The analysis of the process of "valuation" in the chapter 'Existence and Value' in John Dewey's 'Experience and Nature', dovetails with the chapter 'Faith and It's Object' in 'A Common Faith'.
What we achieve what comes to "realization" through the "valuation" work of judgment,(described in 'Existence and Value') is the determination of what our aim is- what is it that is "valuable" or "significant"(Dewey's word). This becomes the idea of our action, the hoped for result of which is the "ideal". It is practical and real.
From 'A Common Faith'- chapter 2, Faith and It's Object, pG. 43 (Yale University Press)
"An ideal is not an illusion because imagination is the organ through which it is apprehended. For all possibilities reach us through the imagination. In a definite sense the only meaning that can be assigned the term "imagination" is that things unrealized in fact come home to us and have power to stir us. The unification effected through imagination is not fanciful, for it is the reflex of the unification of practical and emotional attitudes. The unity signifies not a single Being, but the unity of loyalty and effort evoked by the fact that many ends are one in the power of their ideal, or imaginative, quality to stir and hold us."
pg. 49
"What I have been objecting to, I repeat, is not the idea that ideals are linked with existence and that they themselves exist, through human embodiment, as forces, but the idea that their authority and value depend upon some prior complete embodiment- as if the efforts of human beings in behalf of justice, or knowledge or beauty, depended for their effectiveness and validity upon assurance that there already existed in some supernal region a place where criminals are humanely treated, where there is no serfdom or slavery, where all facts and truths are already discovered and possessed, and all beauty is eternally displayed in actualized form".
"The aims and ideals that move us are generated through imagination. But they are not made out of imaginary stuff. They are made out of the hard stuff of the world of physical and social experience.....the new vision does not arise out of nothing, but emerges through seeing, in terms of possibilies, that is, of imagination, old things in new relations serving a new end which the new end aids in creating".
pg. 56-57
(on the change in intellectual climate due to increased knowledge and means of understanding)
"The.. change enables man to select those elements in natural conditions that may be organized and support and extend the sway of ideals. All purpose is selective, and all intelligent action includes deliberate choice. In the degree in which we cease to depend upon belief in the supernatural, selection is enlightened and choice can be made in behalf of ideals whose inherent relations to conditions and consequences are understood...Religion would then be found to have its natural place in every aspect of human experience that is concerned with estimate of possibilities, with emotional stir by possibilities yet unrealized, and with all action in behalf of their realization. All that is significant(meaningful/valuable) in human experience falls within this frame".
In Kant this is termed; in the Critique of Practical Reason; "the concept of the object of practical reason", and is described by Kant as being between what we can achieve and what we can't- thus between the "possible" and "impossible". Thus the insistence by Hickman and Alexander against Dewey utilizing any sense of "value" or "ideal" in the corpus is overstated to emphasize the instrumental aspect of "valuation". It is located in the 2nd essay of 'A Common Faith'.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Thursday, April 10, 2008
A Story for Fans of Old Hollywood & French Cinema..
My grandmother on my father's side was a fan of old Hollywood, just not a fan of b-movies. Here's why.
My great-grandmother Claire came to the U.S. from Brittany after WWI with my very young grandmother, married and settled in Amboy Il.. It is important to know the Amboy area to understand the time and local history.
http://www.mapquest.com/maps?city=Amboy&state=IL
In Amboy my grandmother Willamene lived a normal life. She went to school and church, and spoke french with her mother in the home. In 1928 on a sunday school trip to the nearby town of Grand Detour she made a BIG splash with a handsome young lifeguard/aspiring writer. The splash she made actually spanned across a few early chapters in the young man's life. Such romances are the classic motivation for smart young men to learn the language of the families of young ladies so as to win the favor of their mothers.
It was near the end of 1968 in my grandmother's kitchen on TRIPP ave. in the Chicago south suburb of Oak lawn, after discussing election results posted in the Chicago Sun Times and a summer family assignment for the State of Illinois monitoring student activity at the Democratic National Convention- in order to understand the sum total of the years political events- that the subject of this story came up. My grandmother told me that the young man even wanted a song for them, so my grandmother said she wrote one on the spot, right then. And so the young man told her that she was a "swift tailor". She sang me the song, and even today it seems that I can still hear every word, as if it happened yesterday.
Taylor Swift
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6s5cxBN8mA
But as it happens so often, young men get restless, and as a result young ladies get their feelings hurt....
