Nathan Johnson on Apr 14, 2008 at 08:12 AM:

"Without adherence to moral absolutes society can not be expected to govern itself."

Who's morality?

Johanan Raatz on Apr 14, 2008 at 09:22 AM:

"Who's morality?"

At the time of the Founding Fathers moral principles were deemed "self-evident" (natural rights based on natural law). In the ideal setting I hold to this view. I think moral principles can be derived from reason (I'm a Kant fan though I have some room for utilitarianism as well) and under dispassionate settings people can come to agreement on them.

Now technically Hobbes's political philosophy was derived in an amoral setting. The moral psychology of the human's in Hobbes's view of the state of nature were not so very dissimilar from that of sociopaths. So the morality of the Hobbesian "Leviathan" was the one existentially chosen by the soveriegn "Decider." Like the decisions of the decider or not, they are necessary as they prevented the state of nature(war of all against all) from appearing. The state of nature is a pure anarchy (in the bad sense) and is to be avoided at all costs because then everyone is maximally free and yet maximally unfree.

Now I don't subscribe to Hobbes's conception of morality but I believe that due to the popular moral psychology of today some elements of Hobbes's political philosophy are becoming increasingly relevant. If people are governed by separate standards of morality that produces a situation where rights take on a mutable nature and can be violated. To protect those rights, Leviathan must be employed to impose a single morality.

Johanan Raatz on Apr 14, 2008 at 09:26 AM:

Nathan,

BTW this is good you asked this question. It reminds me of our discussion of moral relativism. This is why I dislike it. I prefer Locke to Hobbes as I believe he is more civil, but in a society where moral relativism becomes increasingly the norm, Hobbes by logical necessity becomes increasingly relevant.

Johanan Raatz on Apr 14, 2008 at 12:29 PM:

I guess the reason I originally assumed you were not a moral relativist was that you once told me that an "unjust law is no law at all."

That isn't compatible with moral relativism though. If morality is truely relative then justice is a joke.

JF on Apr 14, 2008 at 06:43 PM:

"As a man of the right I am finally coming around on the whole big government thing."

Neoconservatism is based on big government. As well as constantly expanding that huge government, but not for the welfare of all, just for their own welfare. Every dynamic sector of the American economy receives massive state subsidies. Corporations are the biggest welfare freaks on the planet. Don't assume all leftists have the same views. I prefer small government, which can happen once corporations no longer have the rights of living persons.

Nathan Johnson on Apr 15, 2008 at 08:31 AM:

Morality doesn't float around in the air, morality has to be held by a person. In the time before humans there was no concept of morality.

Trotsky- Their Morals and Ours: "whoever is not satisfied with eclectic hodge-podges must acknowledge that morality is a product of social development; that there is nothing invariable about it; that it serves social interests; that these interests are contradictory; that morality more than any other form of ideology has a class character."

Johanan Raatz on Apr 15, 2008 at 09:44 AM:

"Morality doesn't float around in the air, morality has to be held by a person. In the time before humans there was no concept of morality."

Ok this is probably ultimately a debate over metaethics and metaphysics. You are locked into a materialist paradigm here. Now that's fine but in its extreme cases when it undermines platonism it becomes obviously wrong. Platonic conceptions are a priori true vs. material conceptions which can only be known a posteriori. As such when materialism contradicts platonism, platonism is correct. I know morality exists transcendently because have a clear irreducible a priori conception of it. It can be known on self-reflection.

Now that materialist metaphysics comes up in this context, I will have to say I'm not a materialist. My metaphysics can best be described as a sort of informationalist neoplatonism. In this context the idea that moral values evolve as a species evolves is only an approximation. In actuality we evolve to discover morality. This makes more sense as we know upon reflection that morality exists a priori. Extreme materialist scientism is too narrow to encompass mental objects like morality or awareness. Informationalism provides a much better paradigm as it is free from those constraints and works just as well if not better as a metaphysics that is compatible with a philosophy of science

"Trotsky- Their Morals and Ours: "whoever is not satisfied with eclectic hodge-podges must acknowledge that morality is a product of social development; that there is nothing invariable about it; that it serves social interests; that these interests are contradictory; that morality more than any other form of ideology has a class character."

So you think ideals are to serve humans rather than vice-versa. That's a very anti-idealist depressing outlook on life. This kind of anti-platonism is a fundamental flaw in today's left. Furthermore it locks out any pretext for civility and necessitates Hobbes's Leviathan thus confirming the validity of my Hobbesianism. Without a pretext for doing so you have absolutely now right to complain about what capitalist pigs do or what Bush does.

