From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@dcs.gla.ac.uk)
Date: Fri Jun 20 2008 - 17:41:49 EDT
If it was an attack on the idea of social justice on the grounds that juridical relations can not long surpass the economic relations of the society within which they are embedded I would have some sympathy. That could be developed into an argument that you need to change the economic relations, and from that a new conception of justice will arise. But it is not that. It is an argument against social justice from the most conservative position, that social justice would entail the state curbing the freedom of individuals. This is hardly novel, it is what the upper classes have been saying for years. He even justifies social inequality on the grounds that it shows that either you or 'your lineage' showed superior entrepreneurial ability. I am sure that the Dukes of York and Lancaster would concur with that! ________________________________ From: ope-bounces@lists.csuchico.edu [mailto:ope-bounces@lists.csuchico.edu] On Behalf Of Jurriaan Bendien Sent: 20 June 2008 22:24 To: ope@lists.csuchico.edu Subject: [OPE] Absolutely Divine Everyday,Why social justice specious idea V.3.0 I don't understand why you guys give Michael Eldred such a hard time. Philosophy provides intellectual freedom, and phenomenological research is important in the process of creatig new concepts and distinctions. I think his paper on justice has merit, although I don't share all of his ideas. J. _______________________________________________ ope mailing list ope@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 30 2008 - 00:00:16 EDT