Subject: Re: [HAB:] re: Sue, "Getting ethical by getting highly self-identical" today
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 19:59:43 +0100


Gary,

It wasn't WHAT you wrote that was the problem.
It was the fact you took it off-list.  Is it any
wonder so few list members post messages, when 
if they do the responses go back to them off-list.
That's hardly encouraging people to ask questions
or tell about their own interpretations of Habermas,
is it. Not exactly an ideal speech situation, I'm sure
Jurgen would agree.

Sue McPherson

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gary E. Davis" <coherings-AT-yahoo.com>
To: <habermas-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 6:44 PM
Subject: [HAB:] re: Sue, "Getting ethical by getting highly self-identical" today


> 
> Sue writes> I don't know Gary Davis. All I know is the
> first time I sent a message to the list he took it
> off-list to respond to.
> 
> G: Below is the email that Sue is referring to. 
> 
> 
> Sue, I'm sorry that you may have found personal
> response to you inappropriate. 
> 
> The email was completely on topic, so I might well
> have sent it to everyone. 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Sat, 21 Aug 2004
> Re: [HAB:] Coping with ethical akrasia
> 
> Sue (if I may),
> 
> Thanks for your comments. I'm glad that a new voice
> has appeared at the Spoon list. It's rather amazing
> that hundreds subscribe, but so few post. 
> 
> --- Sue McPherson <sue-AT-mcphersons.freeserve.co.uk>
> wrote:
> 
> >  I'm not sure that trustworthiness is what this
> [ethics vs. law issue] is about; in fact, I think it
> probably isn't.  In relation to an ethical approach to
> life's dilemmas I think the problem is more to do with
> self-interest and how a particular action (or law)
> affects others, and probably particularly in the
> longterm.
> 
> G: I can agree. But, then, it's self-interest that
> makes one unreliable in caring about the interests or
> rights of others which, in turn, requires regulation
> via law. It's self-interest that makes people
> untrustworthy. So, sure, trustworthiness isn't the
> nature of the issue, just the effect that calls for
> regulation of self-interest. From the perspective of
> experience by the other or objectively, we can't rely
> on self-interest to care about others; we can't trust
> others to care *due to* self-interest. 
> 
> > So weakness of will - how Gary describes akrasia -
> seems not to   be the problem, but rather, how the
> will is exerted.
> 
> G: I realized after I sent the email that 'akrasia'
> might be unknown to readers, since (I discovered) it's
> not in my standard dictionaries (not even a search of
> Encyclopedia Britannica online turns up an entry for
> the term). It's a term often used in philosophy, from
> Greek, which is standardly (among philosophers)
> defined as "weakness of will."
> 
> Usually, everybody (including those dominated by
> self-interest) agree that "we" should care about
> others. But self-interest gets the better of us, even
> though we know we "should" care more about others.
> What is it about us that lets self-interest dominate
> our better  sense? "You" know you should be more
> courteous on the road, but you've got your priorities.
> It's a weakness of will, at least: the norms  are
> unquestionably valid (traffic rules prevent accidents,
> if everyone follows them), but we push our luck
> anyway. 
> 
> Do continue to post. 
> 
> Gary 
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


     --- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---