79 ideas
| 11147 | Naturalistic philosophers oppose analysis, preferring explanation to a priori intuition [Margolis/Laurence] |
| Full Idea: Philosophers who oppose conceptual analysis identify their approach as being 'naturalistic'. Philosophy is supposed to be continuous with science, and philosophical theories are to be defended on explanatory grounds, not by a priori intuitions. | |
| From: E Margolis/S Laurence (Concepts [2009], 5.2) | |
| A reaction: [They cite Papineau 1993, Devitt 1996 aand Kornblith 2002] I think there is a happy compromise here. I agree that any philosophical knowledge should be continuous with science, but we shouldn't prejudge how the analytic branch of science is done. |
| 10170 | While true-in-a-model seems relative, true-in-all-models seems not to be [Reck/Price] |
| Full Idea: While truth can be defined in a relative way, as truth in one particular model, a non-relative notion of truth is implied, as truth in all models. | |
| From: E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §4) | |
| A reaction: [The article is actually discussing arithmetic] This idea strikes me as extremely important. True-in-all-models is usually taken to be tautological, but it does seem to give a more universal notion of truth. See semantic truth, Tarski, Davidson etc etc. |
| 10166 | ZFC set theory has only 'pure' sets, without 'urelements' [Reck/Price] |
| Full Idea: In standard ZFC ('Zermelo-Fraenkel with Choice') set theory we deal merely with pure sets, not with additional urelements. | |
| From: E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §2) | |
| A reaction: The 'urelements' would the actual objects that are members of the sets, be they physical or abstract. This idea is crucial to understanding philosophy of mathematics, and especially logicism. Must the sets exist, just as the urelements do? |
| 10175 | Three types of variable in second-order logic, for objects, functions, and predicates/sets [Reck/Price] |
| Full Idea: In second-order logic there are three kinds of variables, for objects, for functions, and for predicates or sets. | |
| From: E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §5) | |
| A reaction: It is interesting that a predicate seems to be the same as a set, which begs rather a lot of questions. For those who dislike second-order logic, there seems nothing instrinsically wicked in having variables ranging over innumerable multi-order types. |
| 10165 | 'Analysis' is the theory of the real numbers [Reck/Price] |
| Full Idea: 'Analysis' is the theory of the real numbers. | |
| From: E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §2) | |
| A reaction: 'Analysis' began with the infinitesimal calculus, which later built on the concept of 'limit'. A continuum of numbers seems to be required to make that work. |
| 10174 | Mereological arithmetic needs infinite objects, and function definitions [Reck/Price] |
| Full Idea: The difficulties for a nominalistic mereological approach to arithmetic is that an infinity of physical objects are needed (space-time points? strokes?), and it must define functions, such as 'successor'. | |
| From: E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §4) | |
| A reaction: Many ontologically austere accounts of arithmetic are faced with the problem of infinity. The obvious non-platonist response seems to be a modal or if-then approach. To postulate infinite abstract or physical entities so that we can add 3 and 2 is mad. |
| 10164 | Peano Arithmetic can have three second-order axioms, plus '1' and 'successor' [Reck/Price] |
| Full Idea: A common formulation of Peano Arithmetic uses 2nd-order logic, the constant '1', and a one-place function 's' ('successor'). Three axioms then give '1 is not a successor', 'different numbers have different successors', and induction. | |
| From: E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §2) | |
| A reaction: This is 'second-order' Peano Arithmetic, though it is at least as common to formulate in first-order terms (only quantifying over objects, not over properties - as is done here in the induction axiom). I like the use of '1' as basic instead of '0'! |
| 10172 | Set-theory gives a unified and an explicit basis for mathematics [Reck/Price] |
| Full Idea: The merits of basing an account of mathematics on set theory are that it allows for a comprehensive unified treatment of many otherwise separate branches of mathematics, and that all assumption, including existence, are explicit in the axioms. | |
| From: E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §4) | |
| A reaction: I am forming the impression that set-theory provides one rather good model (maybe the best available) for mathematics, but that doesn't mean that mathematics is set-theory. The best map of a landscape isn't a landscape. |
| 10167 | Structuralism emerged from abstract algebra, axioms, and set theory and its structures [Reck/Price] |
| Full Idea: Structuralism has emerged from the development of abstract algebra (such as group theory), the creation of axiom systems, the introduction of set theory, and Bourbaki's encyclopaedic survey of set theoretic structures. | |
| From: E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §2) | |
| A reaction: In other words, mathematics has gradually risen from one level of abstraction to the next, so that mathematical entities like points and numbers receive less and less attention, with relationships becoming more prominent. |
| 10169 | Relativist Structuralism just stipulates one successful model as its arithmetic [Reck/Price] |
