The conflict between a moral, or ethical, system and a jurisprudential one is a matter of their varying degrees of commitment to certain values that may be shown to rationally compel an interpretation one way rather than another. The enigma is resolved no sooner than the most robust rationale on the matter is explicitated and accorded pride of place, irrespective of its origins in a Churchyard or a Courthouse (EPR § 32- 33, p. 60-3). Thus (POS § 513, p. 312), it would seem, the sceptic in refusing to take a stand irrationally wants something of the order of a miracle to convince him about the validity of demonstrably sound reasonings. While, on the other hand, a rational and prudential account of valuations is already satisfied if it can defend the premises that are vital to the intelligibility of the evaluative enterprise in a transparently justifiable way. -Excerpt from on going work, Trust Not Every Spirit: An Untimely Review of Hegels Elements of the Philosophy of Right.
Posted on: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 20:55:58 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015