Before he cheats
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSG4Cml7HXs
and then because of the result, as it also happens so often, sad young men repent, plead, ...
Wedding bell blues
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkMhWQgkZ8c
Billy don't be a hero
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDq_xJlF0TE
...and their pleas fail. So it was that my grandmother's best friend introduced her to her brother, my grandfather, who worked in his father's store. They had come from Poland after WWI, and so my grandfather spoke Polish with his parents growing up.
And this is why my Grandmother was not a fan of b-movies...
As Paul Harvey would say.."now you know the REST..."
My great-grandmother Claire came to the U.S. from Brittany after WWI with my very young grandmother, married and settled in Amboy Il.. It is important to know the Amboy area to understand the time and local history.
http://www.mapquest.com/maps?city=Amboy&state=IL
In Amboy my grandmother Willamene lived a normal life. She went to school and church, and spoke french with her mother in the home. In 1928 on a sunday school trip to the nearby town of Grand Detour she made a BIG splash with a handsome young lifeguard/aspiring writer. The splash she made actually spanned across a few early chapters in the young man's life. Such romances are the classic motivation for smart young men to learn the language of the families of young ladies so as to win the favor of their mothers.
It was near the end of 1968 in my grandmother's kitchen on TRIPP ave. in the Chicago south suburb of Oak lawn, after discussing election results posted in the Chicago Sun Times and a summer family assignment for the State of Illinois monitoring student activity at the Democratic National Convention- in order to understand the sum total of the years political events- that the subject of this story came up. My grandmother told me that the young man even wanted a song for them, so my grandmother said she wrote one on the spot, right then. And so the young man told her that she was a "swift tailor". She sang me the song, and even today it seems that I can still hear every word, as if it happened yesterday.
Taylor Swift
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6s5cxBN8mA
But as it happens so often, young men get restless, and as a result young ladies get their feelings hurt....
Before he cheats
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSG4Cml7HXs
and then because of the result, as it also happens so often, sad young men repent, plead, ...
Wedding bell blues
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkMhWQgkZ8c
Billy don't be a hero
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDq_xJlF0TE
...and their pleas fail. So it was that my grandmother's best friend introduced her to her brother, my grandfather, who worked in his father's store. They had come from Poland after WWI, and so my grandfather spoke Polish with his parents growing up.
And this is why my Grandmother was not a fan of b-movies...
As Paul Harvey would say.."now you know the REST..."
Monday, April 7, 2008
Fascism and Dreadful Argument Construction in 'The Fragility of Goodness'
1) The Central argument of Martha Nussbaum's 'The Fragility of Goodness' is in chapter 10, which restates Leo Strauss' fascist interpretation of Plato from his 'History of Political Philosophy'. Chapter 10 performs this restatement by flipping the traditional arguments for systematic practical reason and law on their heads.
The argument in chapter 10 is that the experience of life is too arbitrary and complex for a system of practical reason, and depends rather on training and experience. Strauss says that the self sufficient individual rises above convention. This is ridiculous logic. The whole notion of law is that it serves as a guide to practical reason by common prohibition by checking the arbitrary actions of individual desire and in doing so institutes freedom through order. The system thus utilizes the best common wisdom of experts developed over time, and the spectrum of individual behavior then falls within the categories of the system of penal code.
The thrust of the argument in chapter 10 is to persuade to rely on authority only- that the ability to choose practically is an "art" of the most sophisticated- rather than the ordinary person utilizing and being guided by the authority of knowledge accumulated. This is nothing less than pure fascism.
"Practical insight is like perceiving in the sense that is is non-inferential, non-deductive; it is, centrally, the ability to recognize, acknowledge, respond to, pick out certain salient features of a complex situation. And just as the theoretical nous comes only out of a long experience with first principles and a sense, gained gradually in and through experience, of the fundamental role played by these principles in discourse and explanation, so too practical perception, which Aristotle calls nous, is gained only through a long process of living and choosing that develops the agent's resourcefullness and responsiveness:" pg 305
2) There are some that object that "luck" is not treated in Kantian morality. This is not true. Pg. 54 of the Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (Beck) "it is nothing less than the participation it affords the rational being in giving universal law. He is thus....for, as an end in himself, he is destined to be legislative in the realm of ends, free from all laws of nature, and obedient only to those which he himself gives".
The restraint of law upon the behavior of the individual serves as a guide for practical decision making, and provides freedom through order. See also A.E. Dick Howard 'Magna Carta', introductory comment by English official..that the magna carta was formed to overcome the arbitrary fiat of the sovereign.