| Full Idea: Relativist Structuralism simply picks one particular model of axiomatised arithmetic (i.e. one particular interpretation that satisfies the axioms), and then stipulates what the elements, functions and quantifiers refer to. | |
| From: E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §4) | |
| A reaction: The point is that a successful model can be offered, and it doesn't matter which one, like having any sort of aeroplane, as long as it flies. I don't find this approach congenial, though having a model is good. What is the essence of flight? |
| 10179 | There are 'particular' structures, and 'universal' structures (what the former have in common) [Reck/Price] |
| Full Idea: The term 'structure' has two uses in the literature, what can be called 'particular structures' (which are particular relational systems), but also what can be called 'universal structures' - what particular systems share, or what they instantiate. | |
| From: E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §6) | |
| A reaction: This is a very helpful distinction, because it clarifies why (rather to my surprise) some structuralists turn out to be platonists in a new guise. Personal my interest in structuralism has been anti-platonist from the start. |
| 10181 | Pattern Structuralism studies what isomorphic arithmetic models have in common [Reck/Price] |
| Full Idea: According to 'pattern' structuralism, what we study are not the various particular isomorphic models of arithmetic, but something in addition to them: a corresponding pattern. | |
| From: E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §7) | |
| A reaction: Put like that, we have to feel a temptation to wield Ockham's Razor. It's bad enough trying to give the structure of all the isomorphic models, without seeking an even more abstract account of underlying patterns. But patterns connect to minds.. |
| 10182 | There are Formalist, Relativist, Universalist and Pattern structuralism [Reck/Price] |
| Full Idea: There are four main variants of structuralism in the philosophy of mathematics - formalist structuralism, relativist structuralism, universalist structuralism (with modal variants), and pattern structuralism. | |
| From: E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §9) | |
| A reaction: I'm not sure where Chihara's later book fits into this, though it is at the nominalist end of the spectrum. Shapiro and Resnik do patterns (the latter more loosely); Hellman does modal universalism; Quine does the relativist version. Dedekind? |
| 10168 | Formalist Structuralism says the ontology is vacuous, or formal, or inference relations [Reck/Price] |
| Full Idea: Formalist Structuralism endorses structural methodology in mathematics, but rejects semantic and metaphysical problems as either meaningless, or purely formal, or as inference relations. | |
| From: E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §3) | |
| A reaction: [very compressed] I find the third option fairly congenial, certainly in preference to rather platonist accounts of structuralism. One still needs to distinguish the mathematical from the non-mathematical in the inference relations. |
| 10178 | Maybe we should talk of an infinity of 'possible' objects, to avoid arithmetic being vacuous [Reck/Price] |
| Full Idea: It is tempting to take a modal turn, and quantify over all possible objects, because if there are only a finite number of actual objects, then there are no models (of the right sort) for Peano Arithmetic, and arithmetic is vacuously true. | |
| From: E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §5) | |
| A reaction: [compressed; Geoffrey Hellman is the chief champion of this view] The article asks whether we are not still left with the puzzle of whether infinitely many objects are possible, instead of existent. |
| 10176 | Universalist Structuralism is based on generalised if-then claims, not one particular model [Reck/Price] |
| Full Idea: Universalist Structuralism is a semantic thesis, that an arithmetical statement asserts a universal if-then statement. We build an if-then statement (using quantifiers) into the structure, and we generalise away from any one particular model. | |
| From: E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §5) | |
| A reaction: There remains the question of what is distinctively mathematical about the highly generalised network of inferences that is being described. Presumable the axioms capture that, but why those particular axioms? Russell is cited as an originator. |
| 10177 | Universalist Structuralism eliminates the base element, as a variable, which is then quantified out [Reck/Price] |
| Full Idea: Universalist Structuralism is eliminativist about abstract objects, in a distinctive form. Instead of treating the base element (say '1') as an ambiguous referring expression (the Relativist approach), it is a variable which is quantified out. | |
| From: E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §5) | |
| A reaction: I am a temperamental eliminativist on this front (and most others) so this is tempting. I am also in love with the concept of a 'variable', which I take to be utterly fundamental to all conceptual thought, even in animals, and not just a trick of algebra. |
| 10171 | The existence of an infinite set is assumed by Relativist Structuralism [Reck/Price] |
| Full Idea: Relativist Structuralism must first assume the existence of an infinite set, otherwise there would be no model to pick, and arithmetical terms would have no reference. | |
| From: E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §4) | |
| A reaction: See Idea 10169 for Relativist Structuralism. They point out that ZFC has an Axiom of Infinity. |
