There’s a special treat in this one where Bernard Williams makes an appearance during the Q&A 🖤
@Gabriel-pt3ci
2 жыл бұрын
Hmmm... I guess that his basic idea is something as follows. There are two senses of partiality and both can be well accommodated within a continuous perspective of ethics and politics. One of these senses of partiality is that of unfairness, the other is that of purposefulness. One can be impartial in the sense of being just and unbiased, while partial in the sense of being resolute, determinate at taking particular paths for ourselves. In fact, what I think Dworkin is advocating (in the same strand as Rawls and arguably also Kant) is that it is out of an "instinct" to preserve our partiality in the ethical perspective that we are willingly assuming the impartiality in the political perspective. Our personal purposefulness might be at prejudice in an unfair society, so we choose otherwise, not because of an intrinsic value of fairness as such but due to the perils of loosing our personal way of dealing with things. Of course, this is not the whole story in the view of Dworkin. The tension goes both ways. As far as I understand, he is saying something like: justice both, figures as a constraint of and stems from our first-person ethical perspective. And also that: it is this sense of justice what underpins the liberal account of a political perspective. Anyone in for a debate?
Пікірлер: 3