Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 10:44:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HAB:] re: Sue, "Getting ethical by getting highly self-identical" today



Sue writes> I don't know Gary Davis. All I know is the
first time I sent a message to the list he took it
off-list to respond to.

G: Below is the email that Sue is referring to. 


Sue, I’m sorry that you may have found personal
response to you inappropriate. 

The email was completely on topic, so I might well
have sent it to everyone. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sat, 21 Aug 2004
Re: [HAB:] Coping with ethical akrasia

Sue (if I may),

Thanks for your comments. I'm glad that a new voice
has appeared at the Spoon list. It's rather amazing
that hundreds subscribe, but so few post. 

--- Sue McPherson <sue-AT-mcphersons.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:

>  I'm not sure that trustworthiness is what this
[ethics vs. law issue] 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.

G: I can agree. But, then, it's self-interest that
makes one unreliable in caring about the interests or
rights of others which, in turn, requires regulation
via law. It's self-interest that makes people
untrustworthy. So, sure, trustworthiness isn't the
nature of the issue, just the effect that calls for
regulation of self-interest. From the perspective of
experience by the other or objectively, we can't rely
on self-interest to care about others; we can't trust
others to care *due to* self-interest. 

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

G: I realized after I sent the email that 'akrasia'
might be unknown to readers, since (I discovered) it's
not in my standard dictionaries (not even a search of
Encyclopedia Britannica online turns up an entry for
the term). It's a term often used in philosophy, from
Greek, which is standardly (among philosophers)
defined as "weakness of will."

Usually, everybody (including those dominated by
self-interest) agree that "we" should care about
others. But self-interest gets the better of us, even
though we know we "should" care more about others.
What is it about us that lets self-interest dominate
our better  sense? "You" know you should be more
courteous on the road, but you've got your priorities.
It's a weakness of will, at least: the norms  are
unquestionably valid (traffic rules prevent accidents,
if everyone follows them), but we push our luck
anyway. 

Do continue to post. 

Gary 



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