tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post112044923263722275..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: Enabling HumanityRichard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1120611884113164212005-07-05T21:04:00.000-04:002005-07-05T21:04:00.000-04:00Yeah, I'm pretty sure. "Maximin" has always struck...Yeah, I'm pretty sure. "Maximin" has always struck me as rather stupid and irrational. (See, e.g., my posts <A HREF="http://pixnaps.blogspot.com/2005/04/veil-of-ignorance.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> and <A HREF="http://pixnaps.blogspot.com/2005/05/best-distribution.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.) But I don't know Rawls all that well, so if you think I've misinterpreted him, do let me know.Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1120597119090759412005-07-05T16:58:00.000-04:002005-07-05T16:58:00.000-04:00Are you sure you wouldn't really prefer to be a Ra...Are you <I>sure</I> you wouldn't really prefer to be a Rawlsian than a utilitarian (of some stripe)?MHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00573343122387060193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1120552900083727652005-07-05T04:41:00.000-04:002005-07-05T04:41:00.000-04:00I think just about any theory runs into the same p...I think just about any theory runs into the same problems. <BR/>But it is OK for you to position yourself on a "slipery slope" as long as you know that is what you are doing.<BR/>GeniusNZAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1120529543453820812005-07-04T22:12:00.000-04:002005-07-04T22:12:00.000-04:00Am I at risk of a slippery slope here? Perhaps we ...Am I at risk of a slippery slope here? Perhaps we should instead resolve conflicts in such a way as to maximize substantive freedom (if such a thing can be quantified). So there would be trade-offs <I>like</I> in utilitarianism, but with a slightly different goal in mind. I'm not too sure about this though, it's quite a tricky issue. Any other suggestions? (Should we just appeal to utilitarianism to resolve <I>all</I> conflicts? That seems to overlook the lesson of indirect utilitarianism though; I can imagine it having very bad consequences...)Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1120515083098260632005-07-04T18:11:00.000-04:002005-07-04T18:11:00.000-04:00Make that "between various claims of negative and ...Make that "between various claims of negative and substantive freedom"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1120514875802895762005-07-04T18:07:00.000-04:002005-07-04T18:07:00.000-04:00Richard,If you think that disputes between negativ...Richard,<BR/><BR/>If you think that disputes between negative freedom should be solved in a utilitarian manner, how should we resolve disputes between utilitarian reasoning and the demands of substantive freedom?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1120467073966174062005-07-04T04:51:00.000-04:002005-07-04T04:51:00.000-04:00Here are a couple of things to think about1) If su...Here are a couple of things to think about<BR/><BR/>1) If substantive freedom means having lots of options what if they are bad options?<BR/>2) If it means having good options then can we say adding an extra bad option does no harm?<BR/><BR/>3) If you present a person with a million bad options and one good option they will sometimes (often) choose a bad one due to lack of attention (for example)<BR/><BR/>Is that drop in utility scenario a good thing? Or is enabling humanity only valuable in as far as it represents a utility gain?<BR/><BR/>OR<BR/><BR/>LEVEL 1 - we assume we cant properly understand what anyone wants <BR/> result - we allow each person to be free - for example free to blow smoke in others faces. <BR/><BR/>LEVEL 2 - we assume we can tell what people around person X want and determine we should take action on it since they may not be able to<BR/> result - we stop smoking in others faces but we permit suicide etc (reducing personal freedom)<BR/><BR/>LEVEL 3 - we presume we can tell what person X and everyone else want and assume we should take action on it.<BR/> result - we prevent suicide and "wrap people in cotton wool".<BR/><BR/>the funny thing is that net freedom may improve as you go from 1 --> 3 since it could involve preventing you from making choices that will greatly reduce your freedom (like suicide).<BR/><BR/>One has to wonder why one would stop at 2 and not go on to 3 unless one really wanted to go back to 1.Geniushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11624496692217466430noreply@blogger.com