tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post8596416786335219617..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: Doing what comes supernaturally: Stanley Fish on fact and valueRussell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-47199708445757217682010-03-10T02:48:03.832+11:002010-03-10T02:48:03.832+11:00One possible fault of the secular state being unin...One possible fault of the secular state being uninvolved in religion is the obvious enormous *subversive* power unchecked religious fundamentalism ceaselessly seeks to attain. If the state is toothless in defending these very core values, it is a failed experiment. Many people will prefer the decisiveness of a veiled dictatorship over perpetual stalemate where definitive ethical stances are desired.Quinnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-49635182129541034322010-03-08T06:44:32.809+11:002010-03-08T06:44:32.809+11:00Fish is a classic sophist who loves the sound of h...Fish is a classic sophist who loves the sound of his own contrarianism. In addition to shifting the meaning of words, his M.O. often includes constructing a straw man -- some extreme claim supposedly at work in conventional thinking that he can then demolish. In this piece, it's the following: "This is the cul de sac Enlightenment philosophy traps itself in when it renounces metaphysical foundations in favor of the 'pure' investigation of 'observable facts.' It must somehow bootstrap or engineer itself back up to meaning and the possibility of justified judgment, but it has deliberately jettisoned the resources that would enable it do so." That's a cartoon description of Enlightenment reason; it confuses suspending judgment about some questions with "deliberately jettisoning" metaphysical commitments altogether.<br /><br />Likewise, Fish's use of the term "OK," which Professor Blackford rightly critiques, isn't just convenient vagueness but another straw man: It confuses liberal arguments against Bible-based public policy positions with some alleged attack on the right of religious people to invoke the Bible in public debate. In that respect, Fish's position is of a piece with the whining constantly heard from the religious right about the horrible repression / oppression it's always suffering at the hands of liberal America, as if not winning a political argument is the same as not having been allowed to try.<br /><br />Finally, as Professor Blackford notes, all this rests on Fish's unwillingness to describe what society would look like if whatever he's claiming here were put into practice. Put another way: So what if the Enlightenment is a "cul-de-sac," if the main road is a constant stream of armies marching off to fight religious wars? A cul-de-sac is exactly where you should want to build in that case.Jefferson Smithhttp://conservativesarealwayswrong.googlepages.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-16411889403168201072010-03-02T20:45:43.125+11:002010-03-02T20:45:43.125+11:00Good piece, good comments. Fish’s relativism exten...Good piece, good comments. Fish’s relativism extends to jurisprudence. He sees no reason why a religious justification should be inferior to a secular justification. But as Russell points out, the only valid justification for law in a pluralistic society must be one that is somehow universal, common to us all, grounded in a reality that most of us agree on – like avoidance of harm. A religious justification is by necessity particular rather than universal, given the multiplicity of religion. There are no compelling intellectual reasons for everyone to accept it. It does not belong to shared reality. While it would be perfectly OK for an individual legislator to hold religious reasons for supporting a given law, and to publicly argue from a religious perspective, the only justification that a pluralistic public sphere would be compelled to accept is a secular one. In the absence of a secular justification, a religious one is insufficient.Runenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-66384753891207636502010-03-02T11:24:26.773+11:002010-03-02T11:24:26.773+11:00If the law can be justified on some independent ba...If the law can be justified on some independent basis that I agree with, I don't have any reason to feel oppressed by the law itself, or to wish the law had not been enacted. Say the law is justified by the Millian harm principle, but some legislators voted for it because it enforces the content of a Bible verse - and others did so after consulting an astrologer. The fact remains that the law is justified by the harm principle. I have reasons for supporting it and for not seeking its repeal.<br /><br />But none of that is a reason to stop enjoining legislators to follow the harm principle (or whatever principle is justifiable), and to stop relying on astrologers or holy books.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-27755805976953888842010-03-01T14:04:34.971+11:002010-03-01T14:04:34.971+11:00Incidentally, if your concern is to avoid a sort o...Incidentally, if your concern is to avoid a sort of bad intent or aspiration on the part of some of the arguers (i.e., an intent or hope on their part that the state will give certain sorts of religious ends or values weight), what (kind of) rule or policy would you recommend in light of that concern? Would it just be a rule preventing enforcement of any laws (or 'laws') which in their own terms imposed religion? (The sort of rule I would support.) <br /><br />But then, as long as we have this rule (and aren't concerned about losing it), why particularly care very much that any arguer has some bad intent or aspiration more than we care about <i>anyone</i> who, in public debate, professes a view we think false or silly? I'm