ÿWPCéV Ë2RÎÈ•~±Œ]‡œ³ù Ñè9Z6úîjièIv€Ju§]ÄJucg[xKM¡1YÏà[¯D2ŠiÀ2wÝab(l‡n¤:Ôþ•Vðïð #Ïð»“ÞTJxþŠ ¼e,iT­­ä0DH¤¹RJÙô÷‰ç“’7VCs‘‰äÆ­Æ$Ð?rW¤J/^À¬=Ù©Q§«•ÿ™0ö¥êã©Ë5­’siG¸*Ñ·(¾Ãu«Òû‰É ®•õÚ *6žd« Â R¤j/„=Û‹:ÍBÍ·#+¾Q0÷óØaý§G »ãC驨pŸº|6«¥ œ}Øß®÷À°õ›{àYGÉPû,ðÚžIž?⿬4Mmd]ÿ{¾ýtÖÄù¢Å—Ù€õG‰¬oc¯…ÔdqE5+¦£ŒwP î^‹¹Æ;©R«Ç:¦êy­£êìª*LOµeÑy§C& T-î•{Í9véÿC€æþÙ†»ÉŸÛ7 &/sï𘫵¤h¶Ìë)ãÃ!רü*3BãˆãöïºVµ­Üâmßžc§KI¡X±{£.¼üžèW6S‡]g|E†d§feX'ýª8‘* Ä[¹‚µƒd.ô?z_ŒVrµQ\ÿè]ÛD 0:¸^ ò 0~þw|4€”£ 0D¥ 1uéN^N`Nb¥dN N  72 Û?É 0Ï㻲¦m 72NENGNI 1sKd¾ m"%#É9%UN( %P( 0´V( 0Ç ) 0ÛÑ) 0—¬* 0»C+ 0ïþ+ 0Ní,Æ;-. 0 D .ÆM/Æ0ÆÙ0ÆŸ1Æe2 1_+3 72Š3 72¼3î3î3»þ3þ3 0c¹4 0 w5 0Š“5 0 6 72½6.Ñï6 72À7 1Õò7 72Ç8Nù8Nû8Ný8Nÿ8ÿ8ÿ8ÿ8ÿ8½99:¾:Nø:F;N]<N_<Na<Nc<Ne<Ng<Ni<Nk<Nm<No<Nq<Ns< 72u< B§< 72Ä< 72ö< 72(=EZ=Z=Z=Z=Z=Z=Z=Z=Z=Z=Z=Z=Z=Z=Þ\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=H:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:AL ‚E‚EšÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRÎRhU(üœ$¡¡ÔUSUS.,ÔP2- (.(3¬($¤¤Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóCuú,@Q§3|x(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) ›Ý ƒ¬($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMy€slight€knowledge€of€this€area€comes€from€Michael€Walzerððs€òòJust€and€Unjust€WarsóóÐ ° Ð(19xx).€€It€seems€to€me€that€we€are€slowly€abandoning€all€rules€of€war.€€One€horrible€example€ofÐ œì Ðthis€is€the€strategic€doctrine€of€MAD€(Mutually€Assured€Destruction)€and€ð ðmassive€retaliationððÐ ˆØ Ðthat€the€United€States€adopted€between€the€advent€of€the€Cold€War€and...€well,€we€still€hold€thatÐ tÄ Ðdoctrine,€I€believeð!ð€itððs€just€hibernating€until€we€have€another€Soviet€Union€to€use€it€on./)  ÑÝ ƒ¬($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€spirit€underlies€the€U.S.€Constitutionððs€principle€of€the€separation€of€Church€andÐ ° ÐState:€€not€a€rejection€of€peopleððs€religious€understanding€of€the€Good€but€a€recognition€that€weÐ œì Ðhave€no€way€to€prove€the€superiority€of€one€such€understanding€over€another€claim€a€specialÐ ˆØ Ðstatus€for€our€view. ¿Ý ƒ¬($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔI€am€using€Rawlsððs€term€here€without€necessarily€implying€that€this€is€Rawlsððs€view.( …^Òà$ÈÈÌÔ  Ôà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà ` àòòÔ  ÔÚƒ.Ú3Ú  Ú:Û€.ÛÔ à0xÔóó ±Ý ƒ¬($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔFor€example,€a€Nazi„proposed€norm€to€exterminate€Jews€would€be€a€nonstarter. œÝ ƒ¬($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔI€am€indebted€to€Eileen€Theimer€for€pointing€this€out. i)3•Ñ37=CIOW_e®®I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a) ZÝ ƒ¬($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔI€am€òònotóó€advocating€that€spouses€cling€to€bad€relationships€even€after€removingÐ ° Ðthemselves€from€the€abuse.€€I€òòamóó€advocating€that€we€distinguish€removal€from€disengagement.€Ð œì ÐDisregarding€the€practicalities€of€the€situation,€which€may€make€effective€action€impossible,€thereÐ ˆØ Ðis€no€reason€to€tolerate€an€abusive€relationship;€€the€abused€spouse€is€always€entitled€to€demandÐ tÄ Ðthe€Relationship€discussed€above.€€But€removal€from€the€abusive€situation€is€not€the€same€asÐ `° Ðremoval€from€the€Relationship.€€The€central€point€here€is€that€one€can€maintain€the€RelationshipÐ L œ Ðeven€while€removing€oneself€from€the€relationship.€€Whether€one€decides€to€maintain€thisÐ 8 ˆ ÐRelationship,€whether€one€sees€any€realistic€chance€of€transforming€the€old€relationship€into€theÐ $ t Ðnew€Relationship:€€these€are€decisions€only€the€abused€spouse€can€make.€€I'm€not€trying€toÐ  ` Ðsecond„guess€her;€€I'm€merely€pointing€out€that€there€òòisóó€a€decision€to€be€made,€a€decision€thatÐ ü L  Ðinvolves€moral€issues€(how€one€has€a€right€to€be€treated),€not€just€practical€issues€("How€am€IÐ è 8  Ðgoing€to€feed€my€children€if€I€divorce€him?").Ð Ô$  Ðà  àLater€(p.Õƒ2SIMILARÕ50Õ  Õ)€I€argue€that€the€problems€of€agreement€in€society€are€similar€to€those€inÐ À  Ðmarriage.€€This€is€one€area€where€the€problems€differ.€€One€can€get€divorced€and€remarried€withÐ ¬ü  Ðrelative€ease,€but€it€is€almost€impossible€to€remove€oneself€from€an€abusive€society.€€Citizens€haveÐ ˜è  Ðto€transform€an€abusive€society€from€within€it.?Æ8ÿÿÿþýü˜HP DeskJet 830C Series Printer0(,,,,0(0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ŒÜ$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2#Ô(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(ŸF$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2#Ô(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³Àô$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(7V¿$ÆÆÌÔ  Ôò òÔ  ÔòòÚƒ.ÚIIÚ  ÚÛ€.Û€óóÔ ò Ôó ó( q^Hê$ÇÇÌÔ  Ôà0  àà0` (#(#àà  àò òÔ  ÔÚƒ.ÚEÚ  Ú.Û€.ÛÔ à0dÔó ó(ǵ{$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 (F$ïïà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àà0p(#(#àÔ2#ÔÙ ÙÚ  ÚÚ  ÚÙ Ù)Ô3  Ôà0Èp(#p(#àÙ Ù‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5WOREssay #Header3Header4Header5Header66789 !"%s+t37;?CGKOS°°-*+x i)/) SIMILAR ±Ý ƒ¬($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOne€couple€I€know€makes€decisions€by€flipping€a€coin€when€they€cannot€agree.(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(Oé;$µµà0  àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(b·¤$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xir$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2#Ô(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à1)0ý!?¡¥©­µ½ÃHeadOfFor the outline I give beneath the title of IA1(a)(i)1)a);i)0vÝC¡¥©­±¹ÁÇHeadOfSecFor the outline I give beneath the title of IA1(a)(i)1)a)= ³Ý ƒ¬($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€might€also€go€as€a€case€study€in€PIC„DP,€with€Ackerman€Stage5,€BenhabibÐ ° ÐStage5ðð,€and€my€suggestions€Stage6.€€But€I€want€to€make€sure€that€Ackermanððs€theory€isÐ œì Ðindeed€Stage5€and€that€Benhabib€does€not€go€on€to€suggest€how€to€solve€the€problems€she€pointsÐ ˆØ Ðout.J˜C:\_MYFILES\_WOR\ROUSSE~1C:\_MYFILES\_WOR\Rousseau'sGeneralWill Ý ƒ¬($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔBut€however€the€constraint€is€interpreted,€it€would€certainly€rule€against€capitalÐ ° Ðpunishment,€the€most€extreme€violation€of€anotherððs€free€will. i) d/)  i)/)  ÔÝ ƒ¬($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔLet€me€clarify€this.€€In€an€oppressive€society,€most€peopleððs€usual€experience€in€publicÐ ° Ðissues€is€to€have€their€opinions€disregarded€in€the€first€place.