| 10173 | A nominalist might avoid abstract objects by just appealing to mereological sums [Reck/Price] |
| Full Idea: One way for a nominalist to reject appeal to all abstract objects, including sets, is to only appeal to nominalistically acceptable objects, including mereological sums. | |
| From: E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §4) | |
| A reaction: I'm suddenly thinking that this looks very interesting and might be the way to go. The issue seems to be whether mereological sums should be seen as constrained by nature, or whether they are unrestricted. See Mereology in Ontology...|Intrinsic Identity. |
| 11141 | Modern empiricism tends to emphasise psychological connections, not semantic relations [Margolis/Laurence] |
| Full Idea: A growing number of philosophers are attracted to modified forms of empiricism, emphasizing psychological relations between the conceptual system and perceptual and motor states, not semantic relations. | |
| From: E Margolis/S Laurence (Concepts [2009], 3.2) | |
| A reaction: I suddenly spot that this is what I have been drifting towards for some time! The focus is concept formation, where the philosophers need to join forces with the cognitive scientists. |
| 23101 | Intuitions don't prove things; they just receptivity to interpretations [Kekes] |
| Full Idea: Appeal to intuitions cannot prove or disprove anything. They merely create receptivity to particular interpretations of particular cases. | |
| From: John Kekes (Against Liberalism [1997], 04.3) | |
| A reaction: A nice point, but more is needed. A gun to the head can create receptivity. What distinguishes good from bad intuitions? Why are intuitions different from mere whims or hopes? |
| 11142 | Body-type seems to affect a mind's cognition and conceptual scheme [Margolis/Laurence] |
| Full Idea: It is claimed, on the basis of empirical research, that the type of body that an organism has profoundly affects it cognitive operations and the way it conceptualises the world. We can't assume that human minds could inhere in wildly different body types. | |
| From: E Margolis/S Laurence (Concepts [2009], 3.2) | |
| A reaction: Sounds interesting. They cite Lawrence Shapiro 2004. It needs a large effort of imagination to think how a snake or whale or albatross might conceptualise the world, in relation to their bodies. |
| 11121 | Language of thought has subject/predicate form and includes logical devices [Margolis/Laurence] |
| Full Idea: The language of thought is taken to have subject/predicate form and include logical devices, such as quantifiers and variables. | |
| From: E Margolis/S Laurence (Concepts [2009], 1.1) |
| 11120 | Concepts are either representations, or abilities, or Fregean senses [Margolis/Laurence] |
| Full Idea: The three main options for the ontological status of concepts are to identify them with mental representations, or with abilities, or with Fregean senses. | |
| From: E Margolis/S Laurence (Concepts [2009], 1) |
| 11122 | A computer may have propositional attitudes without representations [Margolis/Laurence] |
| Full Idea: It may be possible to have propositional attitudes without having the mental representations tokened in one's head. ...We may say a chess-playing computer thinks it should develop its queen early, though we know it has no representation with that content. | |
| From: E Margolis/S Laurence (Concepts [2009], 1.1) | |
| A reaction: [Thye cite Dennett - who talks of the 'intentional stance'] It is, of course, a moot point whether we would attribute a propositional attitude (such as belief) to a machine once we knew that it wasn't representing the relevant concepts. |
| 11124 | Do mental representations just lead to a vicious regress of explanations [Margolis/Laurence] |
| Full Idea: A standard criticism is that the mental representation view of concepts creates just another item whose significance bears explaining. Either we have a vicious regress, or we might as well explain external language directly. | |
| From: E Margolis/S Laurence (Concepts [2009], 1.2) | |
| A reaction: [They cite Dummett, with Wittgenstein in the background] I don't agree, because I think that explanation of concepts only stops when it dovetails into biology. |
| 11123 | Maybe the concept CAT is just the ability to discriminate and infer about cats [Margolis/Laurence] |
| Full Idea: The view that concepts are abilities (e.g. found in Brandom, Dummett and Millikan) would say that the concept CAT amounts to the ability to discriminate cats from non-cats and to draw certain inferences about cats. | |
| From: E Margolis/S Laurence (Concepts [2009], 1.2) | |
| A reaction: Feels wrong. The concept is what makes these abilities possible, but it seems rather behaviourist to identify the concept with what is enabled by the concept. You might understand 'cat', but fail to recognise your first cat (though you might suspect it). |
| 11125 | The abilities view cannot explain the productivity of thought, or mental processes [Margolis/Laurence] |
| Full Idea: The abilities view of concepts, by its rejection of mental representation, is ill-equipped to explain the productivity of thought; and it can say little about mental processes. | |
| From: E Margolis/S Laurence (Concepts [2009], 1.2) | |
| A reaction: The latter point arises from its behaviouristic character, which just gives us a black box with some output of abilities. In avoiding a possible regress, it offers no explanation at all. |
| 11140 | Concept-structure explains typicality, categories, development, reference and composition [Margolis/Laurence] |
