aka Dorman: Even the Frakfurt School's criticism of pragmatism seems wanting after Rorty, so I am not going to take issue with your own (pragmatic) approach to ethics - even if I still think that Kant's ethical philosophy was a theoretical breakthrough. Only want to remind you that Jeffrey Reiman uses the Kantian notion of a universal moral law to defend the traditional Marxist interpretation of exploitation - that expoitation occurs during production through the *forced* extraction of surplus labor - against the Roemerian definition which says that exploitation is a result of an unjust distribution of assets. Reiman calls his theory the 'labor theory of moral value'. > Again, I don't care much what Kant's motives were, as long as the concepts he > left me can be useful for *my* purposes. In the case of what I called the > "nonexploitation principle", it is empirically verified in the risk perception > literature, at least within those communities that have been sampled. I found > lots of support for it in my reading of labor history wrt dangerous work. > While I have made a few arguments in its behalf, I am not so naive as to think > that it represents an exclusive, unassailable ethical position. It's just a > value to place alongside other values. Whether it will continue to guide > human behavior in the future or whether it is applicable to the great variety > of non-western cultures across the globe -- well, I don't know. These things > will require more study, I would imagine. > > Peter (aka Dorman) > > Ricardo Duchesne wrote: > > > > So in the case of Kant, I find it useful in my own work to bring in > > > concepts of Kantian moral reasoning. I've looked at them and checked to > > > see if there is hidden baggage, but I haven't found any. Like many > > > others on this list, I suspect, I was drawn to Kant because philosophers > > > use his perspective as a pole of opposition to utilitarianism -- and the > > > critique of economic utilitarianism is an important part of the critique > > > of neoclassical economics generally. > > > > Dorman, > > > > Recall that Kant sought to find a moral law based on reason and > > reason alone, as the only way one could formulate a universal > > criterion of moral value. He argue against Hume that an > > empirical study of morality, of the customs and values of different > > cultures, would forever remained trapped within the relativity of > > such values. But Hegel was correct that Kant only gave > > us the *form* of this law - as if such a law arose strictly out > > of the genius of Kant's mind, rather than being an expression of the > > self-knowledge that the human community had come to achieve at that > > time. > > - > >
