Comments on: Separateness of Persons http://www.juliansanchez.com/2008/02/27/separateness-of-persons/ Just another geek in the geek kingdom Thu, 09 Feb 2012 05:38:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2 By: Julian Sanchez http://www.juliansanchez.com/2008/02/27/separateness-of-persons/comment-page-1/#comment-3831 Julian Sanchez Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:18:00 +0000 http://archive.juliansanchez.com/2008/02/27/separateness-of-persons/#comment-3831 Hmm, that's an interesting point, and I'll go a certain distance with it, but not all the way. Rawls has a lot more argumentative machinery between the intuition and his substantive theory of rights than Nozick does. Hmm, that’s an interesting point, and I’ll go a certain distance with it, but not all the way. Rawls has a lot more argumentative machinery between the intuition and his substantive theory of rights than Nozick does.

]]> By: The Whaler http://www.juliansanchez.com/2008/02/27/separateness-of-persons/comment-page-1/#comment-3830 The Whaler Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:25:16 +0000 http://archive.juliansanchez.com/2008/02/27/separateness-of-persons/#comment-3830 I think he's a former student of David Schmidtz. One of the things Schmidtz and his students once pointed out to me seemed surprising at first, but then I thought was quite astute. They said that while it may be true that Nozick stakes his whole argument on an assumption he doesn't give much justification for--rights as side constraints--the Schmidtz crowd said nevertheless he was assuming no more than Rawls does in Theory. That assumption: the moral importance of maintaining the seperateness of persons. So it's interesting to see a close analysis of this. I think he’s a former student of David Schmidtz. One of the things Schmidtz and his students once pointed out to me seemed surprising at first, but then I thought was quite astute. They said that while it may be true that Nozick stakes his whole argument on an assumption he doesn’t give much justification for–rights as side constraints–the Schmidtz crowd said nevertheless he was assuming no more than Rawls does in Theory.

That assumption: the moral importance of maintaining the seperateness of persons. So it’s interesting to see a close analysis of this.

]]> By: cassandrus http://www.juliansanchez.com/2008/02/27/separateness-of-persons/comment-page-1/#comment-3829 cassandrus Thu, 28 Feb 2008 02:24:05 +0000 http://archive.juliansanchez.com/2008/02/27/separateness-of-persons/#comment-3829 It seems like his claim that (paraphrasing) "persons possess moral status, rather than just bearing moral weight." is just a kantian "people are never means, always ends" gussied up a bit. It seems like his claim that (paraphrasing) “persons possess moral status, rather than just bearing moral weight.” is just a kantian “people are never means, always ends” gussied up a bit.

]]>