File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_2001/bhaskar.0102, message 209


Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 17:05:19 +0000
From: Mervyn Hartwig <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: BHA: de-onts, etc.


Hi Ruth

As I understand it, moral theories fall into three (partly overlapping)
fundamental types. 1) Consequentialism  2) Rights theory  3) Virtue
theory. 

Bhaskar is a consequentialist, and so I think are the eudaimonians you
mention. Rights theory is centered on duty or obligation, hence is often
known as 'deontological', presumably because of the first (but not the
second) fundamental meaning of the Greek word 'deon' I indicated in a
previous post (from Liddell's and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon):

******
(1) To bind, tie, fasten, fetter - hence 'deontology' = the science of
duty or moral obligation. 
(2) To want, lack, miss, stand in need of - hence 'deonts' = absences.
******

Now you say (re Bhaskar's position):

>I've been kind of surprised to hear it characterized as deontological.

But I haven't so characterized it, either in the post cited above, or in
the one you cite, or anywhere. (It cannot validly be inferred, from the
fact that I mentioned 'deontology' and 'Bhaskar' in the same paragraph,
that I think that Bhaskar is a deontologist.) 

What I did say re Bhaskar was:

*****
It is very interesting that, like Bhaskar, etymology explicitly links
absence with constraint, and morality with need. 
******

I.e. etymology (the wisdom of our ancestors!) supports Bhaskar's stress,
unlike that of the deontologists, on *both* of the fundamental meanings
of 'deon': what we should do, (1), is absent constraints, (2), on
flourishing. (I also wanted to call attention to how radical a thinker
Bhaskar is in the Latin sense of that word - going to the root of things
- and how precise and richly resonant his use of concepts is. By
introducing the concept 'deont' he brilliantly *relates* the pivotal
concept in his system - 'absence' - both to human need and to moral
obligation.)

Now, while I didn't say it, it *could* be said that Bhaskar's position,
like all consequentialism, is 'deontological' *insofar as* it issues in
moral obligation to promote the best consequences. But given present
usage, this would be very confusing because people would then be prone
to think Bhaskar is a rights theorist rather than a consequentialist. So
it's better to call him a consequentialist and point out the overlap.

Hope this helps,

Mervyn


Ruth Groff <rgroff-AT-yorku.ca> writes
>Hi Mervyn, all,
>
>I'm glad to see such a lively discussion.  Hopefully Howard will be back
>soon and will pipe in.
>
>I wanted to ask a side question about the allusion to deontological
>moral/political theory.  Mervyn, you wrote:
>>(For the etymologically minded it usefully calls attention to
>>the relation between absence, constraint, need and morality, which is
>>central to Bhaskar's whole argument in DPF).
>
>I haven't paid a lot of attention to that part of Bhaskar's writing, but
>I've been kind of surprised to hear it characterized as deontological.  I
>would have thought that a focus on eudaimonistic flourishing would put
>Bhaskar in with the other guys (I forget just now what they get called in
>the literature - the non-deontological people).  
>
>Any help with this?
>
>r.
>
>
>
>     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---



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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005