"that these interests are contradictory;"

Hence the need for Leviathan to overpower these contradictions and rectify them.

"that it serves social interests;"

If that really is the case that ideals are to serve social interests, then I shall resolve to ensure that my interests are met --even if I need to unleash Leviathan to do it.

How can you possibly retain civility in a society if debate becomes meaningless and "winning" becomes a mere contest of the wills? If you do things this way the stronger always win. So this is not a good pretext for a Marxist to promote his cause on. If the proletariat get to cheat then so do the bourgeousie, but the bourgeousie are in a better position to leverage their power. By taking this position you are putting yourself at a strategic disadvantage.

Johanan Raatz on Apr 15, 2008 at 09:53 AM:

"Neoconservatism is based on big government."

Well then it makes sense that I'm neoconservative.

"As well as constantly expanding that huge government, but not for the welfare of all, just for their own welfare. Every dynamic sector of the American economy receives massive state subsidies. Corporations are the biggest welfare freaks on the planet."

Yes, this is unfortunate. However from a neoconservative point of view corporate power can be a useful tool to rectify democratic contradictions. Remember my "Capitalism and Democracy" article? It will be less necessary in a more moral civil society.

If we retained the kind of civility at the time of the Founding Fathers we would only need a small government. Of course their was slavery which I would not want either so I might opt for the medium sized government during Lincoln's time, but you get my point.

Uncivil people need a big government to govern them civil people only require a small government.

"Don't assume all leftists have the same views."

I know. I've met leftists of all varieties.

"I prefer small government, which can happen once corporations no longer have the rights of living persons."

I would prefer a smaller government if possible, but a bigger government is more compatible with my goals in today's society.

Johanan Raatz on Apr 15, 2008 at 10:43 AM:

Nathan;

I couldn't disagree more with Trotsky on this point. The fact that he says these things demonstrates he completely misunderstands what morality is about, and leads me to question his moral character.

Nathan Johnson on Apr 15, 2008 at 11:52 AM:

Let me put it simply:

If there were absolute morality and "self evident truths," then we wouldn't be arguing about morality in the first place. If it is so self evident, then how come no two people have the same morality?

Most of the Founding Fathers thought slavery was self-evidently awesome.

If slavery is self evidently wrong, how come it took the Civil War to abolish it? How come the south could not be "morally pursuaded?" Could it be because of southern bourgeoisie had a material interest in slavery?

About yourself Johanan: you say its okay for the American bourgeosie to use terrorism but nobody else- so much for being outside of history and beyond class distinctions! You yourself cannot practice moral absolutism, but end up in predictable double standards. As a "Christian" you should know it is against the Commandments to kill, yet you still accept Americans killing Vietnamese Communists, peasants across South America, or Iraqis as we see fit. Where is your moral absolutism now? To you that is all okay, but it is wrong for the poor and working classes to defend themselves against violence with violence, ending up in the absurdity that the international working class should submit to class domination. If that were to happen, we'd see fascism and labor camps all over again.

By actually asking the ruling class to be more authoritative, you are practicing what Nietzsche called "slave morality." What you are asking for clearly hurts the working class, but of course it is possible for some members of the working class to work on behalf of the ruling class for material advantages and favors. Or out of ignorance, they offer their services to the ruling class freely.

Johanan Raatz on Apr 15, 2008 at 12:20 PM:

"By actually asking the ruling class to be more authoritative, you are practicing what Nietzsche called "slave morality." What you are asking for clearly hurts the working class, but of course it is possible for some members of the working class to work on behalf of the ruling class for material advantages and favors. Or out of ignorance, they offer their services to the ruling class freely."

I'm part of the American middle class. I benefit from the ruling class. So if you want to boil it down to self-interest I have self-interest for them to win.

"If that were to happen, we'd see fascism and labor camps all over again."

You don't provide a moral defense against fascism though.

Johanan Raatz on Apr 15, 2008 at 12:52 PM:

"As a "Christian" you should know it is against the Commandments to kill, yet you still accept Americans killing Vietnamese Communists, peasants across South America, or Iraqis as we see fit. Where is your moral absolutism now?"

Killing isn't the same as murder, and the Bible prescribes killing of evildoers in some cases so you can't use that one on me. Now as for the instances you point out sometimes killing in wartime is morally justified. Not all of our governments actions are entirely moral, but often they are forced to do the best in the situation even if it is less than ideal.