€€It€is€infuriating,€then,€to€have€itÐ œì Ðsuggested€that€one€humbly€accept€whatever€norm€is€then€established.€€But€this€is€not€what€I€amÐ ˆØ Ðsuggesting.€€The€attitudes€I€suggest€adopting€are€predicated€on€oneððs€having€had€oneððs€sayÐ tÄ Ðalready,€on€others€having€listened€closely€to€oneððs€position.€€And€this€only€has€to€do€with€theÐ `° Ðdiscussions€of€M1€and€the€yet„to„be„fully„fleshed„out€demands€of€its€ideal€speech€situation.€€I€amÐ L œ Ðalso€insisting€that€oneððs€situation€and€opinions€be€recognized€fully€in€M2,€where€ð ðrecognizedÐ 8 ˆ Ðfullyðð€means€consistent€with€the€second„order€rules. >Ý ƒ¬($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔRawlsððs€ð ðdifference€[maximin]€principleðð€of€justice€is€subject€to€the€objection€that€in€hisÐ ° ÐOriginal€Position,€people€might€choose€a€utilitarian€(utility€maximization)€principle€instead€ofÐ œì Ðmaximin€principle.€€Not€knowing€what€social€position€they€would€occupy,€they€could€choose€toÐ ˆØ Ðmaximize€their€expected€welfare.€€Rawls€advances€some€good€arguments€why€this€would€notÐ tÄ Ðoccur,€including€some€philosophical€problems€with€the€concept€of€utility€itself,€but€while€I€find€hisÐ `° Ðarguments€persuasive,€I€donððt€find€them€decisive.€€(And€although€I€canððt€swear€to€this,€I€seem€toÐ L œ Ðrecall€that€Lawrence€Kohlberg€admitted€utilitarianism€as€a€possible€ð ðStage6"€form€of€moralÐ 8 ˆ Ðreasoning€and/or€that€Rawls€himself€has€grown€to€accept€utilitarianism€as€an€alternative.€€PerhapsÐ $ t Ðsomeone€will€help€me€verify€and€locate€this.) B Ý ƒ¬($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€following€anecdote€illustrates€these€two€attitudes:€€Visiting€my€family€about€threeÐ ° Ðyears€ago,€I€went€out€with€them€to€a€local€restaurant€to€celebrate€something€or€other.€€There€wereÐ œì Ðnine€of€us,€and€the€final€bill€was€substantial:€€say,€$198,€including€the€tax€and€tip.€€Sara,€my€sister,Ð ˆØ Ðsaid€she€would€pay€with€her€credit€card,€and€the€rest€of€us€would€just€give€her€our€$22€shares€inÐ tÄ Ðcash.€€We€duly€kicked€in€our€shares,€piling€the€money€in€the€middle€of€the€table.€€Sara€paid€the€billÐ `° Ðand€then,€picking€up€the€money,€discovered€that€she€was€short€$20:€€instead€of€the€$176€thatÐ L œ Ðshould€have€been€there€(8€other€people€@€$22/person),€there€was€only€$156.€€After€due€reflection,Ð 8 ˆ Ðeach€of€us€claimed€to€have€put€in€h/her€share€and€objected€to€making€up€the€difference.€€But€thisÐ $ t Ðis/was€not€a€discourse€ethics€response.€€Here€is€the€response€that€the€second„order€rules€imply:Ð  ` Ðà  à1.€If€we're€all€in€this€together,€then€even€though€each€of€us€was€sure€we€had€put€in€theÐ ü L  Ðright€amount,€we€should€divide€the€$20€among€the€eight€of€us,€paying€an€extra€$2.50€each.€€(EightÐ è 8  Ðof€us€instead€of€all€nine,€since€Sara's€share€was€not€at€issue.)€€Even€though€each€of€us€was€"sure"Ð Ô$  Ðthat€s/he€had€contributed€properly,€no€one€could€be€certain€and,€more€importantly,€could€notÐ À  Ðadvance€evidence€that€would€convince€the€others.€€So€being€"all€in€it€together"€means€that€each€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðus€agrees€to€take€on€the€burden€of€paying€more€than€s/he€believes€she€ought€to.Ð ˜è  Ðà  à2.€I€withheld€some€information€from€the€above€scenario.€€It€is€relevant€that€I€got€myÐ „Ô  Ðundergraduate€degree€in€applied€mathematics,€and€just€as€literature€majors€are€asked€for€help€inÐ pÀ Ðspelling,€I'm€asked€to€do€tasks€like€computing€the€tip€and€dividing€up€the€bill.€€And€I'm€quite€goodÐ \¬ Ðat€it:€€usually€correct€the€first€time,€but€always€careful,€double„checking€my€figures.€€I€had€beenÐ H˜ Ðasked€to€do€this€for€this€bill€as€well,€so€I€had€paid€close€attention€to€paying€my€$22€share€and€thusÐ 4„ Ðòòknewóó€that€I€had€paid€correctly.€€But€in€the€heat€of€the€moment,€others€would€not€admit€my€claim,Ð  p Ðso€that€even€though€I€had€the€power€to€refuse€to€contribute€the€additional€$2.50,€I€could€notÐ  \ Ðmorally€do€so.Ð øH Ðà  àWhat€in€fact€happened€is€that€we€all€refused€to€contribute€a€penny€extra,€which€of€courseÐ ä4 Ðleft€Sara,€the€only€person€who€we€knew€paid€her€share,€stuck€with€the€$20€shortfall,€which€ofÐ Ð  Ðcourse€infuriated€her.€€This€bothered€me€ever€afterwards,€so€that€while€writing€this€paper€I€finallyÐ ¼  Ðfigured€out€that€I€had€been€wrong,€and€I€gave€Sara€$10€and€an€apology:€€$2.50€as€the€amountÐ ¨ø Ðoriginally€owed,€$7.50€to€say€that€I€was€still€in€it€together€with€her€(where€"it"€means€a€situationÐ ”ä Ðwhere€other€people€don't€behave€well),€and€the€apology€to€reaffirm€our€Relationship. Ý ƒ¬($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔRawls€(1971)€does€not€clearly€address€the€ð ðproblemsðð€portion€of€this,€but€the€one€wouldÐ ° Ðseem€to€follow€as€the€shadow€side€of€the€other.Ð œì Ðà  àAs€an€aside,€I€note€that€in€the€United€States€the€withdrawal€into€gated€communitiesð2ð€bothÐ ˆØ Ðliterally€and€metaphoricallyð2ð€represents€a€growing€abandonment€of€what€Relationship€we€haveÐ tÄ Ðwith€one€another€and/or€an€ever„more„explicit€admission€that€our€society€is€not€founded€on€such€aÐ `° ÐRelationship. wÝ ƒ¬($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€phrasing€automatically€implies€that€no€good€reasons€have€been€given€to€persuadeÐ ° Ðthis€spouse€to€agree,€since€h/her€persuasion€means€s/he€freely€accepts€the€norm€and€thus€cannot€beÐ œì Ðsaid€to€have€ð ðlostðð€when€it€is€implemented.Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ ý ÑÑ8€í XXdìdÈ8ÑSeptember€18,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ° Ðà€A(#àÔÿÔò òLEVEL:€€xxó óÔÿÛԈРœì Ðò òÔ‡î›îXXÔ[Chapter€3]Ô#†Xí Xîî›(#Ôó óÐ ˆØ Ðò òÔ‡„Äj„XXí Ôà0  àà ° àòòFacing€the€Agreement€Problem€in€a€Second€Moment€of€MoralÐ ´ ÐJudgmentÔ#†Xí X„„Äj#Ôó óóóÐ `(#(# Ð[URL:€€FacingTheAgreementProblem]Ð l ¼ ÐÌÓ€ =(vÝ03 ÓSECTIONS€(&€perhaps€subsections):Ð D ” ÐÝ"‚7é;"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚7é;UÝà0  àÔ2vÝÔÚ  ÚIÚ  ÚÔ3  Ôà0` (#(#àÝ  ÝIntroduction݃7é;U‚ÝŒÐ0 €` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚7é;"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚7é;=Ýà0  àÔ2vÝÔÚ  ÚIIÚ  ÚÔ3  Ôà0` (#(#àÝ  ÝSecond„order€Criteria€for€Decisions€under€Disagreement݃7é;=jÝŒÐl ` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚7é;"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚7é;PÝà0  àÔ2vÝÔÚ  ÚIIIÚ  ÚÔ3  Ôà0` (#(#àÝ  ÝFriendship€When€Friendship€Fails:€€Choosing€and€Still€Loving;€€Learning€HumilityÐ X  Ðand€Detaching€Oneself݃7é;P}ÝŒÐôD ` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌßA€Y]) °°xdE°ËxAßÐ Ì  ÐÓÓÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8  àI€have€a€conceptual€motive€and€a€fundamental€intuition....