Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 10:15:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HAB:] What makes a difference?



--- Sue McPherson <sue-AT-mcphersons.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
> 
> But self-interest doesn't dominate our "better
> sense".
> those who are more ruthless will probably survive
> and
> thrive.  

(Sue is replying to a note sent off-list.)

Well, self-interest doesn't dominate we who care about
this kind of issue. And those who thrive through
ruthlessness aren't appealing to good ethical
sensibility. So, what happens to human development
that ruins or retards ethical sensibility? Whatever
the explanation (depending greatly on individual
differences of life history), good ethical sensibility
is preferrable to ruthlessness. Ethical sensibility is
better than ruthlessness. It's not that ruthlessness
has a good case for itself; rather, it pushes its
interests without case-making at all. It requires
oppostional organization. But to those who are
undecided between living ethically and living
ruthlessly (e.g., teens formulating their
preferences), there's lots to be said for living
ethically. 

> Surely what should make a difference is
> knowledge - about where the world is headed - 
> environmentally, and
> politically/economically/socially.

Yes, indeed! And clarity of mind about "what should
make a difference" comes from where? A development
that has insight which is lacking with those who don't
care. Of course, the ruthless claim insight, too: a
*realpolitik* state of nature or some such. So,
dispute about insight becomes dispute about the nature
of the world---and what kind of humanity we (the
undecided, typically youth in culture, education,
development of preferences, values, interests, etc.)
have reason to live for. The "discourse" of
humanity---cacophony of media, options in education,
etc.---is a competition of options for identity, basic
values, worldviews, etc. "What should make a
difference" becomes, for individuals, a diffuse stance
that one IS (i.e., what matters gets bound up with
identity and aspiration), out of the endless question
"What should make a difference?"

> And this kind of knowledge doesn't come from a
> "sense." It comes from learning it, from being able
to think
> about the future.

Well, yes. But, in light of learning and thinking, we
get up in the morning with a *sense* of what matters.
We ask our children to use "good sense" and give that
as much meaning (through example, teaching, appeals,
and more teaching) as can be taken to heart, which can
be taken as far as you please, ultimately to a point
where philosophical questioning of what is good, if
not what is The Good, may gain as much complexity as
"you" can handle; so too for the diffuse rubric "what
makes sense", which may encompass the entire domain of
philosophy.

Given a notion like "lifeworld", as already-always
background to contextual understanding (opinions,
perspectives, etc.), you might want to give weight to
the most ordinary terms of the lifeworld---to demand
of our stances on "what should make a difference" that
it's a matter of what most importantly makes sense. 

After all, life is greatly about Meaning. Those who
think otherwise have a rude awakening in store for
them when a breakdown of ruthlessness inevitably
happens, through the opposition it creates, if not the
heart disease that results (belying a pretense of
thriving). 

Gary





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