"About yourself Johanan: you say its okay for the American bourgeosie to use terrorism but nobody else- so much for being outside of history and beyond class distinctions!"

I didn't say American bourgeousie. I said Americans. I'm kind of dissappointed that you have no patriotism at all here.

"If slavery is self evidently wrong, how come it took the Civil War to abolish it? How come the south could not be "morally pursuaded?" Could it be because of southern bourgeoisie had a material interest in slavery?"

Well Lincoln used Leviathan on them, and I supported him for doing so. Many paleolibertarians hate Lincoln for this. Interestingly they call him a prototype of Straussian neoconservativism which they also hate.

If you look at the rhetoric of slave-holders of the day. They were using moral relativism. They used "choice" rhetoric which is awefully familiar sounding.

I would like to see Leviathan used again but this time to end abortion (without a civil war though).

"You yourself cannot practice moral absolutism, but end up in predictable double standards."

The fact that you can't distinguish between justified actions and unjustified doesn't mean I hold double standards. Not all actions are the same.

"If there were absolute morality and "self evident truths," then we wouldn't be arguing about morality in the first place. If it is so self evident, then how come no two people have the same morality?"

Because we are in Plato's cave to some extent. We don't see things clearly like we should but we do see something.

Now Nathan with this position what makes you morally superior to that TS individual on the other article?

Johanan on Apr 15, 2008 at 01:25 PM:

Nathan;

Nietzsche's morality is the opposite of love. If you love someone you are not acting out of self-interest. The idea of using ideals rather than serving them is based on the idea of acting out of self-interest.

Johanan on Apr 15, 2008 at 03:12 PM:

Nathan, not all interests are class interests.

Peter on Apr 15, 2008 at 03:48 PM:

Interesting a communist. So now Nathan how exactly is the government supposed to enforce the law when it's authority is undermined?

Nathan Johnson on Apr 15, 2008 at 06:56 PM:

Peter, good question. In socialism the workers take greater part in government and unions- participatory democracy supersedes representative democracy. The workers united in self management surpass the role of the state. The state exists as a result of class society; the state exists in our society (capitalist society) to reinforce the class divisions by protecting private property, ensuring stable relations of production (the national guard was originally set up to break strikes), etc. When the working class comes to power, the role of the state diminishes parallel to the class divisions in society. During the Spanish Revolution of 1936 one slogan of the communists was "a government of steel workers!" The state is still necessary under socialism, but becomes increasingly unnecesary as time goes on. However, you may ask how come the state isn't withering away in Cuba for instance. 1) Cuba is a bureaucratized workers state, and the bureaucracy has a material interest in the existence of the state. 2) As long as capitalism has the upper hand internationally, and is the system of the largest economic countries the Cuban government cannot abolish its military, for instance, since there is always the threat of aggression. That is only one reason why socialism must eventually be international.

Nathan Johnson on Apr 15, 2008 at 07:21 PM:

Johanan,

It is well known that communist revolutions are essentially bloodless until the capitalist reaction. Hardly anyone died in the October Revolution, Cuban Revolution, Vietnam, etc. But people did die when capitalists unleashed war to reclaim their private property. Che was justified.

If you read any Nietzsche you would know he criticized the German bourgeosie repeatedly, and was the polar opposite from them. The Nazis took his writing out of context to validate their fascism, much as Stalin took Marxism out of context. Since you ask for more authority from a bourgeosie which has already repealed habeas corpus, I would sooner expect you to endorse fascism than Nietzsche.

Nietzsche: "For heaven's sake, do not throw Plato at me. I am a complete skeptic about Plato, and I have never been able to join in the admiration for the artist Plato which is customary among scholars. In the end, the subtlest judges of taste among the ancients themselves are here on my side. Plato, it seems to me, throws all stylistic forms together and is thus a first-rate decadent in style: his responsibility is thus comparable to that of the Cynics, who invented the satura Menippea. To be attracted by the Platonic dialogue, this horribly self-satisfied and childish kind of dialectic, one must never have read good French writers- Fontenelle, for example [I recommend Guy DeBord, Johanan.] Plato is boring. In the end, my mistrust of Plato goes deep: he represents such an aberration from all the basic instincts of the Hellene, is so moralistic, so pre-existently Christian- he already takes the concept 'good' for the highest concept- that for the whole phenomenon Plato I would sooner use the harch phrase "higher swindle," or, if it sounds better, 'idealism,' than any other."

Nathan Johnson on Apr 15, 2008 at 08:01 PM:

To make exceptions to a Commandment is moral relativism; it means the Commandment is not a Commandment at base. If the 6th Commandment is a moral absolute, then how can killing sometime be "justified?" I'd say that would be an instance of moral relativism.