not actually sure that I would agree that there is something <i>extra</i> bad about a person in a public debate who thinks their religious (as opposed to just any other objectionable) reason deserves respect. <br /><br />Would you particularly feel oppressed by a law which had a prefectly adequate non-religious justification but which, in the event, only became a law because most legislator's acted on a religious reason in voting for it (and also had concomitant hopes and intentions of the sort to which you object)? I don't think I would. Maybe you'd feel differently, and maybe that's a case that shows we have some differences on some of this, although we agree on a lot.Michael Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14834928837774294668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-81050984768881037942010-03-01T12:50:32.681+11:002010-03-01T12:50:32.681+11:00Well, in the context of what I've read before ...Well, in the context of what I've read before and the overall context of the article, I think he's arguing about what sort of arguments it is legitimate for the state to act upon. Nobody in the classical liberal tradition disputes that is should be <i>legally</i> okay to argue all sorts of crazy things as bases for state action. The question is what sorts of things you can argue in the legitimate expectation that the state will place weight on them, and what sorts of arguments are "not okay" in the sense that you shouldn't have any such legitimate expectation.<br /><br />But sure, if he was just saying that it should continue to be lawful to argue that the state should act in conformity to a holy text then I'd actually agree with him. From what I know of Fish's views, Smith's views, and what Fish says in the article as a whole, including his disagreement with Locke, I think that would be a very charitable interpretation indeed. The trouble is that Fish uses this expression "ok", which could mean almost anything. If it means "should be lawful" then he's correct. But surely he must mean something like "in conformity with good ethico-legal principles governing what considerations should move the state to act". The overall context seems to clarify this. After all, this was what Locke was talking about - good ethico-legal principles governing state actions - not about what it is lawful to say. It is also what the classical liberal tradition is all about: e.g., Mill advocated the harm principle, but he never said that advocating different principles should be unlawful.<br /><br />But yes, we probably do agree on what the principles actually are, as opposed to what Fish is trying to say.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-12556939888962162292010-02-28T04:53:18.582+11:002010-02-28T04:53:18.582+11:00Life is too short to spend very much time assessin...Life is too short to spend very much time assessing Stanley Fish, but maybe I should've said that I fully recognize that the man has an unfortunate skeptical/anti-liberal/post-modernist bent. (I wind up criticizing Fish on this score in my own work.) And that's evident here: Fish only defends something like free speech (he is concerned about what is "o.k. to argue") given his view that every supposed value is the equal of every other. Where there are <i>good</i> reasons for unconstrained debate, I hope we can agree that this is a pretty <i>bad</i> one. My concern is just to avoid going too far in criticizing Fish; I hope there is nothing in being a good liberal that denies its being "o.k. to <i>argue</i>" anything.<br /><br />Anyway, I'm not criticizing you here; I'm clarifying my own view. After your last comment, I doubt that we are actually disagreed.Michael Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14834928837774294668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-59708291864974470902010-02-28T01:01:13.769+11:002010-02-28T01:01:13.769+11:00If the religious (or any other group) want want to...If the religious (or any other group) want want to put forth a law with such and such motivation, they in my view ought to have the right. But they ought not to have the right to have that motivation taken with deference; democracy should involve the openness to debate the premisses, too. Think of the line "Well, maybe we can get from here to there in a way that we both agree on." Of course, there's the danger that people will simply not agree to work together; but (despite our reputation as a sometimes uncooperative animal) I think with other principles eventually agreement will take hold - in a way it is a process to help homogenize things in a *good* way.philosopher-animalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16505629919126188962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-31952747357065015562010-02-27T18:40:05.415+11:002010-02-27T18:40:05.415+11:00Michael, I don't think Fish is merely defendin...Michael, I don't think Fish is merely defending free speech (he doesn't even like the concept of free speech). <br /><br />I definitely defend free speech: people can put forward whatever jurisprudential principles they like (and I am free to disagree and to argue that the legislature should not act on their proposed principles). As I understand Fish (and bearing in mind that this is not the first time he has spoken on the subject), he actually denies that legislators should confine themselves to dealing with things of this world. I.e., he denies that legislators should adopt anything like the Millian harm principle or the Lockean analysis of religious tolerance. That seems to be pretty clear, because he seems clear that he actually disagrees with Locke. He's not just defending the freedom of people to argue for a different view, either in general or on a specific occasion.