tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8208568088323469585.comments2023-11-02T09:04:27.659-07:00KantemplationH.M. Roffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02497419070087412185noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8208568088323469585.post-35485646679038951432011-08-17T10:02:50.633-07:002011-08-17T10:02:50.633-07:00Sorry about "sensor and not censor". To...Sorry about "sensor and not censor". Too caught up in the moment!H.M. Roffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02497419070087412185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8208568088323469585.post-37105166932835530722011-08-08T13:51:57.596-07:002011-08-08T13:51:57.596-07:00I totally agree with you Gary. I also hope someon...I totally agree with you Gary. I also hope someone does something along these lines, as it is timely and interesting!H.M. Roffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02497419070087412185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8208568088323469585.post-84323607230327966092011-08-06T04:02:04.545-07:002011-08-06T04:02:04.545-07:00This is broadly fair comment Heather. I addressed ...This is broadly fair comment Heather. I addressed some of Kant's remarks on "unnatural" sex in *Kant's Practical Philosophy*. The trouble is really based on his view of masturbation I think since he says little specifically about gay sex. But the account of marriage certainly is one that can be expanded, as you suggest, in surprising directions and made radical rather than conservative.Gary Banhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08518731833160149460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8208568088323469585.post-17593772849694019072011-08-05T14:13:35.843-07:002011-08-05T14:13:35.843-07:00depends upon what permissive law you are referring...depends upon what permissive law you are referring to, and how you construe Kant's notion of permissive laws.H.M. Roffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02497419070087412185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8208568088323469585.post-27889097359060617812011-08-04T13:28:00.203-07:002011-08-04T13:28:00.203-07:00Hmmmm.... let's say Kant would not endorse the...Hmmmm.... let's say Kant would not endorse the accumulation of such a large debt for foreign wars. It's another further step to argue about what should be done (according to the "master") once such steps have been taken. No mention of permissive laws?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8208568088323469585.post-89401746322729448532010-07-05T08:56:29.793-07:002010-07-05T08:56:29.793-07:00Hi Gary,
Yes, I have a research stay here in Erla...Hi Gary,<br /><br />Yes, I have a research stay here in Erlangen with Joachim Hruschka and Sharon Byrd. It should be lovely, and hopefully very productive!<br /><br />Hope all is well with you!<br /><br />Best<br />HeatherH.M. Roffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02497419070087412185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8208568088323469585.post-21953878341597722662010-07-05T01:29:04.928-07:002010-07-05T01:29:04.928-07:00Hi Heather
What are you doing in Erlangen? Do you...Hi Heather<br /><br />What are you doing in Erlangen? Do you have some kind of post there?<br /><br />GaryGary Banhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08518731833160149460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8208568088323469585.post-74855989825514264962010-06-03T12:55:05.234-07:002010-06-03T12:55:05.234-07:00"Moreover, if the domestic state is so awful ..."Moreover, if the domestic state is so awful that it is consistently devolving back into civil strife....well... need I say more?"<br /><br />I think you do need to say more. Afterall, one of Kant's arguments against a WORLD state is that it would fall into different warring corporations.Timothyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02424473980754426257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8208568088323469585.post-88577352270627019072010-05-30T14:26:11.615-07:002010-05-30T14:26:11.615-07:00I would love to be able to read your comments, so ...I would love to be able to read your comments, so if you could leave them in English that would be great! Thanks! H.M. RoffAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8208568088323469585.post-90303852576658916112009-10-01T15:43:05.652-07:002009-10-01T15:43:05.652-07:00Two points about this:
1) It isn't self-contra...Two points about this:<br />1) It isn't self-contradictory to promote a view that having wars now (to end despotisms) would lead to fewer wars overall which, given the instability caused by despotisms is preferable to leaving them in place to cause more harm later;<br />2) the general point about peace being also promoted by intervening later only works if the same end (of altering the constitution) is also followed so why shouldn't there be a pre-emptive move to undercut war-like states?Gary Banhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08518731833160149460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8208568088323469585.post-63012997228383605132009-09-29T11:27:10.259-07:002009-09-29T11:27:10.259-07:00Heather:
How does the claim about self-harming fi...Heather:<br /><br />How does the claim about self-harming fit with Kant's affirmation of the principle that one can do no wrong in what one decides with regard to oneself? (The so-call volenti principle-- see section 46 MM)Timothyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02424473980754426257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8208568088323469585.post-50413595752737419642009-09-29T11:23:43.429-07:002009-09-29T11:23:43.429-07:00Gary: Imagine a public maxim by democratic states ...Gary: Imagine a public maxim by democratic states saying they would go to war with despotisms because despotisms are prone to go to war. <br /><br />First, this maxim is a bit contradictory, isn't it? (Since democracies become war like. It also encourages despotisms to go to war with claims of "self-defense," genuine or not). <br /><br />Second, there is another way to get rid of the threat of despotisms. The supposed threat of despotisms is that they are inclined to war. Let's call this the DESPOTISM INCLINATION assumption or (DI). If DI is true, the despotisms will go to war eventually. At that point, others can intervene AND THEN change the constitution so it is more peaceful. This then assures despotisms that they won't be subject to forcible change merely because they are not democracies; if they don't act like despots (if they behave