For an especially twisted instance of moral relativism, see Psalm 137: "O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us- he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks."

The Babylonian infants are innocent of any crime- so how can their death be justified?

Johanan Raatz on Apr 15, 2008 at 08:15 PM:

To make exceptions to a Commandment is moral relativism; it means the Commandment is not a Commandment at base. If the 6th Commandment is a moral absolute, then how can killing sometime be "justified?"

Alright if you want to get technical... The Hebrew word that was translated to "kill" in English actually means murder in Hebrew and is to be distinguished from "kill." Furthermore it would make no sense whatsoever for this distinction to not exist as the penalty for murder under Mosaic law was death (hence killing).

"I'd say that would be an instance of moral relativism."

No. Also before this goes further I would like to comment that I do not considering utilitarianism to be inherently relativist. It often is when it adopts existentialism but true relativism is existentialism.

"For an especially twisted instance of moral relativism, see Psalm 137: "The Babylonian infants are innocent of any crime- so how can their death be justified?"

So moral relativism is twisted but you claim to be a moral relativist?

Why do you suppose we are still in Iraq? I know some soldiers behave badly as per the other article but we stay there in part because we do not want more innocent people to die--something that would certainly happen were we to just abandon them.

Nathan Johnson on Apr 15, 2008 at 08:29 PM:

As a final note, I'm not really sure of anything when it comes to morality. I mean, both the materialist and the idealist views are unsatisfactory to me. I don't believe in either of them; but materialism presents less contradictions in my eyes. I believe in God and I still think in terms of right and wrong, for the most part, like I think killing an infant would be wrong. The statement "everything is relative" is an absolute, which negates what it just said. So I really don't know, and I don't mean to pretend that I do know.

Johanan, if you see me in person- let's just not talk about politics/economics/philosophy. I think we both agree on science.

Johanan Raatz on Apr 15, 2008 at 08:33 PM:

"It is well known that communist revolutions are essentially bloodless until the capitalist reaction."

Oh come on. It is well known that in a fascist state no one needs to die unless they break the law. An armed robbery is essentially bloodless until someone fights back. This is a terrible argument.

"Hardly anyone died in the October Revolution, Cuban Revolution, Vietnam, etc."

OK what about all of the people who risk their lives to escape Cuba and the ones who risked their lives to escape Russia.

"But people did die when capitalists unleashed war to reclaim their private property."

Yeah armed robbers die when the police shoot them. This is common sense. That doens't make the police the bad guys.

"Che was justified."

Che was a mass-murderer, a torturer, and a terrorist who should have been executed sooner before all of those innocent people had to die.

"If you read any Nietzsche you would know he criticized the German bourgeosie repeatedly, and was the polar opposite from them."

That doesn't mean he didn't like the proletariat either. He attacked the bougeousie for being passive not for being exploiters. Fascists don't like bourgeous morality, but your kidding yourself if that means they are on your side.

"The Nazis took his writing out of context to validate their fascism,"

That's disputable because people like to whitewash the guy.

Your quote of Nietzsche demonstrates exactly why I dislike him as a philosopher. He is interesting but he is ultimately a sophist because he rejects the existence of truth.

James on Apr 16, 2008 at 02:11 AM:

You say that if materialism ever contradicts platonism, platonism has to win. Why?

Johanan on Apr 16, 2008 at 09:30 AM:

"You say that if materialism ever contradicts platonism, platonism has to win. Why?"

Platonism is a priori. Materialism isn't. You can tell that "Truth" exists by introspection before you observe the outside world hence it is more certain.

Johanan Raatz on Apr 16, 2008 at 09:33 AM:

"I believe in God and I still think in terms of right and wrong, for the most part, like I think killing an infant would be wrong. The statement "everything is relative" is an absolute, which negates what it just said. So I really don't know, and I don't mean to pretend that I do know."

Well that's good. To some extent we are still in the Plato's Cave. I hope you find your way out because the Sun really does shine outside.

"Johanan, if you see me in person- let's just not talk about politics/economics/philosophy. I think we both agree on science."

Well thank you about that. You had me a little worried for a bit there.

