Comments on: The Princeton Principles

By: Julian Sanchez

Julian Sanchez — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 19:18:29 +0000

While it’s always comforting when the group nof people who disagree with you seem to comprise mostly illiterates, it does make it rather difficult to carry on a debate, doesn’t it?

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:51:23 +0000

Your argument may be refuted with one sentence!

Marriage is the union of two [2] diverse components, entities or beings!

I know you are an expert on diversity, but have you any skill in word usage?

By: Luka

Luka — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 22:52:16 +0000

Classic final sentence!

By: Glen

Glen — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 01:34:13 +0000

“Pre hoc” sounds better, but I’m pretty sure the correct Latin would be “ante hoc.”

By: Grant Gould

Grant Gould — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 01:27:47 +0000

I think that you are actually catching sight of a deeper aspect of modern conservative philosophy when you note that they interpret “A->B” into “AB”. There seems to be an increasing shift in certain quarters to speaking of A being “intrinsically connected” with B, or of B being “intimately, inextricable tied to” A.

This shows up as well with the increasing fondness among conservatives for virtue ethics, which convenienty explicitly denies that A->B differs from AB for morally relevant behaviours and values A and B. If a bad character can cause a bad behaviour, the bad behaviour will cause that bad character in return. Prove the behaviour and, whether pre- or post-hoc, you have proven the character, abracadabra. Call the character bad and, hocus-pocus, the behaviour is bad as well.

A cynical person might find in this talk of “intrinsic connections” and “virtues and character” a search for a way to bootstrap moral arguments in the absence of any empricial foundation or half-decent is-ought bridge. After all, it’s a line of reasoning that lets you treat any circular argument as a solid footing to build from. Perhaps they are jealous of the leftist academy?