Consistency Problems in Argument Construction
3) The Attack on commensurability of values contradicts the common condition of the "reach of need" mentioned at the end of chapter 9, and also contradicts the common basis of natural law in Strauss- the fear of death from violent attack.
4) The need for training and experience for the "art" of
practical reason contradicts the "superiority by birth" theory of "Pearls before swine". The need for training presupposes that there is no innate superiority.
5)The reading of chapter 13 of Hecuba is merely rationale to justify revenge, and the conclusion of Nussbaum that "nothing human is trustworthy" is a restatement derived from Strauss' John Calvin interpretation that "man is totally depraved".
Other problems
6) When I first read 'The Fragility of Goodness' I stopped at the Schopenhauer comment in the 3rd chapter because that comment is a ridiculous conclusion to the "wisdom" that greek tragedy teaches us. The person who concludes, through the experience of tragedy, that all there is in life is pain and death has learned nothing. The "wisdom that drips on the heart from suffering" in the experience of the tragic stems from the root of communication from suffering in Adorno- "The physical moment says that suffering ought not to be", connected with the beauty of the need of others. The fact that because we die, teaches us that the love of others is a precious gift, and that the wise in life therefore organize and direct the activities of life away from war and death. The "wisdom" learned through the tragic is the "fragility of life", and because of this fragility, life, especially the life of those we love, is precious.
(the quote from Schopenhauer-pg. 79: "The purpose of this highest poetical achievement is the description of the terrible side of life. The unspeakable pain, the wretchedness and misery of mankind, the triumph of wickedness, the scornful mastery of chance, and the irretriveable fall of the good and the innocent are all here presented to us; and here is to be found a significant hint as to the anture of the world and of existence...The motives that were previously so powerful now lose their force, and instead of them the complete knowledge of the real nature of the world, acting as a quieter of the will, produces resignation, the giving up not merely of life, but of the whole will-to-live itself".)
7) The Schopenhauer comment and the "nothing human is trustworthy" comment, reflect the abyss of self pity of the fatalism of Strauss raised to a fatalism. This thinking is no better whatsoever than that of Jim Jones.
8) The reading of Aristotle that good character will not fail under adversity, therefore that Sophie's choice victims will commit suicide, contradicts Strauss Basic claim of natural right directly. This reading in itself is then contradicted by the Hecuba conclusion that anything human can be debased by adversity. Which is it people? If anything and everything human can be debased, why hold the sophie's choice people accountable to a standard that does not exist?
9) Another poor construction is in the transposition of the greek notion of "self-sufficiency". There is no such thing, as the motivation of action, correctly depicted by Ms. Nussbaum as "reaching"- for others, things etc.. This notion of "self-sufficiency" was pretty much dispensed with after Hegel's description of the "master-slave dialectic", where Hegel shows conclusively that the master is as much dependent on subordinates or more, than the subordinate is on the master. This is because this "reaching" means that man is mutually dependent. This is evident every time earnings of a company go down. Those that depend on "sales", depend on people- both customers and employees.
10) The book is therefore a total mess with regard to consistency of construction.
11) Contradictions
A) The most glaring set of contradictions in the doctrines of fascism have to do with the "moral luck" argument in Nussbaum's 'Fragility of Goodness'. This is because the argument; that extraneous factors outside our control effect our success or failure, our victories or our tragedies; undermines the whole notion that there is such a thing as "innate superiority". It is a complaint that implies that "superiority" loses because of "luck".(and loses quite often because of "luck", or otherwise why make the complaint)
B) If an individual is "innately superior" in function, intelligence, etc., then they don't need "luck". They also then shouldn't feel the need, or even want, to be protected from "luck". Free legitimate contests would prove their "superiority", over and over again.
C) "Chance favors the prepared mind"(see Dutch) is an argument that "luck" favors the "superior"; where the "bad luck" argument in 'Fragility..' argues with equal strengthTHE OPPOSITE.
Which is it folks?
D) So much for belief in the "will-to-power". They don't really believe in that, or really in their own "superiority". If they had belief, they would relish free untarnished contest.
12) Things Already Learned Before Age 6
2) The "grand lessons" of suffering are learned by the great majority(Patterson) by age 6- "don't do that it hurts", "stop that it makes...". Because these are learned by age 6, we learn to not hit but help, to not hurt but heal. This is what has led my life, and the lives of all our family members.
That is why if an administration violates this basic principle learned from the common phenomenon of human suffering, those opposing based on the "injustice" should do the opposite when in power.
It is precisely why the method in 'the Folly of..' is foolish in the extreme, because it is a "teaching" of something already learned.
Those that use that method identify the wrong opponent. It is not the public that violates the basic learning of a 6 year old, it is those in power or those going for power that violate it. The public doesn't do the harm, and didn't in 47'-48'.
Because we know this, it is not the emotional element of man- the "affective fragility" that is to blame. Because we are in control of what we choose to do, this is why we are culpable for our actions in a just and equitable system of law.
That is why it is so ridiculous to constantly "reprove"; through the "justification drama" of torture; the basic affective fragility of a human being. Doing so proves nothing. It only proves what we already know by age 6. There is that emotion, yes, and there is a psychological "cycle" that it is contained in(suffering, release, anger). So what..we are "human". It's what we do in our relations with others that counts.
Because of this it is not what an individual does at the point of a gun, or under imposed suffering that is the measure of his/her character. It is what we do when free, when we have power, that determines an individual's character. As Lincoln said, "If you want to test a man's character, give him power".
There are points of hope though.
13) In the chapter that features the Schopenhauer quote that I oppose here, I couldn't help but notice that the modifier that describes the quote- i.e. "dreadful"- is somewhat equivocal and therefore unclear.
On the one hand the way this word appears can read to mean "dread filled", and on the other hand it can read to mean "terrible"- as in "inaccurate". It was very strange reading the book after meeting her at the Paul Ricoeur conference at the University of Chicago in 1998, as the arguments and construction for me convey such a dark view, while her personal presentation (at least to me) in public, did not convey such pessimism. In fact I found her manner and disposition to be the opposite.
It is because of her pleasant disposition that I therefore choose the latter meaning of the word as the intended meaning of that modifier, until the time I hear otherwise from her in person.
14) Ms. Nussbaum acts contrary to one of the central false observations in the book- that "nothing human is trustworthy", in her dedication in the very beginning of the book. The fact that she dedicates the book in an admiring way to a former classmate that committed suicide undermines this very dictum of her own view of others. For Ms. Nussbaum there was a person worthy enough the loss of which she mourned. If indeed she really believed that "nothing human is trustworthy", there would be noone worthy of her love. Such a dedication says much more about the truth of Ms. Nussbaum and what she believes, than any of the observations presented in the book.
The argument in chapter 10 is that the experience of life is too arbitrary and complex for a system of practical reason, and depends rather on training and experience. Strauss says that the self sufficient individual rises above convention. This is ridiculous logic. The whole notion of law is that it serves as a guide to practical reason by common prohibition by checking the arbitrary actions of individual desire and in doing so institutes freedom through order. The system thus utilizes the best common wisdom of experts developed over time, and the spectrum of individual behavior then falls within the categories of the system of penal code.
The thrust of the argument in chapter 10 is to persuade to rely on authority only- that the ability to choose practically is an "art" of the most sophisticated- rather than the ordinary person utilizing and being guided by the authority of knowledge accumulated. This is nothing less than pure fascism.
"Practical insight is like perceiving in the sense that is is non-inferential, non-deductive; it is, centrally, the ability to recognize, acknowledge, respond to, pick out certain salient features of a complex situation. And just as the theoretical nous comes only out of a long experience with first principles and a sense, gained gradually in and through experience, of the fundamental role played by these principles in discourse and explanation, so too practical perception, which Aristotle calls nous, is gained only through a long process of living and choosing that develops the agent's resourcefullness and responsiveness:" pg 305
2) There are some that object that "luck" is not treated in Kantian morality. This is not true. Pg. 54 of the Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (Beck) "it is nothing less than the participation it affords the rational being in giving universal law. He is thus....for, as an end in himself, he is destined to be legislative in the realm of ends, free from all laws of nature, and obedient only to those which he himself gives".
The restraint of law upon the behavior of the individual serves as a guide for practical decision making, and provides freedom through order. See also A.E. Dick Howard 'Magna Carta', introductory comment by English official..that the magna carta was formed to overcome the arbitrary fiat of the sovereign.
Consistency Problems in Argument Construction
3) The Attack on commensurability of values contradicts the common condition of the "reach of need" mentioned at the end of chapter 9, and also contradicts the common basis of natural law in Strauss- the fear of death from violent attack.
4) The need for training and experience for the "art" of
practical reason contradicts the "superiority by birth" theory of "Pearls before swine". The need for training presupposes that there is no innate superiority.
5)The reading of chapter 13 of Hecuba is merely rationale to justify revenge, and the conclusion of Nussbaum that "nothing human is trustworthy" is a restatement derived from Strauss' John Calvin interpretation that "man is totally depraved".
Other problems
6) When I first read 'The Fragility of Goodness' I stopped at the Schopenhauer comment in the 3rd chapter because that comment is a ridiculous conclusion to the "wisdom" that greek tragedy teaches us. The person who concludes, through the experience of tragedy, that all there is in life is pain and death has learned nothing. The "wisdom that drips on the heart from suffering" in the experience of the tragic stems from the root of communication from suffering in Adorno- "The physical moment says that suffering ought not to be", connected with the beauty of the need of others. The fact that because we die, teaches us that the love of others is a precious gift, and that the wise in life therefore organize and direct the activities of life away from war and death. The "wisdom" learned through the tragic is the "fragility of life", and because of this fragility, life, especially the life of those we love, is precious.
(the quote from Schopenhauer-pg. 79: "The purpose of this highest poetical achievement is the description of the terrible side of life. The unspeakable pain, the wretchedness and misery of mankind, the triumph of wickedness, the scornful mastery of chance, and the irretriveable fall of the good and the innocent are all here presented to us; and here is to be found a significant hint as to the anture of the world and of existence...The motives that were previously so powerful now lose their force, and instead of them the complete knowledge of the real nature of the world, acting as a quieter of the will, produces resignation, the giving up not merely of life, but of the whole will-to-live itself".)
7) The Schopenhauer comment and the "nothing human is trustworthy" comment, reflect the abyss of self pity of the fatalism of Strauss raised to a fatalism. This thinking is no better whatsoever than that of Jim Jones.
8) The reading of Aristotle that good character will not fail under adversity, therefore that Sophie's choice victims will commit suicide, contradicts Strauss Basic claim of natural right directly. This reading in itself is then contradicted by the Hecuba conclusion that anything human can be debased by adversity. Which is it people? If anything and everything human can be debased, why hold the sophie's choice people accountable to a standard that does not exist?
9) Another poor construction is in the transposition of the greek notion of "self-sufficiency". There is no such thing, as the motivation of action, correctly depicted by Ms. Nussbaum as "reaching"- for others, things etc.. This notion of "self-sufficiency" was pretty much dispensed with after Hegel's description of the "master-slave dialectic", where Hegel shows conclusively that the master is as much dependent on subordinates or more, than the subordinate is on the master. This is because this "reaching" means that man is mutually dependent. This is evident every time earnings of a company go down. Those that depend on "sales", depend on people- both customers and employees.
10) The book is therefore a total mess with regard to consistency of construction.
11) Contradictions
A) The most glaring set of contradictions in the doctrines of fascism have to do with the "moral luck" argument in Nussbaum's 'Fragility of Goodness'. This is because the argument; that extraneous factors outside our control effect our success or failure, our victories or our tragedies; undermines the whole notion that there is such a thing as "innate superiority". It is a complaint that implies that "superiority" loses because of "luck".(and loses quite often because of "luck", or otherwise why make the complaint)
B) If an individual is "innately superior" in function, intelligence, etc., then they don't need "luck". They also then shouldn't feel the need, or even want, to be protected from "luck". Free legitimate contests would prove their "superiority", over and over again.
C) "Chance favors the prepared mind"(see Dutch) is an argument that "luck" favors the "superior"; where the "bad luck" argument in 'Fragility..' argues with equal strengthTHE OPPOSITE.
Which is it folks?
D) So much for belief in the "will-to-power". They don't really believe in that, or really in their own "superiority". If they had belief, they would relish free untarnished contest.
12) Things Already Learned Before Age 6
2) The "grand lessons" of suffering are learned by the great majority(Patterson) by age 6- "don't do that it hurts", "stop that it makes...". Because these are learned by age 6, we learn to not hit but help, to not hurt but heal. This is what has led my life, and the lives of all our family members.
That is why if an administration violates this basic principle learned from the common phenomenon of human suffering, those opposing based on the "injustice" should do the opposite when in power.
It is precisely why the method in 'the Folly of..' is foolish in the extreme, because it is a "teaching" of something already learned.
Those that use that method identify the wrong opponent. It is not the public that violates the basic learning of a 6 year old, it is those in power or those going for power that violate it. The public doesn't do the harm, and didn't in 47'-48'.