Jem Hilton on Apr 16, 2008 at 11:30 AM:

Johann,

I'm not sure where you studied political philosophy (here at UW?), but if so, I wish that you had paid more attention in class. Unfortunately, you are mistaken on a number of historical and philosophical matters, which makes your argument extremely confused. Let's take a look at the mistakes you committed:

1) Hobbes was writing during a time of great political upheaval, and he supported the absolute right of the monarch to maintain peace. The only "natural right" that Hobbes endorsed, as I understand it, was the right to protect one's own interests. Hobbes believed that by our own rationality, we would set up a social contract that would protect individual interests, under the auspices of a totalitarian state that kept peace and order, but did not protect "human rights" in a robust sense. Admittedly, Hobbes included some provisos about the legitimacy of the government that could be overridden if it did not in fact protect the interests of its citizens, but it is unclear whether Hobbes thought that rebellion, or resistance to authority was a moral right, or a matter of prudence. Hobbes certainly did not believe in "checks and balances". Locke did.

2) Locke also lived in a time great political upheaval. His major contribution, beyond Hobbes, was his insistence that political authority rest in the consent of the governed. Locke developed an early form of a social contract theory that developed into modern liberalism (not to be confused with contemporary liberalism). Locke did not necessarily advocate for a democratic state, but rather advocated for a separation of state powers that influenced the founders of the United States in their construction of the Constitution.

3)I am assuming that you understand (1) and (2), which makes me wonder why you insist on the continued assertion that "society was more civil then, than today." That statement is ambiguous. It is an empirical matter whether individual people were more "civil" to each other than they are today, but that is not what we are talking about when we use the term "civil society". Rather, we mean the aggregate interests and social activities of a people distinguished from the powers of the state. It is not a quantifiable term. As far as I can tell, you mean the former, that people were less mean to each other, or acted more morally toward one another in the good old days. Maybe...but its irrelevant to the justness of a political order. It is rather a matter of proper moral education, or something to that effect. But people can be genuinely good to each other in a totalitarian state, or in an anarchist commune. You have to provide the argument that the constitution of the state directly results in a certain form of moral behavior. You have not.

4) You have no idea what Rawls's theory of justice actually is (or when he wrote it). If you did, you would see that it has no original relationship whatsoever to the attacks on modernism and the "moral relativism" of the critical movements of the 1960's, since it was written after them. He did not reason that the contents' of one's position did not matter, but rather that the particular contents of one's thought (biased interests) needed to be abstracted away from (in a form of a priori reasoning) in order to determine the moral and political conditions for a truly just, fair, and egalitarian society. This sort of society, ostensibly, would protect the rights of people to have any particular beliefs, so long as they are subsumed under a conception of a second-order good that serves as the ultimate guide for setting up political institutions. In this way, he valued "civility" as you put it. But he did not endorse an anything goes policy. Nor has his conception been abused by radicals. He has often, in fact, been the target of attacks by critics who view his position as overly modern.

5) Your reductive approach to lumping all critics of modernism in the same boat is unhelpful and disingenuous. Some argued against Western civilization wholesale. Many held relativist, or pluralist views of morality. But these debates and positions are far more heterogeneous and technical than you seem to understand. Some in fact did "hate" the West, and had good reason to (see Fanon, among others). The lingering effects of colonialism did not leave many parts of the world in better shape than the colonists "found" them. Others were reacting to philosophical problems, not political ones. However, without some of the political radicalism that emerged from this period, we would still have legally segregated schools (as opposed to actually segregated schools like we still have today), few, if any, laws regulating pollution, wheelchair ramps, more gender inequality, no rights for LGBT's, etc. Though, I suspect that you might applaud this scenario (in the name of civility, of course).

Your argument, then, as I understand it, is that liberalism leads to moral relativism, which allows people to be mean to each other, or cause dissent within society. We need a strong and awesome totalitarian state to inject the rule of force back into society. The result will be more civility and the rule of law.

From the rest of your argument, i gather that you don't think the rule of law comes from the consent of the governed. Fair enough. But don't be surprised when people start becoming very uncivil (like Europe during Hobbes' time, England during Locke's time, Germany during Hegel's time, and America during Nixon's time).

Finally, please stop writing about things that you haven't taken the time to understand. If you need help, come stop by the Philosophy department and the grad. students will be happy to disabuse you of your false beliefs.

Johanan Raatz on Apr 16, 2008 at 05:11 PM:

Jem Hilton;

Firstly I would like to thank you for your response. It was conprehensive and educated.

Now I would like to say that I have taken the time to understand these things. I was minoring in philosophy until very recently and I do know the material. My views may be colored to some extent by how I was taught them. However, from reading your post I'd gather that more importantly we've separated on several important junctions and because of that we've come to distinctly different interpretations.