€€The€motivating€thoughtÐ ³ Ðconcerns€the€reconciliation€of€a€modernity€which€has€fallen€apart,€the€idea€that€withoutÐ ¡ñ Ðsurrendering€the€differentiation€that€modernity€has€made€possible€in€the€cultural,€theÐ ß Ðsocial€and€economic€spheres,€one€can€find€forms€of€living€together€in€which€autonomyÐ }Í Ðand€dependency€can€truly€enter€into€a€Ô_Ônon„aÔ_Ôntagonistic€relation,€that€one€can€walk€tallÐ k» Ðin€a€collectivity€that€does€not€have€the€dubious€quality€of€backward-lookingÐ Y© Ðsubstantial€forms€of€community.€The€intuition€springs€from€the€sphere€of€relationsÐ G— Ðwith€others;€it€aims€at€experiences€of€undisturbed€intersubjectivity.€These€are€moreÐ 5… Ðfragile€than€anything€that€history€has€up€till€now€brought€forth€in€the€way€of€structuresÐ #s Ðof€communication€-€an€ever€more€dense€and€finely€woven€web€of€intersubjectiveÐ a Ðrelations€that€nevertheless€make€possible€a€relation€between€freedom€and€dependencyÐ ÿO Ðthat€can€only€be€imaged€with€interactive€models....€€All€of€these€images€of€protection,Ð í= Ðopenness€and€compassion,€of€submission€and€resistance,€rise€out€of€a€horizon€ofÐ Û+ Ðexperience,€of€what€Brecht€would€have€termed€ð ðfriendly€living€together.ðð€€This€kindÐ É Ðof€friendliness€does€not€exclude€conflict,€rather€it€implies€those€human€forms€throughÐ ·  Ðwhich€one€can€survive€conflicts.Ð¥!õÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà0` Ð Ð àð!ð€Jrgen€Habermas€ð ðThe€Dialectics€of€Rationalizationðð€in€òòAutonomy€andÐ “"ã  ÐSolidarityóó€(NY:€€Verso€Press,€1986),€p.124€f.€€[This€was€called€to€myÐ #Ñ! Ðattention€by€Kenneth€MacKendrick.]Ðo$¿"` Ð ` Ð  ÐÓÓÓÓÝ‚#¿ÿÝÌÔ  Ôò òÔ  ÔòòÝ  ÝÝ‚#¿ ÝÚƒ.ÚIÚ  ÚÛ€.Û€Ý  ÝIntroduction݃#¿ FÝóóÔ ò +ԌР5'…"% ÐŒó óÝ  ÝThe€Agreement€Problem€means€that€we€cannot€look€to€agreement€to€solve€all€(or,€it€€seems€to€me,Ð  )]$' Ðvery€many)€moral€issues.€€If€this€difficulty€arose€from€a€few€people€being€s.o.b.s€(or,€moreÐ å*5&) Ðrealistically,€from€a€lot€of€us€being€selfish€a€lot€of€the€time),€we€could€solve€this€problem,€either€byÐ ½, (+ý  Ðgetting€rid€of€the€s.o.b.sð!ð€what€we€might€term€the€Pol€Pot€solutionð!ð€or€by€restructuring€societyÐ d Ðand€reeducating€people€to€stamp€out€selfishnessð!ð€what€we€might€term€the€Stalin€solution.€€But€asÐ <Ø ÐI€argued€in€the€previous€essay,€the€Agreement€Problem€is€bound€up€with€general€features€of€theÐ  ° Ðhuman€condition:€€diversity€of€senses€of€the€Good,€and€limits€of€time€and€other€resources.€€Thusð!ðÐ ì ˆ Ðto€take€the€case€of€Pol€Potð!ð€the€elimination€of€a€few€ð ðcounter„revolutionariesðð€did€not€produceð!ðÐ Ä ` Ðcould€not€produceð!ð€the€anticipated€smooth€functioning€of€society.€€Unfortunately€for€theÐ œ8  ÐCambodians,€this€failure€only€convinced€Pol€Pot€and€the€Khmer€Rouge€that€there€were€still€moreÐ t  Ðcounter„revolutionaries€to€eliminate,€and€so€the€cycle€of€elimination„failure„elimination€continued.Ð Lè  Ðà  àSo€at€this€point€in€our€story€we€are€looking€for€but€still€lack€a€sense€of€what€to€do€in€theÐ $À Ðabsence€of€agreement.€€We€first€need€to€ask,€ð ðIs€whether€there€is€anything€at€all€to€say€beyondÐ ü˜ ÐÔ_Ôagreement?ðð€€My€sense,€certainly,€and€I€think€most€peopleððs€is€that€some€meaningful€sense€ofÐ Ôp Ðmorality€still€exists€even€in€disagreement.€€The€traditional€laws€of€war,€for€example,€have€said€thatÐ ¬H Ðeven€in€war,€the€ultimate€disagreement,€we€should€not€do€certain€things:€€bomb€civilians,€tortureÐ „  ÐÔ_Ôor€kill€prisoners€of€war,€use€human€shields,€and€so€on.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð \ø Ðà  àHow€can€we€clarify€this€residual€sense€of€morality?€€One€way€is€to€take€an€intuitionistÐ 4 Ð Ðapproach:€€once€we€pass€beyond€agreement,€we€may€not€be€able€to€say€precisely€what€is€moral,Ð  "¨ Ðbut€we€can€be€guided€by€our€intuitions,€which€will€lead€us€to€some€overlapping€consensus.׃,×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Рä#€  ÐAnother€way€is€to€relax€the€concept€of€agreement:€€if€we€cannot€reach€total€agreement,€we€canÐ ¼%X" Ðlook€for€agreement€on€norms€that€everyone€agrees€òòor€could€agreeóó€to.€€(This€isÐ d ÐHabermasððs19xx:xx€formulation.)€€Or€we€can€look€for€agreement€on€norms€that€are€agreed€to€byÐ <Ø Ðð ðmost€peopleðð,€or€by€ð ðall€rational€peopleðð,€etc.Ð  ° Ðà  àThe€virtue€in€these€positions€is€that€they€acknowledge€our€experience€that€there€is€moralityÐ ì ˆ Ðbeyond€agreement.€€Even€if€we€cannot€agree,€they€say,€we€should€not€jump€immediately€intoÐ Ä ` Ðanarchy,€violence,€and€complete€amorality.€€Their€taking€this€position€is€valuable€because€it€holdsÐ œ8  Ðout€against€arguments€that€abandon€morality€entirely.€€But€however€important€that€oppositionÐ t  Ðmight€be,€I€donððt€see€these€positions€as€taking€us€beyond€it.€€They€insist€that€there€is€a€morality,Ð Lè  Ðbut€they€donððt€clarify€its€nature.€€The€problem€is€that€all€of€the€formulations€meant€to€clarify€thisÐ $À Ðmorality€are,€in€the€end,€ambiguous€in€important€ways,€meaning€ways€that€allow€the€corruption€ofÐ ü˜ Ðmorality€by€power.Ð Ôp Ðà  àConsider€the€intuitionist€position.€€Intuitionism€provides€no€defense€against€our€individualÐ ¬H Ðemotional€distresses,€our€common€prejudices,€and€our€common€egocentrism.€€[xx€Somewhere€inÐ „  Ðhere€give€the€story€of€Craig€trying€to€buy€me€a€ticket.€€I€was€egocentric,€even€if€not€specificallyÐ \ø Ðselfish.]€€While€intuition€is€surely€a€guide€to€action,€it€is€not€a€reliable€one.€€Insofar€as€possible€weÐ 4 Ð Ðwant€our€decisions€to€be€informed€by€both€reason€and€intuition;€€neither€is€complete€in€itself.€€ItÐ  "¨ Ðmay€be€that€in€the€end€we€wind€up€having€to€rely€on€intuition,€but€in€the€situation€we€areÐ ä#€  Ðpresented€with€here,€it€isnððt€clear€that€reason€has€exhausted€its€contributionð!ð€and€of€course€theÐ ¼%X" Ðpoint€of€this€essay€is€to€add€more.Ð ”'0!$ Ðà  àConsider€now€the€attempts€to€clarify€our€sense€of€morality€by€loosening€our€concept€ofÐ l)#& Ðagreement.€€The€problem€here€is€that€the€terms€of€loosening€are€intuitive€or€at€least€subjective,€soÐ D+à$( Ðthey€too€are€likely€to€be€corrupted€by€our€distresses,€prejudices,€and€egocentrism.€€To€say€thatÐ -¸&* Ðð ðmost€peopleðð€agree€is€only€a€statistical€observation;€€it€makes€value€judgments€about€peopleððsÐ d Ðnormative€preferences€without€actually€considering€those€positions.€€At€its€worst,€this€becomes€aÐ <Ø Ðrepressive€majoritarianism,€but€even€at€its€best,€it€does€not€explain€why€some€people€are€to€beÐ  ° Ðignored.