peacefully, in a republican spirit), then they are OK. If they can't go to war (as DI predicts), then democracies can respond, and after the war change their constitution to be more peaceful.Timothyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02424473980754426257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8208568088323469585.post-44375380116668757472009-09-28T13:50:08.520-07:002009-09-28T13:50:08.520-07:00Some interesting points here Heather. A quick resp...Some interesting points here Heather. A quick response:<br />1) the analogy here hits a problem (self-harming) due to the fact that when the state hurts itself it also hurts the moral persons who are united such as to constitute it as a separate (but composed) moral personality;<br />2) with regard to the question of intervention, separately from what others are saying about this, there is a problem for Kant in supporting the fifth preliminary article in light of the first definitive article. If, as he claims in the first definitive article, republics promote peace and despotisms, by contrast, promote war, then having despotisms in the neighbourhood is dangerous for republics. On these grounds would it not be better for peace overall to have a war such that the despotism was overthrown?<br />In the discussion of the fifth preliminary article Kant does say that it is the self-destorying state that merits intervention but isn't a despotism destructive of general peace and thus of whatever passes for international order?Gary Banhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08518731833160149460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8208568088323469585.post-58951689664938749222009-09-25T18:10:33.525-07:002009-09-25T18:10:33.525-07:00Also: I probably was referring to the solely autho...Also: I probably was referring to the solely authored Hurschka piece. I have read about 2 or 3 articles authored by him or co-authored with Byrd in the last month, so it's a bit hard to keep them straight.Timothyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02424473980754426257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8208568088323469585.post-60301667912021764952009-09-24T18:08:45.891-07:002009-09-24T18:08:45.891-07:00"In the MM, he claims that in a state of natu..."In the MM, he claims that in a state of nature individuals are authorized to use unilateral coercion to force others into a civil condition -- an act that would traditionally be unjust (unrecht) because such unilateral force cannot be a universal law which harmonizes the freedom of everyone."<br /><br />Where does Kant say this? He talks about the permissive law in private right. I can see how you might extrapolate this but he doesn't actually mention the permissive law in this context.Timothyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02424473980754426257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8208568088323469585.post-71421876323478664412009-09-23T18:07:44.977-07:002009-09-23T18:07:44.977-07:00"This can only take place in a Kingdom of End..."This can only take place in a Kingdom of Ends --- or a condition of Perpetual Peace ---" <br /><br />Do you mean to identify a KOE with a condition of PP? Or do you mean either would suffice?Timothyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02424473980754426257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8208568088323469585.post-17704174968811020492009-09-21T16:59:52.076-07:002009-09-21T16:59:52.076-07:00I am with you on the capacity bit, as Hurschka cla...I am with you on the capacity bit, as Hurschka claims it is a "power conferring norm," but I think right now there is something else at work too. Flikschuh and Brandt want to argue that it is a "dark preliminary judgment" that one makes before legal institutions make judgments peremptory. Flikschuh also thinks that the postulate with regard to right as lex permissiva is a "provisional" solution to the antinomy of right. I personally think everyone is correct and incorrect at the same time. Kant uses the idea of a permissive law in too many places, and in too many different ways. It is not simply the ability to put someone under an obligation to respect my "provisional property" - it is, I believe more complicated than that. If you look at the debate - everyone collapses certain distinctions and assumes away other ones. I would like to give a little more credit than that. By the by, which Byrd and Hruschka piece are you referring to? The property one on "Why I Must Keep my Promise"? That one draws rather vaguely off of Hruschka's piece on the PL, but that piece too has its problems.H.M. Roffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02497419070087412185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8208568088323469585.post-35172532915178677642009-09-15T19:38:17.954-07:002009-09-15T19:38:17.954-07:00I meant: "Before a certain year, you could *N...I meant: "Before a certain year, you could *NOT* buy a condo in the U.S. It just was not a legal "capacity"."<br /><br /><br />Anyway, I'd suggest the permissive law creates capacity (or rather, recognizes it after the fact) because of a lack. What is not otherwise allowed is the willing of a law binding all unilaterally. A permissive law makes up for this lack, because the alternative gives up any conditions of freedom. That's actually not strictly contradictory--but freedom cannot will that without being left without any capacity to extricate itself from this situation. <br /><br />Similarly, in the passage in CF you cite, monarchs create state capacity allowing for the conditions for reform and implementation...Timothyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02424473980754426257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8208568088323469585.post-57891638203583644032009-09-15T19:01:42.298-07:002009-09-15T19:01:42.298-07:00The permissive law gives a capacity to put others ...The permissive law gives a capacity to put others under obligation through one's unilateral will, an obligation they would not otherwise have. Some authors (i think Hurka and Byrd) say it is like a legal power. Before a certain year, you could buy a condo in the U.S. It just was not a legal "capacity". Your language seems to focus on actions, which is ironic, since you talk about state *capacity* so much on this web page. Perhaps you're focusing too much on the capacity of those with the duty, and not enough on the permissive law creates a duty to recognize this capacity in others' actions? <br /><br />Tim WaligoreTimothyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02424473980754426257noreply@blogger.com