Regarding the Harper's Letter, and the response that, for instance, Andrew Sullivan cheered on the Iraq War and was intolerant of those with dissenting views...
this is an argument for the truth of the Letter, surely.
That was bad then, and it produced bad consequences by tilting the public discourse against the side that would have made some move to deescalate.
Only with an excessive focus on identity could this be seen as a response to the Letter, as opposed to a requisite focus on consequences and principles.
Reasonable Society - political philosophy with a pragmatic bent, toward convergence and consensus in order to bring results in the real world Twitter: @R3snbleSciety
Showing posts with label discursive standards. Show all posts
Showing posts with label discursive standards. Show all posts
Monday, July 20, 2020
Thursday, April 13, 2017
Impact, not Intent?
Calcifying into dogma in some left-of-center circles is the (proposed) principle expressed by phrases like "intent isn't magic" and "impact matters, not intent." This is the kind of thing common in certain communities on social and online media, but also is the type of platitude uncritically accepted and then promulgated by administrators and their student activist confreres in contexts like orientation sessions for new students. Imagine a fresh arrival on campus, maybe--for the vividness of the argument--think of a graduate student in ethics and moral philosophy, or a law student ready to pursue truth only to find some questions provided answers before any classes even begin, answers decided by non-academics and with an air of stipulation that brooks no criticism or dissent.
The more recent "oops/ouch" discursive instructions from a few schools are another example, provided that entailed along with having to say "oops" is an admission and acceptance that the "ouch"-causing utterance was wrongful and to refrain from repeating it or similar verbal "oops"s.
Plenty more could be said on the absurdity of this status of received wisdom being afforded to this particular principle ('impact, not intent'), but suffice it to say that this absurdity is underscored by the fact that someone like Kant ('nothing can be said to be unqualifiedly good other than a good will') is apparently ruled fully wrong not only a priori, but even without any argument at all.
The more recent "oops/ouch" discursive instructions from a few schools are another example, provided that entailed along with having to say "oops" is an admission and acceptance that the "ouch"-causing utterance was wrongful and to refrain from repeating it or similar verbal "oops"s.
Plenty more could be said on the absurdity of this status of received wisdom being afforded to this particular principle ('impact, not intent'), but suffice it to say that this absurdity is underscored by the fact that someone like Kant ('nothing can be said to be unqualifiedly good other than a good will') is apparently ruled fully wrong not only a priori, but even without any argument at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)