€€As€with€intuitionism,€it€may€be€that€in€the€end€we€find€mere€head„counting€useful,€but€itÐ ì ˆ Ðis€not€clear€yet€that€we€have€passed€beyond€the€possibility€of€clarification.Ð Ä ` Ðà  àFinally,€consider€the€case€of€demanding€agreement€only€among€ð ðrationalðð€(or€even€merelyÐ œ8  Ðð ðreasonableðð)€people.€€All€of€us€surely€know€someone€so€distressed€(or€outright€crazy,€as,€say,€anÐ t  Ðalcoholic€in€the€grip€of€òòdelirium€tremensóó)€that€we€would€never€trust€their€judgment,€certainly€notÐ Lè  Ðto€the€extent€of€holding€up€all€decisions€as€we€await€their€approval.€€Here€I€want€to€advance€bothÐ $À Ða€shallow€argument€and€a€deeper€one.€€The€shallow€argument€is€that€of€the€old€quip€that€ð ðevenÐ ü˜ Ðparanoids€have€real€enemiesðð.€€Even€if€it€is€clear€that€someone€is€making€truly€crazy€decisions€a€lotÐ Ôp Ðof€the€time,€it€is€never€clear€that€they€are€crazy€in€any€particular€decision,€particularly€given€thatÐ ¬H Ðwe€have€the€luxury€of€hindsight€in€judging€their€previous€decisions€as€crazy€but€must€decideÐ „  Ðwhether€to€exclude€them€only€prospectively.Ð \ø Ðà  àI€think€this€argument€has€some€validity,€but€I€donððt€want€to€be€led€into€a€defense€of€allÐ 4 Ð Ðpossible€forms€of€distress€and€mental€illness.€€This€is€particularly€true€when€we€recall€thatÐ  "¨ Ðð ðrationalityðð€isnððt€just€meant€to€exclude€crazy€people;€€it€is€also€meant€to€exclude€decisions€basedÐ ä#€  Ðon€spiritual€belief€or€on€intuition.€€And€though€people€whose€values€are€deeply€informed€by€theirÐ ¼%X" Ðspiritual€practice€may€not€use€the€term€ð ðrationalityðð,€they€too€have€ways€of€dismissing€the€value€ofÐ ”'0!$ Ðopinions€held€by€those€who€donððt€share€their€spiritual€orientation.€€Here€is€where€I€want€toÐ l)#& Ðadvance€the€deeper€argument,€the€postmodernist€position€that€the€sense€of€what€is€rational€isÐ D+à$( Ðsocially€constructed€and,€to€the€extent€that€its€origins€lie€in€the€play€of€power€rather€than€justÐ -¸&* ÐReason,€arbitrary.€€Elsewhere€in€this€work€I€discuss€what€I€see€as€the€limits€of€postmodernism,€butÐ d Ðit€is€clear€to€me,€at€least,€that€we€can€no€longer€pretend€to€innocence€in€our€use€of€ð ðrationalityðð€asÐ <Ø Ða€concept.€€It€may€be€that€reason€does€exist€somewhere€out€thereð!ð€Iððm€not€claiming€thatÐ  ° Ðjudgments€can€be€nothing€except€nonrationalð!ð€but€we€canððt€use€it€unproblematically€to€excludeÐ ì ˆ Ðpeople€from€our€moral€universe.Ð Ä ` Ðà  àSo€to€conclude,€we€are€faced€with€the€challenge€of€clarifying€the€nature€of€morality€beyondÐ œ8  Ðargument.€€The€remainder€of€this€essay€does€so.€€The€next€section€presents€my€account€of€thisÐ t  Ðsense€of€morality,€and€the€final€section€discusses€its€emotional€concomitants.Ð Lè  ÐÝ‚#¿ÿÝÌÔ  Ôò òÔ  ÔòòÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÝ‚#¿M1ÝÚƒ.ÚIIÚ  ÚÛ€.Û€Ý  ÝSecond„order€Criteria€for€Decisions€under€Disagreement݃#¿M1—1ÝóóÔ ò l1ԌРü˜ ÐŒó óÝ  Ýxx€Whether€we€agree€or€not,€the€presuppositions€of€argumentation€remain€that€we€are€in€aÐ Ôp ÐRelationship€of€òòtryingóó€to€come€to€agreement,€a€Relationship€that€exists€even€in€the€face€of€currentÐ ¬H Ðdisagreement.€€His€argument€concerns€our€need€to€assume€we€can€reach€an€agreement€with€eachÐ „  Ðother,€not€the€existence€of€such€an€agreement.€€Even€if€we€canððt€agree,€the€requirements€do€notÐ \ø Ðchange,€and€thus€the€existence€of€the€Relationship€embodying€them€does€not€change.€€The€issueÐ 4 Ð Ðtherefore€becomes€how€we€are€to€constitute€our€Relationship,€an€issue€that€includes€but€is€largerÐ  "¨ Ðthan€any€particular€norm.€€We€òòmustóó€agree,€and€we€must€do€so€in€a€way€that€still€reflects€andÐ ä#€  Ðsupports€the€nature€of€our€Relationship.Ð ¼%X" Ðà  àThis€maintenance€of€the€Relationship€gives€rise€to€a€number€of€ð ðsecond„order€rulesðð,Ð ”'0!$ Ðð ðsecond„orderðð€because€they€are€not€specific€norms€(zero„order)€or€specific€rule„makingÐ l)#& Ðprocesses€(first„order),€but€they€are€instead€rules€about€the€foundational€Relationship€giving€riseÐ D+à$( Ðto€the€norms€and€the€processes€of€making€them.€€Some€of€these€second„order€rules€concern€ourÐ -¸&* Ðfundamental€attitude€in€M2,€some€concern€the€way€we€engage€each€other€there,€some€constrainÐ d Ðthe€norms€we€allow€to€be€established,€and€some€concern€how€we€behave€in€the€aftermath€of€aÐ <Ø Ðnorm€having€been€established€ð"ð€all€of€these€I€will€collectively€term€ð ðsecond„order€rulesðð.€€BeforeÐ  ° Ðgoing€into€their€details,€however,€I€note€that€these€rules€are€not€unique€to€M2;€€they€hold€withinÐ ì ˆ ÐM1€as€well€and€thus€throughout€discourse€ethics.€€However,€since€the€universal€agreement€in€M1Ð Ä ` Ðmakes€them€unproblematic€there,€they€are€not€prominent€until€M2.€€I€also€note€that€these€rulesÐ œ8  Ðconstrain€norms€and€guide€our€discourse,€but€they€do€not€in€the€end€provide€specific€norms.€€IÐ t  Ðhavenððt€forgotten€that€important€final€step,€however!€€I€am€simply€deferring€it€to€a€subsequentÐ Lè  Ðsection.Ð $À ÐÌò òÔ&  ÔððFundamental€Attitudes:€€ó óM2€is€a€situation€in€which€we€deal€with€conflict.€€But€despite€thatÐ Ôp Ðconflictð2ð€or€perhaps€because€of€itð2ð€we€need€to€carry€into€the€conflict€a€number€of€basic€attitudesÐ ´P Ðabout€our€situation€and€each€other,€attitudes€that€reflect€and€support€the€basic€Relationship.Ð Œ( Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àà  à€ððWe€all€have€an€equal€right€to€define€the€specific€content€of€the€Relationship.€€ThisÐ d Ðequality€is€not€the€equality€of€having€equal€influence€over€some€final€compromiseÐ < Ø Ðbut€rather€the€equality€of€each€personÔ' Ô;Ô€having€a€veto€power€over€the€existence€ofÐ "° Ðthe€Relationshipð2ð€given€that€this€veto€can€only€be€exercised€for€reasons€thatÐ ì#ˆ  Ðacknowledge€the€fact€that€everyone€is€in€the€same€situation.€€For€example,Ð Ä%`" Ðwithdrawing€from€our€Relationship€on€the€ground€that€òòmyóó€norms€should€prevailð2ðÐ œ'8!$ Ðthis€withdrawal€cannot€recognize€a€consequent,€similar€right€of€all€others€toÐ t)#& Ðexercise€their€own€veto€on€the€same€grounds.ÐL+è$(` (#` (# Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àà  à€ððAnother€attitude,€or€perhaps€the€same€attitude€expressed€in€a€different€way,€is€thatÐ $-À&* Ðð ðweððre€all€in€this€togetherðð.€€This€is€like€Rawlsððs€view€of€the€distribution€of€talentsÐ d Ð(and€problems)€in€society€as€a€common€resource€(or€responsibility).׃Ð×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð<Ø` (#` (# Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àà  à€ððPart€of€being€ð ðall€in€this€togetherðð€is€our€acceptance€that€someoneð2ð€and€we€explicitlyÐ  ° Ðaccept€the€possibility€that€it€will€be€usð2ð€will€be€hurt€by€any€norm€we€establish.