tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345275.post111247429755125315..comments2023-10-30T11:13:44.310-04:00Comments on The Ethical Werewolf ‡ by Neil Sinhababu : Political philosophy is weird. No, I am.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345275.post-1112824810567877002005-04-06T18:00:00.000-04:002005-04-06T18:00:00.000-04:00it seems that constructing arguments in different ...it seems that constructing arguments in different ways can be useful because one particular way of arguing things may structurally miss or negate or whatever certain points, and if you come to the same conclusion after arguing via several different methods, then that conclusion may be stronger. <BR/><BR/>on the other hand, such things always seemed to me to be just problems of people using sloppy logic. (not that i'm all squeakily logic clean and pure or anything...)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345275.post-1112596446281495542005-04-04T02:34:00.000-04:002005-04-04T02:34:00.000-04:00I feel the same way about economics often. It can ...I feel the same way about economics often. It can be good for constructing positive models about what people will do... but the normative models are pretty bad. Tax cuts or other social welfare devices, because they reduce over-all surplus or economic activity (or increase) don't necessarily receive the same response from liberal-utilitarians because we accept that it's important for some people to have more $, even causing negative-sum wealth transfer. And may other cases.<BR/><BR/>Never enjoyed formalistic political philosophy enough to study it further, but even just reading Locke, Rousseau, Rawls, and whatnot, I see the problems you suggest. Though I'm not convincing people to separate positive and normative analyses will actually enhance political dialogue in our culture.Bluehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14667147687700902147noreply@blogger.com