| Full Idea: The structures of concepts are invoked to explain typicality effects, reflective categorization, cognitive development, reference determination, and compositionality. | |
| From: E Margolis/S Laurence (Concepts [2009], 2.5) |
| 11128 | Classically, concepts give necessary and sufficient conditions for falling under them [Margolis/Laurence] |
| Full Idea: The classical theory is that a concept has a definitional structure in that it is composed of simpler concepts that express necessary and sufficient conditions for falling under the concept, the stock example being unmarried and a man for 'bachelor'. | |
| From: E Margolis/S Laurence (Concepts [2009], 2.1) | |
| A reaction: This is the background idea to philosophy as analysis, and it makes concepts essentially referential, in that they are defined by their ability to pick things out. There must be some degree of truth in the theory. |
| 11130 | Typicality challenges the classical view; we see better fruit-prototypes in apples than in plums [Margolis/Laurence] |
| Full Idea: The classical view is challenged by the discovery that certain categories are taken to be more typical, with typicality widely correlating with other data. Apples are judged to be more typical of (and have more common features with) fruit than plums are. | |
| From: E Margolis/S Laurence (Concepts [2009], 2.1) | |
| A reaction: This discovery that people use prototypes in thinking has been the biggest idea to ever hit the philosophy of concepts, and simply cannot be ignored (as long as the research keeps reinforcing it, which I believe it does). The classical view might adapt. |
| 11129 | The classical theory explains acquisition, categorization and reference [Margolis/Laurence] |
| Full Idea: The appeal of the classical theory of concepts is that it offers unified treatments of concept acquisition (assembling constituents), categorization (check constituents against target), and reference determination (whether they apply). | |
| From: E Margolis/S Laurence (Concepts [2009], 2.1) | |
| A reaction: [See Idea 11128 for the theory] As so often, I find myself in sympathy with the traditional view which has been relegated to ignominy by our wonderful modern philosophers. |
| 11131 | It may be that our concepts (such as 'knowledge') have no definitional structure [Margolis/Laurence] |
| Full Idea: In the light of problems such as the definition of knowledge, many philosophers now take seriously the possibility that our concepts lack definitional structure. | |
| From: E Margolis/S Laurence (Concepts [2009], 2.1) | |
| A reaction: This challenges the classical view, that there are precise conditions for each concept. That view would obviously be in difficulties with atomic concepts, so our account of those might be applied all the way up. |
| 11132 | The prototype theory is probabilistic, picking something out if it has sufficient of the properties [Margolis/Laurence] |
| Full Idea: In the prototype theory of concepts, a lexical concept has probabilistic structure in that something falls under it if it satisfies a sufficient number of properties encoded by the constituents. It originates in Wittgenstein's 'family resemblance'. | |
| From: E Margolis/S Laurence (Concepts [2009], 2.2) | |
| A reaction: It would seem unlikely to be a matter of the 'number' of properties, and would have to involve some notion of what was essential to the prototype. |
| 11133 | Prototype theory categorises by computing the number of shared constituents [Margolis/Laurence] |
| Full Idea: On the prototype theory, categorization is to be understood as a similarity comparison process, where similarity is computed as a function of the number of constituents that two concepts hold in common. | |
| From: E Margolis/S Laurence (Concepts [2009], 2.2) | |
| A reaction: Again it strikes me that 'computing' similarity by mere 'number' of shared constituents won't do, as there is a prior judgement about which constituents really matter, or are essential. That may even be hard-wired. |
| 11134 | People don't just categorise by apparent similarities [Margolis/Laurence] |
| Full Idea: When it comes to more reflexive judgements, people go beyond the outcome of a similarity comparison. Even children say that a dog surgically altered to look like a raccoon is still a dog. | |
| From: E Margolis/S Laurence (Concepts [2009], 2.2) | |
| A reaction: We can defend the theory by not underestimating people so much. Most categorisation is done on superficial grounds, but even children know there may be hidden similarities (behind the mask, under the bonnet) which are more important. |
| 11135 | Complex concepts have emergent properties not in the ingredient prototypes [Margolis/Laurence] |
| Full Idea: An objection to the prototype view concerns compositionality. A complex concept often has emergent properties, as when it seems that 'pet fish' encodes for brightly coloured, which has no basis in the prototypes for 'pet' or 'fish'. | |
| From: E Margolis/S Laurence (Concepts [2009], 2.2) | |
| A reaction: I would take 'pet fish' to work like a database query. 'Fish' has a very vague prototype, and then 'pet fish' narrows the search to fish which are appropriate to be pets. We might say that the prototype is refined, or the Mk 2 prototype appears. |
| 11136 | Many complex concepts obviously have no prototype [Margolis/Laurence] |
| Full Idea: Many patently complex concepts don't even have a prototype structure, such as 'Chairs that were purchased on a Wednesday'. | |
| From: E Margolis/S Laurence (Concepts [2009], 2.2) | |