€Ð ì ˆ Ðð ðAcceptanceðð€doesnððt€mean€we€must€like€such€a€norm€but€rather€that€we€view€thisÐ Ä ` Ðhurt€as€an€essential€concomitant€of€our€acknowledging€and€honoring€ourÐ œ8  Ðunderlying€Relationship.€€We€accept€that€even€if€we€cannot€all€agree€on€a€norm,€weÐ t  Ðare€all€agreeing€to€hold€to€the€Relationship€despite€the€possibility€that€the€norm€weÐ Lè  Ðestablish€will€feel€like€a€violation€to€us€and€the€certainty€that€it€will€feel€like€aÐ $À Ðviolation€to€someone.Ðü˜` (#` (# Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àà  à€ððWe€also€accept€that€none€of€us€has€a€privileged€position€vis„a„vis€others€in€determiningÐ Ôp Ðwhat€is€Right.€€We€have€left€behind€in€M1€the€chance€to€make€and€support€suchÐ ¬H Ðclaims.€€We€each€still€feel€ourselves€to€be€Right,€are€convinced€we€are€Right,€andÐ „  Ðyet€we€recognize€that€there€is€no€longer€any€means€of€pressing€our€feelings€andÐ \ø Ðconvictions€on€others€who€themselves€have€such€feelings€and€convictions.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð4 Ð` (#` (# Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àà ¸ à€€It€is€frustrating€to€feel€oneself€right€and€yet€accept€a€status€no€differentÐ  "¨ Ðfrom€others.€€There€are€two€ways€to€deal€with€this€frustration.€€One€is€to€reflect€onÐ d Ðoneððs€own€partial€knowledge€and€put€oneððs€faith€in€othersðð€judgments€as€well€asÐ <Ø Ðoneððs€own.€€Another€is€to€reflect€that€even€if€one€is€indeed€Right,€one€part€of€beingÐ  ° Ðð ðall€in€this€togetherðð€is€the€willingness€to€accept€othersðð€problems€of€moralÐ ì ˆ Ðunderstanding;€€it€is€far€more€important€to€maintain€the€sense€of€Relationship€thanÐ Ä ` Ðit€is€to€win€any€particular€battle.׃Î×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€This€dictum€will€seem€less€idealistic€and/orÐ œ8  Ðmisguided€if€we€remember€that€all€of€this€takes€place€within€the€context€of€bothÐ t  Ðthorough,€fair€discussion€having€been€exhausted€an€M1€òòandóó€the€other€ð ðsecond„Ð d Ðorder€rulesðð€being€followed€now€in€M2.׃k×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð<Ø` (#` (# ÐLet€me€remark€that€our€transition€from€M1€to€M2€should€be€accompanied€by€the€invocation€ofÐ  ° Ðinstitutions€and€rituals€designed€to€call€forth€these€attitudes€and€to€focus€on€the€Relationship.€Ð ì ˆ ÐMore€on€this€later.Ð Ä ` ÐÌò òÔ& @ ÔððConstraints€on€Norms:ó ó€€Even€though€we€disagree€on€norms,€M2's€basic€focus€on€theÐ t  ÐRelationship€does€imply€certain€constraints€on€norms.Ð Tð  Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àà  àððThe€most€important€and€obvious€constraint€is€that€no€norm€can€prevent€people€fromÐ ,È Ðexpressing€their€disagreement€with€existing€norms€or€from€continuing€the€processÐ   ÐofÔ'@ d¾MÔ€M1.׃ð×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€logic€parallels€that€of€classical€liberalism€in€protecting€freedom€ofÐ Üx Ðexpression.€€In€both€classical€liberalism€and€discourse€ethics€the€constraints€ariseÐ ´P Ðfrom€the€basic€conception€of€the€Relationship€among€people.€€In€classicalÐ Œ( Ðliberalismððs€case,€mutually€self„interested€contractors€seeking€the€benefits€ofÐ d Ðcooperative€action€will€never€consent€to€a€system€of€cooperation€in€which€theyÐ < Ø Ðmight€be€prevented€from€doing€the€very€thingð2ð€advancing€their€interestsð2ð€thatÐ "° Ðcauses€them€to€contract€in€the€first€place.€€In€discourse€ethicsððs€case,€people€whoseÐ d Ðcommunications€to€coordinate€action€always€already€offer€to€redeem€the€validityÐ <Ø Ðclaims€of€(factual)€Truth,€(normative)€Rightness,€and€(personal)€Sincerity€cannotÐ  ° Ðaccept€limits€on€their€ability€to€demand€redemption€of€these€claims.€€In€bothÐ ì ˆ Ðtheories,€the€constraints€could€not€be€violated€without€contradicting€the€veryÐ Ä ` Ðtheory€bringing€them€into€being.€€In€engaging€each€other€in€M2,€therefore,€weÐ œ8  Ðaccept€disagreement€over€norms.€€If€silencing€peopleððs€disagreements€was€aÐ t  Ðlegitimate€way€of€settling€disputes,€we€would€have€no€need€for€M2€in€the€firstÐ Lè  Ðplace.Ð$À` (#` (# ÐÔ_Ôà0  àà0` (#(#àà  àðð€No€one€(or€no€identifiable€group€collectively)€can€consistently€be€subject€to€greater€orÐ ü˜ Ðmore€frequent€violation€than€others;€€ideally,€we€would€take€turns€winning€andÐ Ôp Ðlosing.׃4×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€If€the€norms€actually€adopted€consistently€violate€one€personððs€free€willÐ ¬H Ðand€not€anotherððs,€then€there€is€some€power€differential€that€needs€to€be€corrected.€Ð „  ÐFurthermore,...Ð\ø` (#` (# Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àà  àðð€In€M2€no€one€can€claim€to€have€special€insight€into€what€norm€is€Right.€€Such€claims€lieÐ 4 Ð Ðin€the€domain€of€M1,€where€they€can€be€tested;€€in€M2,€though,€we€are€taking€ourÐ  "¨ Ðnormative€differences€as€given.€€Obviously€each€of€us€will€feel€we€have€specialÐ ä#€  Ðinsight€and€our€position€should€be€adopted,€but€in€the€absence€of€discursiveÐ ¼%X" Ðjustificationð2ð€left€behind€in€M1ð2ð€we€accept€that€none€of€us€has€a€specialÐ ”'0!$ Ðentitlement.€€The€imposition€of€a€norm€violates€peopleððs€free€will€to€varyingÐ l)#& Ðdegrees.€€Each€of€us€would€like€to€say€that€because€we€are€Right,€the€WrongnessÐ D+à$( Ðof€others€implies€they€must€endure€the€violation€that€their€being€forced€into€ourÐ d ÐRightness€entails,€but€we€cannot€make€this€claim.€€So€in€the€absence€of€any€way€toÐ <Ø Ðrule€that€any€given€person€must€bear€a€special€burden,€we€constrain€our€norms€toÐ  ° Ðthose€minimizing€the€degree€to€which€the€free€will€of€any€single€person€or€group€ofÐ ì ˆ Ðpeople€is€violated.ÐÄ `` (#` (# Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àà ¸ àLet€me€add€a€few€words€of€detailed€commentary€here.€€First,€this€criterionÐ œ8  Ð(and€the€previous€one)€does€not€pretend€to€mathematical€precision.€€I€can€see€noÐ t  Ðtheoretical€way€of€measuring€one€personððs€sense€of€violation€against€anotherððs,€andÐ Lè  Ðeven€if€there€were€such€a€measure,€its€application€would€come€under€enormousÐ $À Ðstrain€when,€quite€naturally,€each€person€experiences€òòh/heróó€sense€of€violation€as€soÐ ü˜ Ðmuch€greater€than€othersðð.€€So€in€practical€terms,€I€believe,€this€ð ðminimaxððÐ Ôp Ðconstraint€will€only€say€that€no€oneððs€free€will€can€be€violated€too€greatly.€€Like€theÐ ¬H ÐU.S.€Constitutionððs€prohibition€against€ð ðcruel€and€unusual€punishmentðð,€thisÐ „  Ðconstraint€will€be€variously€interpreted,€approaching€its€true€minimax€form€to€theÐ \ø Ðdegree€that€people€transcend€their€sense€of€themselves€as€having€special€claims.