Western Australia has decriminalized cannabis. Prohibition of alcohol did not work either. As Queen Elizabeth I of England asked King Philip II of Spain centuries ago: "Why cannot Your Majesty let your subjects go to the Devil in their own way?"

"An opinion poll suggests most Iraqis feel their lives have improved since the war in Iraq began about a year ago. The survey, carried out for the BBC and other broadcasters, also suggests many are optimistic about the next 12 months and opposed to violence."

Michael Darby has just put up a new lot of postings. Some of his headings:
THE PRIME MINISTER IS RIGHT (about Australia's risk from terrorism)
Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen (Influential former conservative Premier of the State of Queensland)
Chipangali Wildlife Orphanage
Education Debate: Good work by Hon Brendan Nelson MP
Adoption of children by homosexual couples
Food Scares

David Yeagley compares the so-called "Christians" of the Left to the Pharisees.

Peg Kaplan has the Jug Man ("Krug" means jug" in German) summed up.

The wicked one has put up an alaming scenario of how difficult it soon might be to order a pizza.

My recipe for today is for that old Greek favourite -- Moussaka. It's not a quick recipe to make but the result is worth it. See here.


The Left have always wanted more spent on welfare and made "Fascism" a swear-word. President Bush deposed a brutal Fascist dictator and sponsored a big expansion of welfare. But instead of being admired by the Left, he is hated with a passion. What does that tell you about the Left? It tells you that they have no principles at all: That everything they have ever claimed to stand for is fake.

Three more examples of Leftist dishonesty: They blame the 9/11 attacks on "poverty" in the Islamic world. Yet most of the attackers were Saudis and Saudi Arabia is one of the world's richest countries! They also say that they oppose racism yet support "affirmative action" -- which judges people by the colour of their skin! They say that they care about "the poor" but how often do you hear them calling for the one thing that would bring about a worldwide economic boom in poor countries -- the USA and the EU abandoning their agricultural protectionism? Leftists obviously care more about conservative farmers than they do about the poor!

Comments? Email me here or here. If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.


No comments: