Jonathan Feit goes all post-modern on us, alleging that the motives behind the person making the argument, rather than the quality of the argument itself, is what philosophers should consider.
In fairness, it seems like *I* was the one who was tricked. I have actually been converted to the belief that the usual definition of "voluntary" as the absence of coercion through direct human agency is inadequate. It actually DOES matter that people are able to escape the coercion of circumstance, just like many philosophers of the left have argued.
Of course, I was only able to reach that conclusion because I evaluated the arguments themselves, and found them persuasive. If I had stopped at the point where I just rejected the arguments because I disagreed with the motives of my opponents, I would never have learned anything.
In any case: Michael Sandel, you were right and I was wrong. Interesting.
In fairness, it seems like *I* was the one who was tricked. I have actually been converted to the belief that the usual definition of "voluntary" as the absence of coercion through direct human agency is inadequate. It actually DOES matter that people are able to escape the coercion of circumstance, just like many philosophers of the left have argued.
Of course, I was only able to reach that conclusion because I evaluated the arguments themselves, and found them persuasive. If I had stopped at the point where I just rejected the arguments because I disagreed with the motives of my opponents, I would never have learned anything.
In any case: Michael Sandel, you were right and I was wrong. Interesting.
"It actually DOES matter that people are able to escape the coercion of circumstance, just like many philosophers of the left have argued."
ReplyDeleteAgreed on the ends. The prickly problem of the means lingers yet.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'm tempted to leave you be on this, but I just can't abide being mischaracterized, so here goes:
ReplyDeleteI didn't say that we should only consider your motives; I merely pointed out that, by your own admission, your argument was made in something less than good faith. I actually think that the 'eu-' distinction is a good and useful one, but for what is perhaps an entirely different reason than you do.
If I'd truly wanted to play the man, not the ball, as they say, I could have called you a circus clown or a Stepford wife and been done with it, but that's not my modal approach, and, as I said, I think your idea has merit, even if I dislike your rhetorical style.