| A reaction: [The example seems to be from Fodor] I disagree. If we accept the notion of 'refining' the prototype (see Idea 11135), then the compositionality of the expression will produce a genuine but very unusual prototype. |
| 11137 | The theory theory of concepts says they are parts of theories, defined by their roles [Margolis/Laurence] |
| Full Idea: The theory theory of concepts says that terms are related as in a scientific theory, and that categorization resembles theorising. It is generally assumed that scientific terms are interdefined so that content is determined by its role in the theory. | |
| From: E Margolis/S Laurence (Concepts [2009], 2.3) | |
| A reaction: I never like this sort of account. What are the characteristics of the thing which enable it to fulfil its role? You haven't defined a car when you've said it gets you from A to B. |
| 11138 | The theory theory is holistic, so how can people have identical concepts? [Margolis/Laurence] |
| Full Idea: A problem with the theory theory of concepts is that it is holistic, saying a concept is determined by its role, not by its constituents. It then seems difficult for different people to possess the same concepts (or even the same person, over time). | |
| From: E Margolis/S Laurence (Concepts [2009], 2.3) | |
| A reaction: This seems a good objection to any holistic account of concepts or meaning - spotted by Plato in motivating his theory of Forms, to give the necessary stability to communication. |
| 11139 | Maybe concepts have no structure, and determined by relations to the world, not to other concepts [Margolis/Laurence] |
| Full Idea: According to conceptual atomism, lexical concepts have no semantic structure, and the content of a concept isn't determined by its relation to other concepts but by its relations to the world. | |
| From: E Margolis/S Laurence (Concepts [2009], 2.4) | |
| A reaction: [They cite Fodor 1998 and Millikan 2000] I like the sound of that, because I take the creation of concepts to be (in the first instance) a response to the world, not a response to other concepts. |
| 11146 | People can formulate new concepts which are only named later [Margolis/Laurence] |
| Full Idea: People seem to be able to formulate novel concepts which are left to be named later; the concept comes first, the name second. | |
| From: E Margolis/S Laurence (Concepts [2009], 4.2) | |
| A reaction: [This seems to have empirical support, and he cites Pinker 1994] I do not find this remotely surprising, since I presume that human concepts are a continuous kind with animal concepts, including non-conscious concepts (why not?). |
| 23086 | Liberals say we are only responsible for fully autonomous actions [Kekes] |
| Full Idea: The liberal view is that people can be held responsible only for actions that are in their control: actions that reflect the agents' unforced choices, evaluations, and understanding of their significance - that is, autonomous actions. | |
| From: John Kekes (Against Liberalism [1997], 01.5) | |
| A reaction: Kekes, who is a somewhat right wing anti-liberal, thinks people should be mainly held responsible for the consequences, unless they have a very good excuse. |
| 23100 | Collective responsibility conflicts with responsibility's requirement of authonomy [Kekes] |
| Full Idea: The ascription of collective responsibility is inconsistent with …the belief that people should be held responsible for only their own autonomous actions. | |
| From: John Kekes (Against Liberalism [1997], 04) | |
| A reaction: The autonomy would need to be displaced, from the decision to act to the decision of identify with the organisation. But if you invest in an evil group you are responsible for actions you never even knew occurred (never mind autonomy). |
| 23093 | Moral and causal responsibility are not clearly distinct [Kekes] |
| Full Idea: Moral and causal responsibility cannot be distinguished as clearly as the liberal strategy requires. | |
| From: John Kekes (Against Liberalism [1997], 03.2) | |
| A reaction: I take assessment to be a two-stage operation. It is usually easy to assign causal responsibility. Moral responsibiity is quite different. Our negligence can make us morally responsible for an event we didn’t cause. |
| 23096 | Morality should aim to prevent all evil actions, not just autonomous ones [Kekes] |
| Full Idea: If one main task of morality is to prevent evil, then morality must be concerned with all evil-producing actions, not just autonomous ones. | |
| From: John Kekes (Against Liberalism [1997], 03.3) | |
| A reaction: Hm. Is placing a railing next to a flight of steps a moral action? Possibly. |
| 23087 | Much human evil is not autonomous, so moral responsibility need not be autonomous [Kekes] |
| Full Idea: If much evil is due to nonautonomous actions, then liberals cannot be right in idenitfying the domain of moral responsibility with the domain of autonomy. | |
| From: John Kekes (Against Liberalism [1997], 02.1) | |
| A reaction: One might evade this anti-liberal thought by making responsibility directly proportional to degree of autonomy. Then the only counterexample would be genuine immorality that is entirely non-autonomous, but is there such a thing? |
| 23098 | Effects show the existence of moral responsibility, and mental states show the degree [Kekes] |
| Full Idea: Psychological states are relevant to the degree of an agent's moral responsibility, while the effects of their actions are relevant to whether the agents are liable to moral responsibility. | |
| From: John Kekes (Against Liberalism [1997], 03.5) | |
