Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Off to philosophy

Realizing that I can't say anything useful about Roberts -- and who has but Ezra and a few smart Kossacks? -- I'm going to be defending Humean views of action against radical Kantian extremist Patrick Smith, over at Richard's place. All good Humeans are encouraged to write their senators. Christine Korsgaard must be stopped!

*note* - this post originally identified Jonathan Ichikawa as the Kantian extremist, despite the fact that I hadn't seen evidence of such views from him before. Goes to show you how bad I am at determining whether a particular nominee is actually worth a filibuster.

2 comments:

Rousseau said...

That reminds me. To what degree can you be Kantian, without following the specifically Kantian rules? Can you use Kant as a defense of deontology, while having more (or fewer) principles?

It comes up only because the reason I dislike deontology so much seems to be that there is huge disagreement in the world about what those rules are.

Neil Sinhababu said...

Well, since Kant said a lot of things, there are a lot of ways to be Kantian. I don't know whether the author of that post would be willing to defend any of Kant's specific rules -- he's just defending some general views about reasoning and motivation.