File spoon-archives/habermas.archive/habermas_2001/habermas.0111, message 1


Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 22:11:58 -0800 (PST)
From: Gary E Davis <gedavis1-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: HAB: Toward An Ethic Of Being Human ("liberal eugenics," sec. III beginning)


WHAT IS CALLED "MORAL"?  WHAT IS CALLED "ETHICAL"? 
[continuing from October with JH's "On The Way To Liberal Eugenics?"]


At the beginning of section III, the upshot from section II on
whether human rights apply to embryonic life is inconclusive for JH.
"It is, therefore, all the more important to search for a solution
which is at once conclusive and neutral with respect to competing
world views, ..." But that importance has not been established in
section II (in paragraphs I'm bypassing for now), while JH provided
excellent explication of what is at stake *for public policy*. But
his sense of the "moral" environment has been too questionable (which
I hope I've shown) to accept that public policy is yet an approrpiate
locus of focus (so to speak). Yet his now-presumed mode of attention
is the backdrop of his entrance into section III, "the embedding of
morality in an ethics of the species." 

Putting this aside, as much as I can (while his public policy stance
continues), the topic of an ethics of the species remains just as
compelling. Putting aside a probable impropriety of imposing a public
policy focus on ethical life when the reality of ethical life is so
questionably represented by JH, it remains very useful to examine his
sense of an ethics of the species, relative to the most controversial
prospect of applied genomics: genetic enhancement.

It's quite plausible to claim that JH should have titled section III
"The embedding of ethics in a morality of the species."  GIVEN, for
him, [1] the importance of a search for neutral conclusiveness
(mentioned above) and that [2] "the question of how to deal with
unborn life is an ethical one" (paragraph 39 or first paragraph of
section III), THEN: "The philosophical debate, disembarrassed of
sterile polarizations, may then focus on the issue of an appropriate
ethical self-understanding of the species" (39 bottom). The
ethics-of-the-species focus is apparently intended to provide a basis
for conclusive neutrality in relation to (IRT) competing worldviews,
which also happens to be the interest of his morality. 

JH: "I call 'moral' such issues as deal with the just way of living
together. Actors who may come into conflict with one another address
these issues when they are confronted with social interactions in
need of normative regulation."

Dealing with the just way might also be addressed by actors not in
conflict, but conflict resolution is JH's focus. Unconflicted address
of "the just way" ("the"?) would pertain, say, to a search for
guidance, in the interest of living justly *before* conflict, living
pro-actively IRT just ways (or *the* just way, JH would have it). Is
a just way called for outside of government (jurisprudence,
regulation, legislation)? That is: apart from our citizenship? Is
"morality" the doctrine that justice pertains to contexts unrelated
to political life? Is "morality" the doctrine that *everything* is
political? Is a (or *the*) morality of the species meant to be
anything *else* than a basis for governmental deliberation (IRT
applied genomics) and regulation of medical services (IRT genetic
counseling)? 

CAN there be an *ethics* of the species that primarily addresses
ethical life and *therefore* provides a theory for governmental
thinking (and genomic "citizenship")? Is there anything else to JH's
"moral" issue than ethics and government/citizenship? Does the moral
disappear into this dyad? Inasmuch as this is the case--ethics vs.
law (in short)--then this should be made and kept clear, not
confusing ethical issues and governmental issues--and not confusing
issues via a comprehensive doctrine of the moral that seems (given
JH's overall discussion) basically cynical, if not *unfair* to its
subject. 

Just way, good way, valid way of reading the issues....just ways "of
living together". *Living* together. Living *together*--at all
scales? Where is, what is, how goes the boundary between good justice
and just goodness, re: intimacy, kindredness, solidarity? 

One CAN say, though, that different ways of life can live
together--no: *more* than this: Different ways of life can *flourish*
together. And such a pluralism, such a hybridity of cultural
evolution (ultimately speaking) can surely be *understood*, made
*coherent*. So, then, the pluralism can cohere as
such--pluralistically, too (as a discursive pluralism of coherings or
discourses on specific cultural pluralisms: Cultural Theory). It
follows from this, then, that culturally-based *conflicts* can be
understood or found coherent relative to cultural discourses--just as
interpersonal conflicts can be understood relative to lifeworld-based
coherings. And why not in the equal interest of all involved? JH
writes that "No such rational acceptability may be expected
[...relative to...] preferred way[s] of life and ... identity forming
beliefs."  

I disagree.  Strong evaluation here. But *suppose* acceptability
can't be expected. Acceptable understanding is obviously possible and
very credibly probable; and otherwise subject to *hope*. 

Besides: "Rational" acceptability is secondary among *reasonable*
persons (I will argue, because validation is only one side of the
reasonable coin of constructive valuation and accountability). 

Hope, openness, generosity, trust, reflection--and other virtues we
might hold dear--belong to us all. And if you disagree (the belonging
isn't universal), that's OK. I'll appeal to you about what's really
appealing, because I *do* hope, trust, grant, and think you'll
understand. 


Next: THE INTERFACE OF CULTURAL, PERSONAL AND EXISTENTIAL-ONTIC
(SELFNESS) 
[paragraph 42 or 4th para. of section III]



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com


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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005