| A reaction: He has previously offered a problem case for this, where someone's social role makes them fully responsible whatever their mental state. I still think his distinction is helpful. 1) Whose fault is it, then 2) How far are they to blame? Normal practice. |
| 23089 | Evil people may not be autonomously aware, if they misjudge the situation [Kekes] |
| Full Idea: Agents who perform evil nonautonomously do not know what they are doing, because they have made a mistake in understanding or evaluating their own conduct. | |
| From: John Kekes (Against Liberalism [1997], 02.4) | |
| A reaction: So while liberals say that true evil must be autonomous, Kekes says it may result from factual or evaluative error, for which people are also responsible. |
| 23094 | Ought implies can means moral responsibility needs autonomy [Kekes] |
| Full Idea: Ought implies can translates into the claim that only autonomous agents are morally responsible. | |
| From: John Kekes (Against Liberalism [1997], 03.3) | |
| A reaction: Since Kekes identifies autonomy as the key to liberalism, he sees this also as a basic liberal claim (which he rejects). I ought to ring my mother, but my phone is broken (so I ought not to ring my mother?).. |
| 23095 | Why should moral responsibility depend on autonomy, rather than social role or experience? [Kekes] |
| Full Idea: Why should moral responsibility be made to depend on autonomy, rather than on intelligence, education, social role, experience, or whatever? | |
| From: John Kekes (Against Liberalism [1997], 03.3) | |
| A reaction: Social role seems a particularly good one to cite. 'I didn't really understand what I was doing.' 'But it's your job to understand!' |
| 23090 | Liberals assume people are naturally free, equal, rational, and morally good [Kekes] |
| Full Idea: The view of human nature at the core of the liberal faith is that human beings are by their nature free, equal, rational, and morally good. | |
| From: John Kekes (Against Liberalism [1997], 02.5) | |
| A reaction: These four claims are quite distinct, and should be evaluated separately. I think I'm something of a liberal, but I don't really accept any of them. Hm. I just want all people to have these attributes. |
| 23117 | Love should be partial, and discriminate in favour of its object [Kekes] |
| Full Idea: Love is personal and partial. It is not love if it does not discriminate in favor of its object. | |
| From: John Kekes (Against Liberalism [1997], 09.4) | |
| A reaction: I agree with that, mainly on the grounds that this is the natural form of human love. Generalised love of mankind seems like a distortion, even if it is well-meaning. |
| 23119 | Sentimental love distorts its object [Kekes] |
| Full Idea: Love is sentimental if it exaggerates the virtues and minimises the vices of its object. | |
| From: John Kekes (Against Liberalism [1997], 09.5) | |
| A reaction: Not sure about this. It implies that we should retain a streak of cold evaluative objectivity, even about the people we love most. There is difference between knowing a person's qualities, and the importance we attach to those qualities. Forgive vices! |
| 23088 | Evil is not deviation from the good, any more than good is a deviation from evil [Kekes] |
| Full Idea: There is no more reason to think of evil as deviation from the good than there is to think of the good as deviation from evil. | |
| From: John Kekes (Against Liberalism [1997], 02.2) | |
| A reaction: This is a political moderate right winger defending the concept of evil as a basic and inescapable component of existence, in contrast to liberals who tend to deny 'pure evil'. |
| 23097 | What matters for morality is the effects of action, not the psychological causes [Kekes] |
| Full Idea: What is crucial to morality are the good and evil effects of human actions, not their psychological causes. | |
| From: John Kekes (Against Liberalism [1997], 03.4) | |
| A reaction: The context is his attack on the liberal idea that morality only concerns the actions of autonomous agents. Kekes says he is not a full consequentialist. He just urges that consequences be given greater weight. Even Kant must care about that. |
| 23099 | It is said that if an agent is not autonomous then their evil actions don't reflect on their character [Kekes] |
| Full Idea: Liberals deny the reflexivity of evil, …to prevent the evil consequences of an agent's morally deplorable actions from redounding to their detriment. Evil actions are allowed to reflect on their agents only if the agents cause them autonomously. | |
| From: John Kekes (Against Liberalism [1997], 03.5) | |
| A reaction: A central question of morality is essentialising character. That is, when does an eater of carrots become a carrot-eater? When does a performer of wicked deeds become a wicked person? Never, say many liberals. Wrong, says Kekes. |
| 23118 | Awareness of others' suffering doesn't create an obligation to help [Kekes] |
| Full Idea: It is a mistaken assumption that knowledge of the sufferings of others creates an obligation to help them. | |
| From: John Kekes (Against Liberalism [1997], 09.4) | |
| A reaction: A nice question is when that knowledge does become an obligation. The obvious criteria are proximity to the suffering, and capacity to relieve it. But then a wealthy person couldn't walk down the street without such obigations. Hm. |
| 23109 | The veil of ignorance is only needed because people have bad motivations [Kekes] |
| Full Idea: If the darker aspects of human motivation did not exist, there would be no need for Rawls to place his people behind the veil of ignorance. | |
| From: John Kekes (Against Liberalism [1997], 07.2) | |
