Main | In defence of adherence »



Ralph Wedgwood

This blog post has already attracted an attempt at refutation, from Marcus Arvan:

Is Arvan's interpretation of my blog post fair? Which of us has better arguments -- he or I? You be the judge!

Jonathan Cohen

Hey Ralph:Thought you might be interested in the work of David Wiens (political science, UCSD) if you don't know it already; he's written a few nice papers arguing against ideal theory approaches to distributive justice issues on grounds that partially connect with some of what you say.

Tom Hurka

Good point, well made. The basic normative questions use simple concepts and ask what is good, right, better, and so on. A vice of much current moral/political philosophy is to replace these simple questions with ones that approach the same issue obliquely, by asking a more complicated question. Questions about ideal justice or virtue are a good example; another is asking which of the competing "conceptions" of a shared "concept" like distributive justice is the most adequate. That's really the question which distributions of e.g. income are good or worth pursuing, but the formulation obscures that while having the (perhaps intended) effect of making the questioner sound more profound.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)