׃K×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð4 Ð` (#` (# Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àà ¸ àSecond,€I€see€nothing€wrong€in€principle€with€people€agreeing€to€theirÐ  "¨ Ðviolation€by€one€norm€as€the€price€of€establishing€another,€preferred€norm.€€WeÐ ä#€  Ðneed€not€solve€the€philosophical€complexities€of€utilitarianism€to€allow€this;€€peopleÐ ¼%X" Ðcan€simply€work€out€their€deals€in€practice.€€But€the€broader€and€more€fundamentalÐ ”'0!$ Ðthe€scope€of€the€norm,€the€less€flexibility€there€will€be,€so€that€there€is€no€tradeoffÐ l)#& Ðagainst€the€norm€constituted€in€what€Rawls€calls€the€ð ðbasic€structureðð.€€Since€theÐ d Ðbasic€structure€determines€peopleððs€life€chances€in€their€totality,€I€can€see€noÐ <Ø Ðpossibility€of€any€sensible€trades.€€When€the€basic€structure€is€determined,€theÐ  ° Ðprinciple€of€minimum€violation€has€to€apply€with€as€much€rigor€and€precision€asÐ ì ˆ Ðpossible.ÐÄ `` (#` (# Ðà  àThe€two€previous€constraints€resemble€Rawls†ððs€(1971)€ð ðmaxi‚min€principleðð,€thatÐ œ8  Ðinequalities€arising€from€the€basic€structure€must€make€the€worst€off€in€the€society€as€well€off€asÐ t  Ðpossible.€€Note,€however,€that€in€discourse€ethics€the€maximin€principle€arises€not€as€the€assumedÐ Lè  Ðoutcome€of€theoretical€consideration€in€a€hypothetical€Original€Position€but€rather€€directly€fromÐ $À Ðthe€need€for€agreement€òòin€practiceóó.€€Recognizing€that€the€necessity€for€agreement€will€inevitablyÐ ü˜ Ðresult€for€some€in€a€sense€of€violation,€no€one€will€agree€to€a€system€in€which€norms€unnecessarilyÐ Ôp Ðdisadvantage€them.€€And€the€less€necessary€the€violation€appears,€the€more€strenuously€they€willÐ ¬H Ðresist€the€system€of€decisions.׃Æ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð „  Ðâ âÐ \ø Ðò òÔ& @ Ôâ âððAfter€a€Norm€Is€Established:ó ó€€Once€a€norm€has€been€established,€we€have€all€agreed:€€not€toÐ d Ðthe€norm€itself,€but€to€the€basic€Relationship€that€gave€rise€to€it.€€Despite€our€agreement,€weÐ Dà Ðrecognize€that€the€Relationship€is€strained.€€To€deal€with€this€problem€I€propose€the€following€asÐ  ¸ Ðuseful€political€directions:€€Ð ô  Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àà  à1.The€establishment€of€a€norm€should€be€accompanied/€followed€by€the€invocation€ofÔ'@ d7iÔÐ Ì h Ðinstitutions€and€rituals€designed€to€focus€on€the€Relationship€and€call€forth€theÐ ¤@  Ðattitudes€supporting€it.€€We€need€to€acknowledge€that€we€are€still€committed€to€it,Ð |  Ðnot€just€in€our€hearts€but€also€publicly,€so€that€the€Relationship€is€established€andÐ Tð  Ðmaintained€as€the€cultural€norm.Ð,È` (#` (# Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àà  à2.€Among€the€elements€of€these€institutions€and€rituals€is€an€explicit,€public€statement€thatÐ   Ðthe€norm€is€not€a€victory€for€the€winners€but€only€the€beginning€of€an€experimentÐ Üx Ðassessing€its€value.€€Since€there€is€still€no€universal€acceptance€of€the€norm,€M1Ð ´P Ðcontinues€even€when€M2€ends;€€the€winners€do€not€attempt€to€secure€their€victoryÐ Œ( Ðas€a€way€of€ending€the€search€for€better€norms.Ðd` (#` (# Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àà  à3.€The€obverse€element€is€an€explicit,€public€statement€that€this€experiment€has€to€be€givenÐ < Ø Ða€fair€chance.€€In€particular,€the€losers€donððt€attempt€to€sabotage€the€norm,€activelyÐ "° Ðor€passively.Ðì#ˆ ` (#` (# Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àà  à4.€We€continue€to€engage€in€a€search€for€systematic€power€differentials€and€the€associatedÐ Ä%`" Ðviolation€of€weaker€people/€groups,€and€we€revise€our€system€of€decision„makingÐ œ'8!$ Ðin€that€light.€€(This€is€where€the€postmodern€critics€are€so€valuable.)€€For€example,Ð t)#& Ðwe€may€discover€that€certain€groups€of€peopleð2ð€say,€womenð2ð€€have€difficultyÐ L+è$( Ðspeaking€up€for€themselves,€and€this€difficulty€then€reinforces€an€oppression€that€inÐ $-À&* Ðturn€reinforces€the€original€difficulty.€€In€such€circumstances€we€might€considerÐ d Ðadopting€policies€like,€say,€ð ðAll€women€must€speak€before€any€man€speaks.ððÐ<Ø` (#` (# Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àà  à5.€Finally,€the€winners€need€to€resist€their€sense€that€since€Right€has€been€victorious,€theyÐ  ° Ðneed€not€acknowledge€those€who€were€Wrong,€i.e.,€the€losers.€€Instead,€theÐ ì ˆ Ðwinners€need€to€explicitly,€publicly€recognize€that€in€being€willing€to€endure€theÐ Ä ` Ðsense€of€violation,€the€losers€are€in€fact€contributing€to€the€underlying€Relationship.€Ð œ8  ÐAnd€a€beneficial€consequence€of€this€would€be€to€support€the€winnersðð€willingnessÐ t  Ðto€lose€in€subsequent€discussions.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ÐLè ` (#` (# ÐÌò òÔ& à Ôðð€M2€vs.€Abusive€Relationships:ó ó€€Ô'àx;vÔIf€we€canððt€maintain€these€attitudes€and€carry€out€theseÐ ü˜ Ðpractices,€it€implies€that€we€are€in€an€abusive€relationship€and€need€to€reconstitute€it€in€line€withÐ Üx Ðthe€true€Relationship€underlying€our€discourse.€€ð ðAbusiveðð€here€means€that€the€relationship€doesÐ ´P Ðnot€meet€the€second„order€rules€outlined€above.€€€€Since€the€concept€of€ð ðabusive€relationshipðð€isÐ Œ( Ðclearly€important€here,€and€since€it€already€has€widespread€connotations,€I€will€expand€on€it€a€littleÐ d Ðhere,€using€the€example€of€the€relationship€between€two€spouses€and€letting€the€discussionÐ < Ø Ðgeneralize€to€the€level€of€social€relationships.€€My€purpose€here€is€to€show€the€close€connectionÐ "° Ðbetween€the€second„order€rules€outlined€above€and€our€intuitive€understanding€of€ð ðabusiveÐ ì#ˆ  Ðrelationshipðð.Ð Ä%`" Ðà  àRelationships€in€which€all€conflicts€are€resolved€in€M1€are€obviously€not€abusive,€sinceÐ œ'8!$ Ðevery€decision€is€governed€by€sweet€reason€and€supported€by€mutual,€free€agreement.€€AsÐ t)#& Ðindicated€earlier,€M1€satisfies€the€second„order€criteria€without€much€fuss€having€to€be€madeÐ L+è$( Ðabout€the€fact.€€Abuse€only€arises€when€the€parties€move€into€M2,€and€the€second„order€rulesÐ d Ðbecome€more€problematic.€€Let€me€cover€them€briefly€to€indicate€the€various€possible€types€ofÐ <Ø Ðabuse.Ð  ° Ðà  àWe€start€with€the€various€attitudes€fundamental€to€M2:€€If€one€spouse€carries€the€attitudeÐ ì ˆ Ðthat€s/he€has€a€greater€right€to€define€the€relationship,€the€relationship€is...€well,€not€òòyetóó€abusive,Ð Ä ` Ðbut€certainly€headed€that€way,€when€the€dominant€spouse€defines€the€relationship€without€regardÐ œ8  Ðfor€the€otherððs€interests.