| A reaction: All the critics observe that Rawls's blind choosers are nothing like as simple as the mere specks of rationality he seems to imagine. The usual objection is that they are already liberals, but this objection says they are already benevolent. |
| 23114 | The chief function of the state is to arbitrate between contending visions of the good life [Kekes] |
| Full Idea: The chief function of the state is seen to be to maintain what is referred to as the dialogue or conversation among the contending visions of how life should be lived. | |
| From: John Kekes (Against Liberalism [1997], 08.4) | |
| A reaction: This is Kekes's defence of 'pluralism'. It is not liberal, because liberal freedom, autonomy and equality is only one of the competing visions of the good life. Almost every state suppresses some such visions. |
| 23116 | Citizenship is easier than parenthood [Kekes] |
| Full Idea: It is much easier to be a good citizen than it is to be a good parent. | |
| From: John Kekes (Against Liberalism [1997], 09.4) | |
| A reaction: A nice observation. It is shocking how many people are bad citizens, given the limited demands. I think philosophers have some responsibility for beliefs and values which people bring to their citizenship. Parents need communal support. |
| 23103 | Power is meant to be confined to representatives, and subsequent delegation [Kekes] |
| Full Idea: Universal adult suffrage and representative government are intended to give everyone equal initial political power, and assure that delegation is the only legitimate means to acquiring greater power. | |
| From: John Kekes (Against Liberalism [1997], 05.1) | |
| A reaction: The delegation bit is where it all goes wrong. Once you've packed your representative off to the capital, you lose nearly all control over what sort of delegation happens next. It is hard to trust representatives voters have barely met. |
| 23107 | Prosperity is a higher social virtue than justice [Kekes] |
| Full Idea: If social institutions were to have a first virtue, …prosperity would be a much stronger candidate that justice. | |
| From: John Kekes (Against Liberalism [1997], 06.3) | |
| A reaction: Kekes occasionally pays lip service to ecological issues, but this shows he is not serious. Endless economic growth will kill our planet, so it should never be our prime virtue. Also the impplication that you can't be too prosperous is plainly false. |
| 23081 | Liberal basics are pluralism, freedom, rights, equality, and distributive justice - for autonomy [Kekes] |
| Full Idea: The basic liberal values are pluralism, freedom, rights, equality, and distributive justice. What makes them basically valuable is that they enable individuals to live autonomously. | |
| From: John Kekes (Against Liberalism [1997], 01.2) | |
| A reaction: Helpful. Kekes identifies respect for autonomy as the single value which unites all liberal doctrines (and he traces it back to Kant). |
| 23085 | The key liberal values are explained by the one core value, which is autonomy [Kekes] |
| Full Idea: Liberals regard pluralism, freedom, rights, equality and distributive justice as basic …but this particular group of values is explained by the true core of liberalism, the inner citadel for whose protection all the liberal battles are waged: autonomy. | |
| From: John Kekes (Against Liberalism [1997], 01.5) | |
| A reaction: Given that children, soldiers, monks and nuns, and people in old folks homes have very limited autonomy, it is reasonable to query whether it really is so important. I like autonomy if I have external power over my life; not so good when in hospital. |
| 23092 | Agents have little control over the capacities needed for liberal autonomy [Kekes] |
| Full Idea: It is important [for liberals] to realise that agents have no control over their possession of the capacities and opportunities on which their autonomy depends. | |
| From: John Kekes (Against Liberalism [1997], 03.2) | |
| A reaction: It can be replied to Kekes that they also have little control over the capacities upon which his prized 'desert' depends. It may be an axiom of all modern political thought that people have less control than we imagine. |
| 23102 | Liberals are egalitarians, but in varying degrees [Kekes] |
| Full Idea: All liberals are egalitarians, though they may be more or less so. | |
| From: John Kekes (Against Liberalism [1997], 05.1) | |
| A reaction: In the broadest view, this may be the one thing which distinguishes generalised liberals from the rest. To reject it needs a basis for the rejection, and every basis for its flat rejection is anathema to liberals. |
| 23084 | Are egalitarians too coercive, or not egalitarian enough, or lax over morality? [Kekes] |
| Full Idea: Egalitarian liberalism is criticised by classical [freedom] liberals for its coercive redistribution, by socialist liberals for not being egalitarian enough, and by conservative liberals for abandoning moral standards in the guise of neutrality. | |
| From: John Kekes (Against Liberalism [1997], 01.4) | |
| A reaction: Income tax is 'coercive' distribution, but it is done with general consent in most liberal democracies. An interesting line between the needs of the state and the needs of its most needy citizens. |
| 23079 | Liberal justice ignores desert, which is the essence of justice [Kekes] |
| Full Idea: The liberal conception of justice …excludes the essence of justice: desert. | |
| From: John Kekes (Against Liberalism [1997], Pref) | |