Now as to my rebuttal:

1.)Hobbes: You are correct about Hobbes's disbelief of robust human rights. The trouble is that in a Hobbesian context moral rights and matters of prudence are co-mingled and become indistinguishable. For him morality is based on self-interest and hence prudence in protecting ones interests. I'm actually very critical of him for introducing this notion into modern political philosophy. The trouble is that now that this notion is there, the classical Greek view of robust natural rights and justice needs to be defended in a Hobbesian context as though it was based on self-interest. So ultimately I disagree with Hobbes's view of human moral psychology but structurally I think he is necessary when that psychology becomes degraded. As for "checks and balances" I meant that in a Straussian context where the classical view of natural rights is to be kept distinct from the concept of rights based on self-interest. So the purpose is to basically employ Hobbesian structure for Platonic ends.

2) Locke: I understand Locke lived during a time of political upheaval. However it wasn't the same kind of upheaval as you would expect with Hobbes. In particular at the time of American Revolution the people who adopted his philosophy were civil to each other and thus could create a consensual government. At the time the incivility was between the colonies and Britain not inside the colonies. Now that said consent of the governed could only exist if there is a pretext to consent. Locke's view wasn't just a purely structural contract theory as is sometimes assumed. Unlike Hobbes he disagreed on human moral psychology. In Hobbes the only thing humans have in common is game theory. Locke however subscribed to a common human nature which is a necessary component of his political philosophy. You can't have consent of the governed without a pretext for that consent. If consent does not exist it must be manufactured. During the time of the Founding Fathers consent was based on the propositional statement in the Declaration (We hold these truths to be self-evident...) that was needed for our Constitutional government.

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” ~John Adams

3.)Rawls: You are right about the timing of Rawls's work. However, many of the ideas it contained had been floating around for sometime before he crystallized it into a theory. Now I do not label him as anti-modern or a moral relativist but the reason I bring him into this is that his political philosophy has a certain naivete to it that in practice has allowed for anti-modern and morally relative elements to abuse it for their own ends. Now that said, my view of Rawls my be colored somewhat by how I was introduced to him, but the impression I got was that his view of moral psychology was somewhat schizophrenic as it seemed to have a hard time distinguishing a priori ideas from biased interests. As such many of the things that are often considered biased by Rawls and theorists like him I would consider to be a priori. Part of this criticism has to do with the somewhat vacuous nature of what are considered to be the a priori elements in his theory. Justice is defined as fairness and fairness is defined as equality. However the question then arises; equality of what? If one is imprudent about this, this "equality" becomes tautologous and can be filled with anything. So the appearance of self-evident truths is still there but lacks content as such the first order good is a good in name only. We will have to agree to disagree that his view has been abused by radicals but I do recognize that radicals have attacked him for this. In particular radicals like Marcuse would likely be very critical of him, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't use him. Rawls doesn't realize that in modern political philosophy the meaning of civility itself is often in dispute especially with the advent of radicalism. To adjust for this he needs to be balanced with Schmitt as the tautologous nature of his concept of first-order good (civility) prevents him from seeing clearly enough to be able to make the kind of friend/enemy distinction that is needed to maintain a civil political order in the first place. This is essential as otherwise civil conflicts invade the political order which leads to the undermining of that political order.

4.)The critical theorists: I do understand that I may not have gone into the detail of the critical theorists that I should have but I had constraints on the size of the article and I needed to balance essential points with size. I did mention that not all of the outcomes of critical theory were bad however the assessment that I have a largely negative view of them still does remain. Among their achievements you mention the civil rights movement which is one of the exceptions to the rule. That was one of the few good things that came out of the 60's. However, I would have to say that you are brushing over much of the damage they did. LGBT rights are valid but the anti-structural attitude they use to convey them also attacks traditional morality. In Europe where this has been accepted more than the US this has led to a demographic implosion. We now have more gender equality but part of this was at a horrible cost. I doubt abortion would be legal if they hadn't come in, and as a result of this the lives of many fetal children can easily be described as nasty, brutish, and short. Recently they have grossly coarsened the debate around illegal immegration. The whole thing could have been solved on moderate grounds but then La Raza and Aztalan type radicals jumped into the fray. Their uncivil behavior then prompted uncivil behavior on behalf of talk radio types. The next thing you know, the whole debate got extremely polarized when it should have been a relatively easy thing to find a solution that would have kept mostly everyone happy. Then there is their attack on the West. Now As a fan of Niall Ferguson's work I will probably also disagree with you about this to some extent. Western society does not turn everything it touches into poop. They completely ignored any of the good things we exported abroad. Granted Ferguson may go too far in the other direction sometimes, but anti-Western radicals was way outside the bounds of civility. Their criticism of the West could not be considered constructive. What they did was more like dousing the West in vitriol. This served to undermine patriotism as a civic virtue and undermine the moral mission of the West. When they undermined such a fundamental civic virtue as patriotism they effectively threw civil society into an acid bath.
Now the reason I usually associate them with moral relativism is that at a theoretical level they are anti-structuralist and seem to be radically opposed to any authority merely for the reason that it is authority. Rebellion based on reason I can tolerate but rebellion for rebellion's sake I have an allergic reaction to. I know Adorno is just one of the critical theorists but as an example I would like to point out that his Authoritarian Personality work for example concluded that the assertion of any absolutes was an inherently fascist trait and was to be opposed. This is ridiculous though as by that definition all governments, indeed all authority, would be "fascist." Without authority of any kind you can't have absolutes and without absolutes you are necessarily in the domain of moral relativism. In many respects that they did closely resembles what the sophists did in ancient Greece. In many senses they have reduced politics to a sort of game of newspeak wars.