Because we know this, it is not the emotional element of man- the "affective fragility" that is to blame. Because we are in control of what we choose to do, this is why we are culpable for our actions in a just and equitable system of law.
That is why it is so ridiculous to constantly "reprove"; through the "justification drama" of torture; the basic affective fragility of a human being. Doing so proves nothing. It only proves what we already know by age 6. There is that emotion, yes, and there is a psychological "cycle" that it is contained in(suffering, release, anger). So what..we are "human". It's what we do in our relations with others that counts.
Because of this it is not what an individual does at the point of a gun, or under imposed suffering that is the measure of his/her character. It is what we do when free, when we have power, that determines an individual's character. As Lincoln said, "If you want to test a man's character, give him power".
There are points of hope though.
13) In the chapter that features the Schopenhauer quote that I oppose here, I couldn't help but notice that the modifier that describes the quote- i.e. "dreadful"- is somewhat equivocal and therefore unclear.
On the one hand the way this word appears can read to mean "dread filled", and on the other hand it can read to mean "terrible"- as in "inaccurate". It was very strange reading the book after meeting her at the Paul Ricoeur conference at the University of Chicago in 1998, as the arguments and construction for me convey such a dark view, while her personal presentation (at least to me) in public, did not convey such pessimism. In fact I found her manner and disposition to be the opposite.
It is because of her pleasant disposition that I therefore choose the latter meaning of the word as the intended meaning of that modifier, until the time I hear otherwise from her in person.
14) Ms. Nussbaum acts contrary to one of the central false observations in the book- that "nothing human is trustworthy", in her dedication in the very beginning of the book. The fact that she dedicates the book in an admiring way to a former classmate that committed suicide undermines this very dictum of her own view of others. For Ms. Nussbaum there was a person worthy enough the loss of which she mourned. If indeed she really believed that "nothing human is trustworthy", there would be noone worthy of her love. Such a dedication says much more about the truth of Ms. Nussbaum and what she believes, than any of the observations presented in the book.
"Sophie's Choice" and Practical Reason in 'The Fragility of Goodness'
I will do an examination of the wider concept of "Moral Luck" as presented in Martha Nussbaum's 'The Fragility of Goodness', but will first speak to the "Sophie's Choice" situation that is presented in the second chapter.
The conflicts of the "Sophie's Choice" scenario are four-fold in an ascending manner. The base choice presented is between two choices of evil action. This is the decision itself, which splits into two confrontations with conscience- with the consideration of the killing of each of the persons in both choices. Then there is the conflict between "killing or not killing", which Ms. Nussbaum addresses, and then between "killing or being killed", which is the primary conflict.
The primary conflict is thus framed from the viewpoint of one who is "being forced by external circumstances or people, to make a choice between two evils".
The "Sophie's Choice" scenario proves without doubt that a theory of the individual as completely evil is wrong, and in fact proves the OPPOSITE. People in that situation, as in the movie, never say "to heck with it, kill em' all, I don't care". They choose the lesser evil, which is thus the greater good. The nature of man tends toward the Good. The victims of being put to that choice view their choice in the only way they can, which is to save as many lives as possible.
Nussbaum's depiction of the stages of reflection in the carrying out of the choice indicate that once denial is overcome, then the Kantian depiction- that there is no conflict between the principles of practical reason- holds. The choice is made and justified.
The conflicts of the "Sophie's Choice" scenario are four-fold in an ascending manner. The base choice presented is between two choices of evil action. This is the decision itself, which splits into two confrontations with conscience- with the consideration of the killing of each of the persons in both choices. Then there is the conflict between "killing or not killing", which Ms. Nussbaum addresses, and then between "killing or being killed", which is the primary conflict.
The primary conflict is thus framed from the viewpoint of one who is "being forced by external circumstances or people, to make a choice between two evils".
The "Sophie's Choice" scenario proves without doubt that a theory of the individual as completely evil is wrong, and in fact proves the OPPOSITE. People in that situation, as in the movie, never say "to heck with it, kill em' all, I don't care". They choose the lesser evil, which is thus the greater good. The nature of man tends toward the Good. The victims of being put to that choice view their choice in the only way they can, which is to save as many lives as possible.
Nussbaum's depiction of the stages of reflection in the carrying out of the choice indicate that once denial is overcome, then the Kantian depiction- that there is no conflict between the principles of practical reason- holds. The choice is made and justified.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)