| A reaction: Certainly our normal concept of justice includes such thoughts as 'serves him right'. The trouble with the Kekes view is his society is continually morally judging people, and most people's grounds for that are fairly irrational. It's why we have courts. |
| 23091 | Why do liberals not see a much wider range of values as basic? [Kekes] |
| Full Idea: Why are prosperity, order, civility, peace, a healthy environment, security, happiness, and law-abidingness not as important as those thought of by liberals as basic? | |
| From: John Kekes (Against Liberalism [1997], 02.5) | |
| A reaction: This presumes that liberals only see a narrow core of values as basic to the structure of the society. Presumably every society should be well disposed towards the nice features listed here. Would their absence wreck the society? |
| 23112 | Liberals ignore contingency, and think people are good and equal, and institutions cause evil [Kekes] |
| Full Idea: Liberals comfortably believe that autonomy minimises contingency, that humans are disposed to the good, that wickedness is due to remediable institutions, and that humans are morally equal because of their autonomy. | |
| From: John Kekes (Against Liberalism [1997], 07.4) | |
| A reaction: In a nutshell, Kekes thinks liberals are naďve. That institutions cause evil sounds more Marxist than liberal. When individuals become evil, it is reasonable for us to think that this need not have been the case. |
| 23082 | Liberal distribution cares more about recipients than donors [Kekes] |
| Full Idea: Liberal distribution cares more about the rights of the recipients than the rights of the donors. | |
| From: John Kekes (Against Liberalism [1997], 01.2) | |
| A reaction: Even if you are very left wing indeed, this is an important point. A society dominated by a powerful Robin Hood (steal from the rich, for the poor) is quite likely to end in civil war. But should society allow huge individual wealths to accumulate? |
| 23106 | To rectify the undeserved equality, we should give men longer and women shorter lives [Kekes] |
| Full Idea: Redistribution ought to aim to equalise the life expectancy of men and women, by making men have longer and women shorter lives. | |
| From: John Kekes (Against Liberalism [1997], 05.4) | |
| A reaction: This is a nice satirical counterexample to the Rawlsian claim that 'undeserved inequalities should somehow be compensated for' [Rawls 1971: 100]. See also Kurt Vonnegut's story 'Harrison Bergeron'. |
| 23121 | It is just a fact that some people are morally better than others [Kekes] |
| Full Idea: It is an obviolus fact that some people are morally better than others and that some are morally worse. | |
| From: John Kekes (Against Liberalism [1997], 10.4) | |
| A reaction: This could be conceded, without then asserting that the moral ones are superior, or more deserving. That is a social strategy, rather than a fact. We can challenge the criteria for 'morally better', but we can't deny a rankng once it is agreed. |
| 23105 | It is not deplorable that billionaires have more than millionaires [Kekes] |
| Full Idea: It is certainly not intuitively deplorable that billionaires have more money than millionaires. | |
| From: John Kekes (Against Liberalism [1997], 05.3) | |
| A reaction: Nice point. His claim is that sufficiency is the important feature, and equality is largely irrelevant. The reality, though, is that the billionaires, unlike the millionaires, could solve the insufficiency problem. |
| 23120 | The problem is basic insufficiency of resources, not their inequality [Kekes] |
| Full Idea: If everyone has sufficient resources, it is not objectionable that some have more than others. What is objectionable is that some do not have enough. | |
| From: John Kekes (Against Liberalism [1997], 10.3) | |
| A reaction: Reasonable, but there seems to be sharp disagreement between the haves and the have-nots over what counts as 'enough'. In an affluent country, does enough include a car, restaurant dining, and foreign holidays? Or just food and shelter? |
| 23108 | Justice combines consistency and desert; treat likes alike, judging likeness by desert [Kekes] |
| Full Idea: Justice is a combination of consistency and desert. Like cases should be treated alike, and likenesses should be evaluated according to desert. | |
| From: John Kekes (Against Liberalism [1997], 06.3) | |
| A reaction: [compressed] He needs to add that at least the desert should be relevant to the events being assessed. Should people not get a fair trial if they are branded as generally 'undeserving'? Hence the case must be judged before the desert is identified. |
| 23083 | Liberal welfare focuses on need rather than desert [Kekes] |
| Full Idea: In welfare legislation, liberals concentrate on what people need rather than on what they deserve. | |
| From: John Kekes (Against Liberalism [1997], 01,2) | |
| A reaction: He makes assessing what people 'deserve' sound easy. Do drowning people deserve to be rescued? Do billionaires deserve their wealth (which is not the same as 'did they acquire it legally')? What do rude people deserve? |
| 23113 | Sexual morality doesn't require monogamy, but it needs a group of sensible regulations [Kekes] |
| Full Idea: A moral tradition need not be committed to monogamy, but it must regulate sexual conduct to prevent inbreeding, protect the sexually immature, prohibit some forms of coercion, and assign responsibility for raising children. | |
| From: John Kekes (Against Liberalism [1997], 08.1) | |
| A reaction: Wise words, I would say. The sexual liberation which arose with the contraceptive pill rather swamped thoughts of this type. These are just sensible responses to the facts of life. |