Sunday, August 29, 2021

First Rule Of Holes

I think the kids call this "doubling down." I suppose we all get old enough to just embarass the shit out of ourselves. Hopefully I've stepped away from the intertoobs when that time comes.

And returning briefly to my original argument, this is the flaw in Sartre's ethic (which is actually a morality, because he's trying to preserve "God" while eliminating "God" from the question):  If I am to take on the burden of deciding what all humanity is by my every decision as to how to treat another human being, what do we do with the example of Lawrence Tribe, who is clearly screaming from a place of deep emotion, not reasoning from a place of cool objective reserve? 

With what ethic about "choosing for all humankind" do we respond to him?  I think he'd happily say all humankind should agree with him, and refuse to take the matter any further.  And what morality (or ethic, if you prefer) is that?

2 comments:

  1. What's Lawrence Tribe's stake in this that he's spending so much twit time on it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can't figure that out either. Obvioiusly something deeply personal. Another unintended consequence of Romanticism: my personal feelings are of utmost importance to the rest of humanity, and now we have the technology to publicize them.

      Thinking about how what matters to you doesn't really matter that much to anyone else is rather hard to contemplate, though. The line between legitimate public comment and throwing a wall-eyed fit is not really a fine one, though.

      Delete