€€If€one€spouse€carries€the€attitude€that€the€two€spouses€arenððt€ð ðin€thisÐ t  Ðtogetherðð,€the€relationship€is€also€headed€for€abusiveness,€since€one€spouse€will€be€willing€toÐ Lè  Ðsacrifice€the€other€for€h/her€own€desires.€€If€one€spouse€doesnððt€accept€ahead€of€time€that€s/heÐ $À Ðmight€be€hurt€by€the€adoption€of€a€norm,€i.e.,€that€s/he€does€not€accept€the€necessity€of€having€toÐ ü˜ Ðsacrifice€for€the€relationship,€then€that€relationship€is€headed€for€abusiveness.Ð Ôp Ðà  àNow€consider€how€the€constraints€seem€to€mark€areas€of€potential€abusiveness:€€If€oneÐ ¬H Ðspouse€cannot€accept€the€otherððs€right€to€continuing€disagreement€with€the€norm,€then€theÐ „  Ðrelationship€is€abusive.€€This€right€to€disagree€has€to€continue€even€when€the€norm€is€established;€Ð \ø Ðotherwise,€the€subordinate€spouse€has€lost€the€right€to€support€the€relationship.€€Where€there€is€noÐ 4 Ð Ðchoice,€there€is€no€meaningful€sense€of€support€and,€more€fundamentally,€no€attempt€toÐ  "¨ Ðcoordinate€action€by€means€of€good€reasons.€€If€good€reasons€are€not€the€criterion€for€agreement,Ð ä#€  Ðthen€the€spousesðð€relative€power€comes€into€play,€meaning€that€the€more€powerful€is€abusing€theÐ ¼%X" Ðless€powerful.Ð ”'0!$ Ðà  àIf€one€spouse€is€consistently€the€loser€in€the€relationship,׃C×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€then€that€is€abusive.€€In€a€non„Ð l)#& Ðabusive€Relationship,€both€partners€would€at€different€times€endure€the€sense€of€violation.€€Finally,Ð d Ðif€one€spouse€suffers€an€extreme€of€violation€so€that€the€other€spouse€is€able€suffer€less,€we€wouldÐ <Ø Ðconsider€that€abuse€as€well.Ð  ° Ðà  àConsider€finally€what€the€second„order€rules€call€on€us€to€do€after€a€norm€is€established,Ð ì ˆ Ðand€how€their€violation€seems€to€be€abusive.€€The€general€point€of€the€rules€is€to€reaffirm€andÐ Ä ` Ðsupport€a€Relationship€under€strain.€€If€they€arenððt€heeded,€it€indicates€not€necessarily€that€there€isÐ œ8  Ðno€Relationship€but€at€least€that€the€parties,€and€particularly€the€winner,€do€not€respect€it€or€valueÐ t  Ðit.€€The€relationship€between€the€spouses€is€then€at€least€potentially€abusive,€if€not€already€so.€€IfÐ Lè  Ðthe€winner€sees€the€norm€not€as€an€experiment€but€rather€as€a€victory€to€be€seized,€refusing€toÐ $À Ðcontinue€discussion€of€the€issue,€then€the€relationship€is€at€least€mutually€uncaring;€€it€would€beÐ ü˜ Ðtermed€abusive€if€this€lack€of€care€were€matched€with€one€party€being€the€usual€winner.€€If€theÐ Ôp Ðloser€doesnððt€give€the€norm€a€chance€to€work,€trying€to€sabotage€it€instead€of€finding€out€its€Ô_Ôvalue,Ð ¬H Ðthen€h/her€original€agreement€to€the€norm€was€no€agreement€at€all€but€only,€say,€a€tactical€retreatÐ „  Ðto€continue€battle€in€another€arena.€€The€relationship€between€the€parties€is€then€at€least€uncaring,Ð \ø Ðand€we€can€only€conclude€from€the€fact€that€the€loser€seems€to€be€coerced€(or€the€winner€onlyÐ 4 Ð Ðencounters€broken€promises€from€the€loser)€that€the€relationship€is€abusive.Ð  "¨ Ðà  àEven€though€this€analysis€helps€us€see€the€existence€and€exact€nature€of€an€abusiveÐ ä#€  Ðrelationship,€and€even€though€it€provides€us€with€an€image€of€what€a€true€Relationship€would€be,Ð ¼%X" Ðof€what€use€is€it€in€the€face€of€a€spouse€who€will€not€adhere€to€the€second„order€rules,€who€willÐ ”'0!$ Ðnot€maintain€a€Relationship,€who€is€abusive?€€This€touches€on€the€larger€issue€of€ð ðWhy€beÐ l)#& Ðmoral?ðð,€which€is€discussed€in€a€later€section.€€But€some€remarks€are€appropriate€here€about€thisÐ D+à$( Ðspecific€situation,€where€the€issue€is€not€how€to€induce€people€to€behave€morally€in€general€butÐ -¸&* Ðrather€how€to€respond€to€a€specific€situation€of€abuse.€€The€present€perspective€allows€us€toÐ d Ðdistinguish€between€two€quite€different€reactions€that€go€by€the€same€term:€€"staying€in€theÐ <Ø Ðrelationship".€€In€common€parlance,€this€means€that€the€spouse€continues€to€allow€herselfð2ð€we'llÐ  ° Ðassume€the€spouse€is€a€womanð2ð€to€be€abused:€€continuing€to€live€with€her€husband,€refusing€toÐ ì ˆ Ðprosecute€him€for€the€abuse,€acquiescing€in€his€attitude€that€she€deserves€the€abuse,€and€so€on.€Ð Ä ` ÐBut€in€the€discourse€ethics€perspective,€such€a€reaction€is€not€remaining€in€the€Relationship€butÐ œ8  Ðrather€ignoring€its€true€nature.€€By€refusing€to€allow€herself€to€be€abusedð2ð€by€leaving€herÐ t  Ðhusband,€or€at€least€his€physical€and€psychological€presenceð2ð,€she€recalls€her€spouse€to€the€òòtrueóóÐ Lè  ÐRelationship.€€By€removing€herself€from€the€situation,€she€is€telling€her€spouse,€"We€are€still€in€aÐ $À ÐRelationship.€€My€removing€myself€from€you€does€not€deny€our€Relationship,€even€though€youÐ ü˜ ÐÔ_Ômay€feel€it€as€such;€€rather,€it€confirms€its€existence€and€reminds€us€of€its€nature."׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð Ôp Ðâ âÝ‚#¿ÿÝÐ ¬H ÐÔ  Ôâ âò òÔ  ÔòòÝ  ÝÝ‚#¿á“ÝÚƒ.ÚIIIÚ  ÚÛ€.Û€Ý  ÝLearning€Humility€and€Detaching€Oneself݃#¿á“9”ÝóóÔ ò ”ԌРd ÐŒó óÝ  ÝxxÐ <Ø Ðà  àRemember€when€I€recommended€Ursula€LeGuin€to€Sara.€€She€was€sure€she€wouldnððt€likeÐ  ° Ðit,€and€refused€to€read€it,€while€I€was€sure€she€would€like€it.€€I€believed€I€knew€what€her€objectionsÐ ì ˆ Ðwere,€and€knew€they€were€unfounded.€€She€believed€she€knew€why€I€was€recommending€it€to€her,Ð Ä ` Ðand€knew€those€reasons€were€mistaken.€€Neither€of€us€knows€who€was€right.Ð œ8  ÐÌà  àRecall€the€dinner€where€Sara€got€stuck€with€the€$10€shortfall.Ð Lè  Ðà  àNote€the€Mnchhausen€trilemmaÐ $À Ðà  àNote€that€no€one€has€privileged€status,€no€matter€what€they€feel.Ð ü˜ ÐÝ‚#¿ÿÝÌÔ  Ôò òÔ  ÔòòÝ  ÝÝ‚#¿ß—ÝÚƒ.ÚIVÚ  ÚÛ€.Û€Ý  ÝSecond„order€Criteria€for€Decisions€under€Disagreement݃#¿ß—˜ÝóóÔ ò þ—ԌР¬H ÐŒó óÝ  Ý[xx€Somewhere,€probably€in€this€chapter,€maybe€in€this€essay€/€section,€I€have€to€note€that€peopleÐ „  Ðoften€get€confused€about€the€distinction€between€the€Good€and€the€Right,€and€that€this€confusionÐ \ø Ðis€intimately€related€with€the€confusion€between€the€claims€made€by€these€domains€on€one€anotherÐ 4 Ð Ð(i.e.,€inviting€vs.€forcing€and€also€between€the€forms€of€discourse€relevant€to€the€two€domains).׃G×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð  "¨ Ðà  à[I€believe€that€this€distinction€is€the€source€ofð!ð€or€at€least€one€way€to€understand€andÐ ä#€  Ðmaybe€even€clarifyð!ð€Benhabibððs€(1989)€criticism€of€Ackermanððs€(1981,€1989)€theory€of€publicÐ ¼%X" Ðdiscourse.€€Ackerman€holds€that€liberal€dialogue€about€legitimation€involve€ð ðconversationalÐ ”'0!