Now to sum up, Rawlsian style liberalism is conditionally acceptable but needs to be balanced by other thinkers like Strauss and Schmitt. Ideally government should come from the consent of the governed, but with illiberal radical elements constantly trying to break up that consent, new consent must be constantly manufactured. If that fails a dose of Hobbesianism sometimes needs to be added to fill in the gaps. I'm not arguing of course that we implement a full-blown totalitarian state here or anything like that. Hobbesianism comes on a scale, and I'm fairly comfortable with the moderate amount of post-9/11 Hobbesianism we have at the moment. I would prefer a pure Lockean system if possible but out of logical necessity when consent disintegrates some Hobbesianism is necessary. This is why people like Nixon became necessary after consent was intentionally destroyed during the 60's.

James on Apr 16, 2008 at 08:04 PM:

You seem to be missing the point. Jem is a grad student in philosophy. You almost minored in it. Jem knows what he is talking about. You don't. It's really that black and white. When the philosophy grad students caught wind of your editorial, we were all furious that the Post would publish something so ignorant and feeble-minded. You simply haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about.

James on Apr 16, 2008 at 10:42 PM:

I would like to apologize for the above comment. I should not engage in ad hominem attacks, and I would like to state in the clearest terms that I spoke only for myself and NOT for any members of the philosophy department. I regret the error, and I regret most of all for letting my peers down.

Jem Hilton on Apr 16, 2008 at 11:06 PM:

I think what my less than civil (but correct) friend, James, is saying is that you have so many errors in thought and so many fundamental misunderstandings about the literature you are engaging, that it now seems apparent that arguing about this issue will not make a dent in your ideological armor. You continue to misuse the terms, to commit blatant logical fallacies, and to assert contentious propositions without adequate argument. For example:

you are still not understanding the difference between "civility" and "civil society".

You don't understand what "moral psychology" means.

You strawman the critical theorists by presupposing that they had no legitimate grievances or arguments.

You don't know the difference between moral objectivity and moral absolutism.

You presuppose that the state has the moral authority to rule by force when necessary, without defining when that necessity may arise (unless you mean that force is legitimate whenever consensus is threatened, which is in fact totalitarian).

You have little understanding of the body of moral theory that exists from Plato to today, which is independent of political philosophy as such.

You don't know the difference between structuralism and post-structuralism (I'm not sure what anti-structuralism is).

Your comment regarding "demographic implosion" is a veiled racist claim regarding the death of one's own ethnic group due to voluntarily low birth rates (the world population is, in fact, growing).

It is unclear who, other than angsty teenagers, rebels for the sake of rebellion.

You assume that moral relativism is the only alternative to moral absolutism (see above comment about moral objectivity (in case you're confused, it doesn't have anything to do with Ayn Rand's "objectivism"))

There are many more points that I could walk you through. But I would have to fundamentally tear down the mountain of misconceptions that you already harbor in order to get you to see how how wrong you actually are on nearly every point. The sad part is, is that there can be good arguments for political conservatism. You just haven't made any. Hell, you might even be right that a Hobbesian view may be necessary to correct certain injustices in our society. But you've undermined the reasonableness of this claim rather than justified it with the poorness of your premises, and their lack of connection with your conclusion.

