tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post8641129117535381362..comments2024-03-27T07:18:39.229-05:00Comments on In Medias Res: Canaries in the Coal Mine? (APSA Reflections)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-25859185065530872132009-09-07T18:17:58.682-05:002009-09-07T18:17:58.682-05:00Ah. Okay-- I can see how you might have drawn tha...Ah. Okay-- I can see how you might have drawn that straight equivalency between the moral agreement and teleology, but that was not my intent. Having reread my comment and your response, I now maybe see two things:<br />1. I was trying to agree with Jakob's premise that members of a liberal democracy see their government as a "fair" or moral arrangement, and contracts/laws/constitutions are simply the written form of that "fair" deal. Perhaps the loaded word here is "moral"-- which is by definition what the majority thinks is acceptable. Heh. Now I am using some circular logic.<br />2. If the point of Jakob's argument is the "form" of government and not the agreement/relationship between parties, then either liberal democracies are just inherently good or we're just neck-deep in believing the propaganda around how liberal democracies are inherently good.<br /><br />Who did you see from grad school? Heh-- I just quoted Paul Dyer the other day...djredundanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03458665055655463932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-55397208031089541442009-09-07T13:59:15.713-05:002009-09-07T13:59:15.713-05:00First of all: thanks! and it's fun to be gris...First of all: thanks! and it's fun to be grist for someone else's mill, and see what other directions people take an idea in.<br /><br />"which opens to the door to the argument that the only way to avoid investing political organizations with unwarranted normative presumptions is to look towards non-political forms of social organization entirely."<br /><br />Well, I guess it opens that door, but it doesn't require going through it! My own inclination is to say: live with political forms of social organization, and just do so with lowered moral expectations. Don't go looking for some *other* form of social organization to fill the moral hole that my critical enterprise leaves if it's right! "That we should wish to cast him down and have no one in his place is not a thought that occurs to his mind."Jacob T. Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02575549001627195334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-20417693406445146162009-09-07T13:41:50.228-05:002009-09-07T13:41:50.228-05:00Nate, I hadn't heard that Sen makes use of Ind...Nate, I hadn't heard that Sen makes use of Indian political and legal philosophical sources in his argument; that makes me more interested to read it, or at least look through it. I haven't been terribly impressed with Sen's interventions into discussions having to do with "Asian values" or multiculturalism, and from what you say, it doesn't sound like I'll be impressed with this one. Still, I'll have to give it a look.<br /><br />DJ, Jacob's paper really did prompt some truly fascinating exchanges between him and the audience; I wasn't alone in finding it a compelling presentation. I trust that we'll be seeing a fuller presentation of his argument in due time. As for your specific queries, I'd agree with a strong affirmative to the first (indeed, the idea that the modern, social contractarian liberal state <i>doesn't</i> include an implicit moral teleology strikes me as something that only rathered blinkered liberals and pluralists have ever believed, though Jacob did a good service in robbing them of their blinders, whomever they are), and I'm a little confused by your second. You seem to be equating consent and agreement with teleology, and I don't think that's right. The implicit teleology which Jacob rightly identified in the modern democratic state is much larger than some moralization of the act of agreement; it is a belief that there is a moral "form" of politics wherein our natures our most/best fulfilled. Of course, whether that's a good or bad thing is another issue entirely.Russell Arben Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03366800726360134194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-74103303279355191502009-09-07T13:28:23.736-05:002009-09-07T13:28:23.736-05:00Setting aside the third rail topic of a national h...Setting aside the third rail topic of a national health care plan, I was drawn to your statement about the debate over liberal democracies 'moral teleology' vs. a government based on contractual agreements. Aren't all contracts a simple written record of that moral teleology? More accurately, aren't all contracts assumed to have consent and agreement by both parties (nevermind the semi-circular logic that 'teleology' introduces into any science)? I am sure it was a fascinating discussion.djredundanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03458665055655463932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-51918824787850581612009-09-07T12:48:55.031-05:002009-09-07T12:48:55.031-05:00That last comment was me. Not quite sure why it c...That last comment was me. Not quite sure why it came up as "Law Talk" although it is an appropriate enough sobriquet.Nate Omanhttp://www.concurringopinions.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-19646010616046014882009-09-07T12:47:50.339-05:002009-09-07T12:47:50.339-05:00Sounds like a fun conference. Incidentally, in yo...Sounds like a fun conference. Incidentally, in your interest in comparative political theory have you formed an opinion about Amartya Sen's new book The Idea of Justice. In it he tries to draw on ideas from Indian political and legal theory. My own sense -- about 80 pages into the book -- is that this is mainly literary window dressing rather than a serious engagement with these sources, but I wonder if someone more attuned to the debates in political philosophy might see something different.Law Talkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06361704477074285477noreply@blogger.com