<br /><br />If you send me a pdf of the article when it's published, I'll certainly look at it. For the moment, I don't have access to online academic journals. I may have when I sort something out in my new location, but for now there are lots of constraints on what material I can get hold of easily.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-32325716076438494872010-02-27T13:26:07.483+11:002010-02-27T13:26:07.483+11:00A problem I see with your proposal (after a superf...A problem I see with your proposal (after a superficial look at it) is that a) the "motivation" for proposing a law, leaving aside the proposition that every day is election day, is that it is utterly dependent on my opinion of the lawmaker and her morality, such as it may be.<br /><br />Laws, all of them, impose morals, which is exactly what religion does. So the distinction between them is the degree of self-righteousness they profess, as far as I can see.<br /><br />I don't at all seek to limit debate. I just want to make overt what seems to me an obvious if generally overlooked attribute of every religion: Its political nature. To say that we must have this law because (my) god demands it is utterly unacceptable. I see absolutely no reason whatever to give a rat's *ss about what strikes you as holy or godly.Graycardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10250783516794207019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-40023424324273872602010-02-27T12:48:06.334+11:002010-02-27T12:48:06.334+11:00This was great, Fish seems to really be on a confu...This was great, Fish seems to really be on a confusion-spewing role lately and I'm glad you took him down so nicely. He has a pretty strange definition of "secular reasoning"- I assume this isn't common as a way of defining the parameters of liberal secularism these days??<br /><br />His idea of secular reason reminds me of the economists/sociologists/historians/political scientists who maintained they were really doing "value-free science" even when giving political policy advice- maybe it's a case of Fish taking those old pronouncements at face value? I discussed it a bit on my blog as well...YamaZaruhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17421420520561905420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-59370794424309237222010-02-27T10:01:32.669+11:002010-02-27T10:01:32.669+11:00*Shameless self-plug*- Also, if you're writing...*Shameless self-plug*- Also, if you're writing a book on freedom of religion, I hope you'll consider reading my own contribution to the topic- a soon-to-be-published essay on First Amendment law in the Ohio State Law Journal. As legal argument, it probably won't interest you; but I think I contributed something originally philosophical to a proper understanding of the <i>value(s)</i> at stake (<i>vel non</i>) in concerns over "free exercise of religion." Of course, I <i>would</i> think that...Michael Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14834928837774294668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-57802200686447819812010-02-27T09:38:49.646+11:002010-02-27T09:38:49.646+11:00Why not distinguish between a) any legislator'...Why not distinguish between a) any legislator's motivating reason for voting in favor of some law, and b)the law itself / that law's content as law? This distinction makes it possible to think both that a) no law, as the law it is, should impose religion; but, b) in terms of public debate, nothing need be excluded (as a supposed <i>reason</i> for the law). I don't want to sacrifice fully open debate as the price to pay for a secular legal system, and you shouldn't either. Generally, it is almost always better if people's <i>real</i> reasons for action are not sublimated; better to know what you are up against, so that when you get down to the hard business of democracy--convincing the guy next to you to change his mind--you might succeed. <br /><br />Anyway, apologies if I've misread you. The reason I take it that you seek to limit public debate in some ways is because, as I read the provided Fish excerpt, I regard Fish to simply be objecting to advance limits on public debate. Possibly, however, you think Fish is suggesting that laws, as the laws they are, properly may have religious content (of the sort that necessarily involves imposing religion). That <i>would</i> be a position worth arguing against (although probably not in a way that suggested the importance of limiting debate).Michael Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14834928837774294668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-34619822823250413122010-02-27T04:59:43.779+11:002010-02-27T04:59:43.779+11:00The thing that concerns me in all these discussion...The thing that concerns me in all these discussions is that religion is politics. Politics with an ace in the holy, but still politics. Religion states and enforces rules of conduct for its participants; in other words, it allocates exercises and abuses power. That is politics.Graycardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10250783516794207019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-51065191113418141612010-02-27T04:14:25.050+11:002010-02-27T04:14:25.050+11:00So did I! (Except for the Tweeted part.) So much F...So did I! (Except for the Tweeted part.) So much Fishery, so little time.Ophelia Bensonhttp://www.butterfliesandwheels.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-76486590242082666142010-02-27T03:21:28.658+11:002010-02-27T03:21:28.658+11:00Thanks for taking the time to write this full crit...Thanks for taking the time to write this full critique. There was so much to say, but I copped out and instead just Tweeted something sarcastic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com