Brooks discusses ethical naturalism in the NYT. As with all interesting systems, Brooks notes that almost no systems of morality were designed systems. Rather, they evolved. What I didn't see noted was brilliant ethical naturalist Jane Jacobs and her observations. I've noted them before, but perhaps not recently. Here is my line on ethics, and here is my line on Jacobs.
Summarizing Jacobs: There are 2 fundamental approaches to dealing with people: conflict or cooperation, trade or war. Furthermore, the virtues needed for trade are DIFFERENT than the virtues needed for war. In trade, equality is essential, while in war, hierarchy is necessary. Jacobs has a 15-item list on the differences, and I've duplicated it in my post referenced above. Worth looking at.
Also worth noting that the left-libertarian/anarchist position can be summarized real quick in jacobs-ian terms: The protector ethic is wrong/evil. And all proponents of government actions are pushing said protector-ethic. Big business is a protector ethic. Academia too.
The virtue of excellence
Friday, July 23, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
And the right-libertarian/formalist position is that an "evil" protector is a prerequisite for doing business peacefully. If you want peace, prepare for war.
Indeed, that is the position. The formalists for sure, and many of the right-libs as well.
Are predatory business practices - as opposed to honest tradin' - then a manifestation of the evil protector ethic in the trading world?
Predatory business practices are very fuzzy.
Large org- US/THEM approaches are clearly protector ethic.
Post a Comment