Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

Here.

Here.

Freeways (1977).

Parfit's claim that Kantianism, contractualism and consequentialism converge would, if true, be a finding of immense importance in normative ethics. It is also important for Parfit's defence of objectivity in ethics. If there are objective normative truths, then people whose judgement is not confused, biased or in some way distorted, and who agree on all the facts, should be able to reach agreement about what we have reason to do, and how we can tell right from wrong. Many people have thought that the deep disagreements between thoughtful Kantians, contractualists and consequentialists are evidence that there is no right answer to such questions. Parfit's response is that there is no such deep disagreement: ''These people are climbing the same mountain on different sides''.

(Peter Singer, "One Mountain," review of On What Matters, by Derek Parfit, The Times Literary Supplement [20 May 2011]: 3-4, at 4)

Note from KBJ: Immense importance? Why would it matter if two or more theories are extensionally equivalent? This doesn't show that there's really just one theory; it shows that two or more theories happen to produce the same results. Philosophically speaking, that is of no importance whatsoever.

Note 2 from KBJ: Singer writes: "If there are objective normative truths, then people whose judgement is not confused, biased or in some way distorted, and who agree on all the facts, should be able to reach agreement about what we have reason to do." It follows from this (by exportation and transposition) that if there is disagreement about what we have reason to do, then either (1) there are no objective normative truths, (2) people's judgment is confused, (3) people's judgment is biased or distorted, or (4) people do not agree on all the facts (i.e., someone is ignorant). The antecedent of this conditional is obviously true (normative disagreement is rampant), so at least one of the four disjuncts must be true. Parfit and Singer refuse to accept the first disjunct ("there are no objective normative truths"), so they are committed to explaining disagreement as either confusion, bias, distortion, or ignorance. I accept the first disjunct: there are no objective normative truths. Is it plausible that the greatest thinkers humanity has produced in over 2,000 years—thinkers such as Aristotle, Aquinas, Hobbes, Hume, Kant, Bentham, Ross, Anscombe, and Rawls—are either confused, biased, or factually ignorant? The very idea is preposterous. The best explanation of normative disagreement is that there are no objective normative truths.

Let us call people who post this sign on their office door “sign people.” The difference between sign people and non-sign people is not that the former are virtuous while the latter are not. It is that the former have a felt need to signal their virtue, while the latter do not.

Here is Kurt Schlichter's latest column.

Make America great again? When exactly was that time of greatness? It appears now it was post-slavery to pre-Trump. In that 150-year period of true greatness, America decisively took on the world’s most critical threats.

America overcame slavery, fascist dictators, worldwide disease and famine. It created a true American middle class with Social Security, Medicare and labor reform. It preserved magnificent natural wonders by creating the National Parks system. It cleaned the water and air with sound environmental regulations.

America was never without faults, but the world always looked to it as the one bastion of hope during impending catastrophe. Now, the most devastating scenario is imminent. The climate is dangerously changed, making the planet progressively unlivable.

What is America doing to address this greatest threat to the human race in millennia? Deny and run. Its leaders, the Donald Trump Republican Party, choose to weaken environmental regulations, promote polluting fossil fuel energy over renewable types and unilaterally reject the Paris climate agreement.

This is not the great America that never shied from challenge. If America is truly to be great again, it must rediscover its legacy of bravely taking on the world’s greatest challenges, not selfishly running from them.

James Frank

Reading

Here is a scene (click to enlarge) from today's 47.1-mile bike ride. The ride gives me 7,053.1 miles for the year. I'm 113.1 miles ahead of schedule.

WITCH HUNT!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 13, 2018

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Here.