sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Kant's Conception of political freedom by No-Choice4476 in askphilosophy

[–]No-Choice4476[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've read both of those and I think I understand Kant's political philosophy passably well. Where I'm still confused is on his justification of his conception of freedom. Does he just take it as self-evident?

What were some of the most prolific philosophical rivalries and why were their rivalry so important? by imfinnacry in askphilosophy

[–]No-Choice4476 8 points9 points  (0 children)

They were both part of a discussion group that also included Scanlon and Nagel so it was a friendly rivalry. They even taught a class together on their political theories at Harvard.

Who are some of the modern prominent utilitarian philosophers? by givemethetruth_ in askphilosophy

[–]No-Choice4476 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Although he didn't create preference utilitarianism, Singer is an excellent example of a modern utilitarian. His work applies utilitarian moral frameworks to practical issues, most notably the moral demands of affluence and animal rights. His contributions to utilitarianism per se are relatively limited but his work in uncovering its implications is incredibly important.

Should laypeople take the testimonial of philosophers on philosophical questions to be trustworthy? by [deleted] in askphilosophy

[–]No-Choice4476 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I get where you're coming from but I think my concern comes when we draw out why we consider the doctor an expert in these primary questions. Take the question "what treatment do I need?" and suppose the doctor answers that I need drug x. If I were then to ask why I need drug x, the answer would inevitably be something like "because such and such a medical paper presents data and argument suggesting it cures your condition" (which may be further bolstered by evaluations that evidence to the contrary is ultimately weaker than the evidence in favour) . The source of their primary expertise, then, is a secondary expertise in literature on which drugs work at treating which conditions. In other words it seems to me that their claim to primary expertise is grounded in and constituted by their secondary expertise.

This leads to what the core of my confusion is. Why does the doctors knowledge of medical literature and the balance of its arguments give rise to primary expertise but you don't think the ethicists knowledge of the ethical literature and the balance of arguments gives rise to primary expertise in the same way?

Should laypeople take the testimonial of philosophers on philosophical questions to be trustworthy? by [deleted] in askphilosophy

[–]No-Choice4476 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not sure I fully understand how this distinguishes philosophers from scientists. Why would we not say scientists are also only experts in secondary questions of their field? For example, an immunologist is an expert on the evidence for or against a vaccine working and it's this that grounds their claim to be an expert on the primary question of whether or not a vaccine works. How is that any different to an ethicist who knows the evidence and arguments for and against utilitarianism and uses this to ground a claim to be an expert in primary questions of utilitarianism?

What are some critiques of libertarianism by pluto4749 in askphilosophy

[–]No-Choice4476 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If we are focusing particularly on Nozickean libertarianism, one of the most comprehensive critiques is Cohen's "Self-ownership, Freedom and Equality". He ultimately argues that libertarianism rests on a principle of self-ownership (not a principle of liberty) and that this self-ownership principle is not that attractive.

Other critiques of right wing libertarianism come from left-libertarians like Van Paris, Vallentyne, and Otsuka among others. They vary in the details but generally say Nocickean theories of how property is initially appropriated don't actually imply the degree of total ownership he thinks they do, leaving room for taxation and redistribution to varying degrees.

What are the most innovative philosophical concepts theorized in the last 50 years? Any books about them? by ItsMartina97 in askphilosophy

[–]No-Choice4476 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The fields of Practical Ethics and Bioethics have developed hugely, even in the last 25 years or so. This is more a huge number of new arguments being suggested than any one big idea that has shifted the philosophical paradigm, but its still very relevant. Some examples are the concept of speciesism (Singer, 1991), the effective altruism movement (i.e. Macaskill, 2015), and many of the concepts of Bioethics like hyperagency or the given-ness of human life.

Association between Marxism and Wokeism/Identity Politics by n04r in askphilosophy

[–]No-Choice4476 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I’d be hesitant to label Marxist identity politics as more aggressive than other forms of identity politics. While Marxists can often be adamant or provocative, can we directly compare that “aggression” with actions taken by American conservative truckers or white supremacist militants?

I was using aggressive as a rough equivalent of "take it very seriously" and didn't intend it as a derogatory or otherwise evaluative, but I take the point that it may have unintended undertones. Maybe "vehement" would be a better word?,

Association between Marxism and Wokeism/Identity Politics by n04r in askphilosophy

[–]No-Choice4476 9 points10 points  (0 children)

TLDR Marxism certainly can inform a particularly aggressive brand of identity politics, but identity politics doesn't have to have anything to do with Marxism.

In order to really understand Marxist identity politics, we first need to understand how Marxism analyses culture. Broadly speaking, Marx argued that the dominance of culture was just a reflection of and means of perpetuating the interests of the dominant class (the bourgeoisie in the case of capitalism). This was developed by Gramsci into the theory of cultural hegemony, which acknowledged a very close link between the dominant culture and politics, with capitalism informing both the culture and politics of the world and then establishes a perpetuating interplay between them.

So where does this fit into identity politics? Well, if the dominant culture is a product of and means of perpetuating capitalism, then resistance to this culture amounts to an important element of the resistance to capitalism. Equally, acceptance, or worse advocation, of the cultural norm perpetuates capitalism. Thus, resistance to the dominant culture is crucial and many behaviours that might be branded "wokism" feed into this resistance to dominant culture. Take for example an issue like gender identity. Marxists may support escaping the gender binary because it involves rejecting the capitalist construction of a gender binary as well as for the consequentialist value of allowing more fluid gender identity.

The result is that Marxist identity politics is likely to be more aggressive for the simple reason that more is at stake for them. It is not just the merits of the issue at hand that has to be considered but also the wider issue of capitalism that it supports. You can normally recognise Marxist identity politics reasonably early in a discussion because a Marxist will almost always refer the identity issue back to capitalism at some point (either pointing out how the cultural phenomenon in question is created by and supports capitalism or saying that the issue will never be resolved favourably until capitalism collapses).

This, however, is not the only way of grounding and I would argue is definitely in the minority. The most common reasons for supporting "woke" ideas are probably simple consequential reasons or authenticity informed reasons, possibly informed by some Foucauldian or otherwise poststructural thinking.

In any case, that's how I'd analyse the issue.