Johanan Raatz on Apr 16, 2008 at 11:14 PM:

James;

"I would like to apologize for the above comment. I should not engage in ad hominem attacks, and I would like to state in the clearest terms that I spoke only for myself and NOT for any members of the philosophy department. I regret the error, and I regret most of all for letting my peers down."

Thank you. You had me a little unnerved there for a bit. I was afraid I had accidentally made enemies with the philosophy department. If you or any of your colleagues are mad at me believe that was not my intention.

Now as to your criticism. I can understand your problem. However, the problem is that as an editorial writer I am limited to 750 words maximum, and because of that I often have to do a balancing act between content and size. As a result important details sometimes fall through the cracks. In dealing with things that require more complexity like philosophy it gets worse because I have to explain it in lay terms which sometimes adds oversimplification in as well. Then as a result I can see how people who know the material in more detail can easily get the wrong impressions. Please understand that this is a result of a peculiar juggling act and it is not my intention to misrepresent the material.

If I had more space I would have stressed that I only subscribe to some of the elements of Hobbes's political philosophy and not necessarily on the nature of morality. I would have gone into more detail on why I am critical of Rawls. Also I noticed in retrospect that I did not present Locke like I should have. I do believe that his view of moral psychology is linked to his view of the consent of the governed, but out of size constraints I wasn't able to state that as clearly as I wanted. Additionally I would have gone into more detail explaining the critical theorists.

Johanan Raatz on Apr 16, 2008 at 11:22 PM:

Note to Jem Hilton, James, and any other philosophy grad student/professor/or undergrad out there reading this:

The printed version of this article contains the sentence:

"Rather according to Hobbes, checks and balances must be placed within such a society to ensure that it remains civil."

The online version which is different though and is what I originally intended:

"Rather according to Hobbes, checks and balances must be placed on such a society to ensure that it remains civil."

The word "on" is replaced with the word "within" in the printed version. I'm not sure how this happened but I can see how this would lead to a serious misunderstanding. The difference is subtle but very important. I did not intend to mean in any way that I thought that Hobbes was arguing for checks and balances on the government by the people.

If you thought that is what I meant then you would be right to criticize me on this, but somehow the text got altered slightly in the printed version.

James on Apr 16, 2008 at 11:46 PM:

Thanks for the clarification. Quick question, though. One of the biggest concerns I have is with the underlying assumption that "traditional morality" must be saved at all costs. However, you neither define nor defend traditional morality. You made some remarks about how you have an a priori intuition of moral truths, but that's a rather specious way to argue. Could it be that you are just feeling moral sentiments that were hardwired into you by evolution and then shaped by your social environment? I am not a moral sense theorist, but that explanation is at least as good as yours, which suggests you have some sort of intellectual intuition of Platonic forms. So, please tell me what "traditional morality" is, and try to provide some rational ground for it. I am seriously asking just for clarification.

Jem Hilton on Apr 17, 2008 at 12:20 AM:

Civility restored, I hope. My complaints still stand, though perhaps I have been a little uncharitable, or incomplete in my own thinking. The thing is, you have position as an op-ed writer that grants you a special platform that reaches a wide audience. As a result, you have a responsibility to make sure you are not making false claims (whether wittingly or not). When those readers who know better (or think they know better) read your articles and find inaccuracies that appear malicious, or poorly reasoned, then they will take it as their responsibility to make you aware of these problems. Philosophers (and I am making a purely personal observation here) jealously guard their right to judge others in their illicit appropriation of philosophical views. These, again, are my own personal musings on the matter, but I think philosophers do this because they are educated in an environment of intense (brutal?) scrutiny and discipline, and are offended when someone outside the field can take such nonchalant liberties with certain philosophical issues, which have taken the best minds in philosophy years, if not decades to understand. I have studied philosophy for years, and still don't understand half of what I read (if that, though I haven't been the most diligent student). The famous medieval Arab philosopher Avicenna (no slouch) claimed that he had to read Aristotle's Metaphysics over 20 times before he even started to understand what it meant.

The point is, I guess, don't write about philosophy. Ever. Unless you have to. Just make an argument. If you think that this country is too lenient on dissent, or that dissent is bad, give us good reasons to think that your conclusion is true. Don't invoke political philosophers unless they are not crucial to your point (window-dressing, if you will). If you want to argue that critical theory is bad, or that moral relativism is incompatible with justice, then make that argument. But don't simply assert these claims as the case. They certainly are not obviously true.

I hope no hard feelings have developed as a result of this interchange, and if you are legitimately interested in political and moral philosophy, there are plenty of faculty here that would be willing to help you understand it more fully.