10529
|
If Hume's Principle can define numbers, we needn't worry about its truth [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
Neo-Fregeans have thought that Hume's Principle, and the like, might be definitive of number and therefore not subject to the usual epistemological worries over its truth.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Precis of 'Limits of Abstraction' [2005], p.310)
|
|
A reaction:
This seems to be the underlying dream of logicism - that arithmetic is actually brought into existence by definitions, rather than by truths derived from elsewhere. But we must be able to count physical objects, as well as just counting numbers.
|
10530
|
Hume's Principle is either adequate for number but fails to define properly, or vice versa [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
The fundamental difficulty facing the neo-Fregean is to either adopt the predicative reading of Hume's Principle, defining numbers, but inadequate, or the impredicative reading, which is adequate, but not really a definition.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Precis of 'Limits of Abstraction' [2005], p.312)
|
|
A reaction:
I'm not sure I understand this, but the general drift is the difficulty of building a system which has been brought into existence just by definition.
|
10527
|
An abstraction principle should not 'inflate', producing more abstractions than objects [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
If an abstraction principle is going to be acceptable, then it should not 'inflate', i.e. it should not result in there being more abstracts than there are objects. By this mark Hume's Principle will be acceptable, but Frege's Law V will not.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Precis of 'Limits of Abstraction' [2005], p.307)
|
|
A reaction:
I take this to be motivated by my own intuition that abstract concepts had better be rooted in the world, or they are not worth the paper they are written on. The underlying idea this sort of abstraction is that it is 'shared' between objects.
|
23530
|
The great danger of democracy is that the oppression of the minority becomes unobjectionable [Hart,HLA]
|
|
Full Idea:
For Mill and De Tocqueville the greatest of the dangers was not that in fact the majority might use their power to oppress a minority, but that, with the spread of democratic ideas, it might come to be thought unobjectionable that they should do so.
|
|
From:
H.L.A. Hart (Law,Liberty and Morality [1963], III 'Populism')
|
|
A reaction:
This was vivid in the 2016 Brexit referendum, which was 52-48 in favour of leaving. There were lots voices saying 'you lost, get over it'. It should be a basic (if neglected) principle that the winners of elections now represent the whole population.
|
23528
|
The value of liberty allows freedom of action, even if that distresses other people [Hart,HLA]
|
|
Full Idea:
Recognition of individual liberty as a value involves, as a minimum, acceptance of the principle that the individual may do what he wants, even if others are distressed when the learn what it is that he does.
|
|
From:
H.L.A. Hart (Law,Liberty and Morality [1963], II 'Private')
|
|
A reaction:
He notes that there could be other reasons to block the freedom, such as harm done. This idea seems to identify a key component of liberalism - that we must all tolerate actions which we dislike.
|
23521
|
Do morals influence law? Is morality an aspect of law? Can law be morally criticised? [Hart,HLA]
|
|
Full Idea:
Four questions: 1) Has the development of law been influenced by morals? 2) Must reference to morality enter into an adequate definition of law or legal system? 3) Is law open to moral criticism? 4) Does immorality justify legal punishment?
|
|
From:
H.L.A. Hart (Law,Liberty and Morality [1963], I 'Enforcement')
|
|
A reaction:
[compressed] Three nice questions, which are his agenda for the book. It is obvious that immoral laws can be created, and that laws can be criticised for being too concerned with morality, so there is no clear general answer to these dilemmas.
|
23527
|
Moral wickedness of an offence is always relevant to the degree of punishment [Hart,HLA]
|
|
Full Idea:
Leslie Stephen argued that when the question is how severely an offender should be punished, an estimate of the degree of moral wickedness involved in the crime is always relevant.
|
|
From:
H.L.A. Hart (Law,Liberty and Morality [1963], II 'Moral')
|
|
A reaction:
[Stephen 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity' 1873] The degree of responsibility (after excuses etc.) is obviously also highly relevant. If vicious murder is punished more harshly, that seems to be an assessment of the character of the murderer.
|