Re: Law without morals (was Affirmative Act ion case )
In a message dated 1/16/03 3:28:18 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >as a an ethicist friend of mine says, one of the >strongest (and easiest) >moral cases one can make is by pointing to the >contradiction between moral >theory and actual practice (i.e., hypocrisy), >because there's no need to >develop basic moral principles I think that's cheap, actually, not strong. (which some say is >impossible). But no one except philosophers really believes that. (According to >Cornell West's dissertation, Marx's ethics ended up >focussing precisely on >this contradictions.) Not West's strongest argument in my view. jks I have read Cornel West major philosophic writings over the course of the past 25 years. I personally like Cornel and have followed his career as a bourgeois philosopher for the past two decades. This means that I am taken the opportunity to become familiar with his following published writings. "Prophecy Deliverance! An Afro-American Revolutionary Christianity (1982), his CO-authorship of "Theology in Americas: Detroit 2 (1982) - an I attended the events talked about, Prophetic Fragments (1988), "The American Evasion of Philosophy: A Genealogy of Pragmatism (1989), "The Ethical Dimensions of Marxist Thought," (1991) "Breaking Bread: Insurgent Black Intellectual Life (1991), "Beyond Eurocentrism and Multiculturalism. Volume One: Prophetic Thought in Postmodern Times (1993), "Race Matters" (1993) and "Keeping Faith: Philosophy and Race in America (1993). Cornel is a bourgeois philosopher and my brother - in the intimate sense of the word. Everything he writes is more than less riveted to the Negro Question - that is the matter of the black African slaves brought to America and who evolved into a distinct peoples. Thus when I read 9 post about Affirmative Action and none of them talk about the real black people affected and why affirmative action evolved in the first place I am reminded of the infantile conceptualization of the degenerate petite bourgeois intellectual. To reduce affirmative action to ethics and morality is simplemindedness and chauvinism of the highest waters. No. Affirmative action arose as the direct result of the mechanization of agriculture and the need to break the social barriers that prevented the integration oft he black masses in the industrial infrastructure. A legal analysis of this process would of course use the Hayes Tilden Agreement as precedence - and before that the Dred Scott Decision of 1839 . These "moral" questions of legal rights as property were in fact questions concerning the accumulation of capital. Affirmative action has a moral dimension but has never been a moral question except to the property owners and their intellectual lackeys. I assure you that owning me and my children, which requires substantial armed force to impose, is not a moral and ethical question at its base but a question of material wealth and force. Force only appears as a moral and ethical question to that sector of the intelligencia tied to the class applying the force. Ethics are market relations and morality is something that has not been defined by the writers of the 9 post. I have some ideas about the genesis of morality as it erupts from human agency and is transformed on the basis of the changes in the material power of production. The apparent chauvinism of the writers of the 9 post on this subject does not arise from some innate theory or feelings of racial superiority, although that might be there, but "consumption theory." This matter of oppressing peoples and oppressed peoples has been considered by generations of "scholars" on "both sides." Is not "affirmative action" a matter of addressing grievances expressed by the oppressed peoples? Now Corneal West has coined the concept "the conditions of the absurd" in contradiction to the philosophic concept of "tragedy" - which arose as a philosophic concept of predestination - inevitability. But, then again this is an economic talk line. Melvin P.
Law without morals (was Affirmative Act ion case )
--- "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I wrote: > > > As long as we have non-robotic judges, the > > > subjective moral visions of > > > judges will play a role. > > JKS: > > Of course. As I know better than you! > > It's likely, but personal experience isn't always > better than theoretical > understanding, since personal experience is on the > level of anecdotes: it > can give one a vision of the trees without an > understanding of the forest. > (Of course, theoretical understsnding can be wrong, > too.) True, but apart from having seen the subjective moral visions of many different judges operate on actual cases up close and friendly for four years, I like to think I have theoretical understanding too. I've even written on the topic, the paper's seeking a home. ANyway, I can tell you from personal experience that in ordinary judicial decision, evenw hen judgesare doing their jobs (and not going against the moral judgment of the legislature or the Constitution's framers and ratifiers), personal moral judgment enters in, among otherplaces, in discretionary decisions, as well as in what bothers the judge. Judge Cummings was once verey disturbed by a plausible argument of a criminal defendant (bank robber) that there was racial discrimination involved in his jury choice, but couldn't be othered about what I thought was a troublesome aspect of his sentencing. This was because he hated discrimination, but thought that criminals deserved what they got, pretty much. > > My view is that we shouldn't rely on the current > legal system or the > politicians -- but instead should figure out how to > change the balance of > power (favoring the "good guys" of course). Yes, why not both? > But I wasn't advocating the taking of moral stands > by individual judges. Good. > Maybe I might, but I haven't thought about it > enough. You shouldn't. Advocate it that is. Think about is another matter. > > This is way off the subject under discussion (or at > least what I was talking > about, i.e., the contradiction between morality and > the current judicial > system). I think the confusion arises because you are attacking the immorality of the law, as you see it, not focusing narrowly (as I am) on the role of the judge. Hence "judicial system" is misleading. > > as a an ethicist friend of mine says, one of the > strongest (and easiest) > moral cases one can make is by pointing to the > contradiction between moral > theory and actual practice (i.e., hypocrisy), > because there's no need to > develop basic moral principles I think that's cheap, actually, not strong. (which some say is > impossible). But no one except philosophers really believes that. (According to > Cornell West's dissertation, Marx's ethics ended up > focussing precisely on > this contraecitions.) Not West's strongest argument in my view. jks __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
