Subject: Re: [HAB:] Coping with ethical akrasia
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 10:57:37 +0100


> 
> > coherings-AT-yahoo.com writes:
> >
> > So, do  we live in a world where others are largely
> > untrustworthy (in which  trustworthy others also live);
> > or do we live in a world where others are  largely
> > trustworthy (in which untrustworthy others also  live)?
> >
 >
 > FREDWELFARE-AT-aol.com wrote:
 > Habermas was not the only theorist to emphasize the interaction-work
 > distinction.  Marcuse also belabored the problem of the totally  administered world.
 > There has been no real end to the complaints  surrounding the
 > bureaucratization of the lifeworld.  I still feel that only  by fighting for my civil,
 > individual, and human rights am I able to forestall  the extensions of
 > administrators into my private life.  

This claim you make here, of your reasons for "fighting for my 
civil, individual, and human rights," interests me. I find the same
mentality among some individuals I know who are fighting for 
their "right" to be able to work as long as they like and who 
would like to see the end of the policy of mandatory retirement 
at age 60 or 65 - in Canada and the UK.

I think what Fred says is in some way related to what Gary Davis 
was saying, about "ethics", versus, or alongside "the law".  I'm 
not sure that trustworthiness is what this 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.

So weakness of will - how Gary describes akrasia - seems not to 
be the problem, but rather, how the will is exerted.

This is just a minor point I suppose, but in a discussion on 
eugenics and cosmoploitan law, maybe it would help to have 
some of these minor details put out of the way. 

Sue McPherson




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