$ Ðrestraintsðð,€particularly€a€refraining€from€public€claims€that€depend€on€a€putatively€superior€senseÐ d Ðof€the€Good.€€In€the€ways€of€relating€perspective,€Ackermanððs€position€does€recognize€thatÐ <Ø Ðappeals€to€oneððs€own,€unshared€sense€of€the€Good€cannot€sway€others.€€The€only€purpose€of€suchÐ  ° Ðappeals€appears€to€be€that€they€confound€the€Good€and€the€Right€and€thus€implicitly€justify€usingÐ ì ˆ Ðthe€coercive€power€of€the€Right€to€support€one€particular€sense€of€the€Good.€€My€brotherððs€carÐ Ä ` Ðcarries€a€bumper€sticker€reflecting€the€concern€about€such€appeals:€€ð ðThe€last€time€we€mixedÐ œ8  Ðreligion€and€politics,€people€got€burned€at€the€stake.ððÐ t  Ðà  à[On€the€other€hand,€Benhabib€is€rightly€concerned€that€such€conversational€restraints€haveÐ Lè  Ðmoral€valence€and€thus€themselves€need€justification,€a€justification€that€she€does€not€believeÐ $À ÐAckerman€provides.€€Absent€such€justification,€these€restraints€seem€to€be€mere€quietism,€aÐ ü˜ Ðreluctance€to€rock€the€socio„normative€boat,€a€capitulation€to€existing€configurations€of€power.Ð Ôp ÐÓÓà0  àIf€I€am€deeply€committed€to€the€belief€that€prevalent€conceptions€of€sexual€division€ofÐ ¬H Ðlabor€in€our€societies€are€morally€wrong€because€they€oppress€women€and€hinder€their€fullÐ š6 Ðexpression€of€themselves€as€human€beings,€why€should€I€agree€not€to€do€the€best€I€can€toÐ ˆ$ Ðmake€this€a€public€issue€and€to€convince€others€of€my€point€of€view?€(Benhabib1989:147)Ðv(#(# ÐÓr¡ÓÌ[xx€Note€that€she€appropriately€asks€this€as€a€question,€not€a€rejection€of€their€position.]Ð < Ø ÐI€share€her€concern.Ð "° ÐÝ‚#¿ÿÝÌÔ  Ôò òÔ  ÔòòÝ  ÝÝ‚#¿ÿ£ÝÚƒ.ÚVÚ  ÚÛ€.Û€Ý  ÝFriendship€When€Friendship€Fails:€€Choosing€and€Still€Loving݃#¿ÿ£9¤ÝóóÔ ò ¤ÔŒÐ Ä%`" ÐŒó óÝ  ÝxxÐ œ'8!$ ÐFriendship€is€constructed€as€a€set€of€mutual€expectations,€or€at€least€a€set€of€mutual€expectationsÐ t)#& Ðand€a€commitment€to€work€things€out€when€coordination€of€action€is€difficult.€€What€happensÐ L+è$( Ðwhen€a€friend€hurts€you?€€We€know€of€many€things€to€deal€with€this:€€You€talk€things€over.€€YouÐ $-À&* Ðcompromise.€€You€take€turns.€€You€wait€and€watch.€€You€flip€a€coin.€€You€forgive€and€move€on.€Ð d ÐYou€reaffirm€that€the€other€is€important€to€you.€€You€talk€to€a€mutual€friends.€€You€try€toÐ <Ø Ðunderstand.€€You€see€a€therapist.€€You€pray.Ð  ° ÐÌWhat€happens€then?€€What€if€none€of€these€have€changed€the€situation€and/or€reconciled€yo€to€it?€Ð Ä ` ÐThe€usual€result€seems€to€be€that€affection€turns€to€anger€and€dislike,€even€hatred.€€Now,€if€youÐ œ8  Ðinteract€at€all,€it€is€on€a€strictly€quid€pro€quo€basis:€€ð ðShow€me€the€money.ððÐ t  ÐÌApril€2,€2001:€€I€just€today€recognized€the€connection€with€Rousseauððs€baffling€idea€of€the€generalÐ $À Ðwill.€€I€think€that€when€he€talks€about€people€subordinating€themselves€to€the€general€will,€he€isÐ ü˜ Ðtalking€about€grasping€the€nettle.€€So€here€is€a€link€to€Ô4‚IÝ HÔÝ‚&ÍOÝÔÿÔòòÝ  ÝÔ5  Ôthe€essay€on€RousseauÔ64ªÔÝ‚&ÍOHªƒÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ7Ý @vªÔ.Ð Ôp ÐÌÌWhen€I€discussed€the€first€paragraph€with€the€Pol3652€class,€they€came€up€with€a€number€ofÐ \ø Ðobjections€that€revealed€a€need€for€my€clarification:Ð 4 Ð Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àà  àððIs€it€implicitly€abuse€to€say€someone€is€going€to€hell?€€Is€this€true€even€if€one€is€notÐ  "¨ Ðsaying€that€the€person€òòdeservesóó€to€go€to€hell?€€Is€this€true€even€if€one€is€only€sayingÐ ä#€  Ðthat€one€òòbelievesóó€the€other€is€going€to€hell?€€Could€the€criterion€be,€ð ðIs€itÐ ¼%X" Ðcondemnation?ððД'0!$` (#` (# Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àà  àððIs€my€statement€of€my€theory€self„contradictory,€in€that€I€seem€to€be€saying,€ð ðMy€theoryÐ l)#& Ðis€that€no€one€knows€who€is€right.ðð€€How€can€I€even€put€forward€the€statementÐ D+à$( Ðwhen€it€contradicts€its€own€validity?€€Answer:€€Iððm€not€claiming€ultimate€truth€forÐ -¸&* Ðit;€€I€merely€put€it€forward€contingently.€€I€need€to€mention€that€to€Robin.Ðd` (#` (# Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àà  àððRobin€asks€whether€people€òòshouldóó€relate€to€each€other€as€I€(or€Rousseau)€contemplate.€Ð <Ø ÐThis€seems€to€me€like€a€meaningless€question€(to€a€pragmatist),€as€with€theÐ  ° ÐEuthaphro€conundrum.[Insert€ð ðTry€to€Praise€the€Mutilated€Worldðð€as€an€epigraphÐ ì ˆ Ðhere.€€In€c:/personal/Poems.]ÐÄ `` (#` (# Ð[So€Michael€Morrell€asks€me,€what€if€another€animal€attacks€me?€€Wonððt€I€put€up€a€barrier€toÐ œ8  Ðempathy?€€And€my€question:€€What€happens€to€a€friendship€if€the€other€betrays€me?€€Answer:€€WeÐ t  Ðcan€protect€ourselves€(it€is€part€of€our€sense€of€the€Good,€which€the€other€cannot€violate€withoutÐ Lè  Ðsome€other€justification)€but€still€empathize,€want€to€know€why€it€happened,€etc.€€Maintenance€ofÐ $À Ðthe€relationship€is€primary,€even€if€unilateral.€€(This€doesnððt€mean€giving€in.)]Ð ü˜ ÐÌ[THE€SECTION€BELOW€IS€TRANSFERRED€HERE€FROM€SOMEWHERE€ELSE.€€MAYBEÐ ¬H ÐIT€NEEDS€TO€BE€ITS€OWN€ESSAY.]€€Ð „  ÐÝ‚$HêÿÝÌÔ  ÔÝ  ÝÝ‚$H긳Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àà  àò òÔ  ÔÚƒ.ÚAÚ  Ú.Û€.ÛÝ  ÝConflicts€between€my€desires€and€yours?€No!ð!ð€Just€a€lack€of€creative€solutions݃$H긳߳ÝÔ à0!´ÔŒÐ4 Ð` (#` (# ÐŒó óÝ  ÝFrom€this€perspective€we€see€the€problems€we€face€not€as€conflicts€between€people€or€evenÐ  "¨ Ðbetween€Goods.€€In€fact,€these€problems€arenððt€even€appropriately€termed€ð ðconflictsðð.€€Using€thatÐ ä#€  Ðterminology€puts€our€focus€prematurely€on€considerations€of€dominance€or€compromise.€€It€isÐ ¼%X" Ðmore€appropriate€to€start€from€the€position€that€the€problem€is€our€current,€possibly€onlyÐ ”'0!$ Ðtemporary,€inability€to€figure€out€how€to€satisfy€all€the€Goods.€€In€Fisher€òòet€alóó.ððs€(1991:xx)€usefulÐ l)#& Ðphrase,€ð ðThe€people€arenððt€the€problem;€€the€problem€is€the€problem.ðð€€Even€if€I€want€both€of€theÐ D+à$( Ðcoconuts€and€you€want€them€too,€the€problem€might€be€solved€by€our€agreeing€to€look€for€moreÐ -¸&* Ðcoconut€palms,€or€our€building€a€matter€duplicator,€or...€well,€imagination€fails€me€here.Ð d ÐÌI€am€not€advancing€a€Pollyanna„ish€faith€in€a€magical€solution€to€all€problems.€€Rather,€I€amÐ  ° Ðmaking€a€straightforward€logical€point€with€certain€psychological€implications:€€we€cannot€knowÐ ì ˆ Ðin€advance€what€creative€solutions€to€a€problem€are€possible,€and€so€viewing€the€problem€as€aÐ Ä ` Ðconflict€forestalls€consideration€of€those€creative€possibilities.Ð œ8  ÐÌYet€the€issue€here€isnððt€exactly€the€strategic€point€that€one€can€get€more€of€what€one€wants€byÐ Lè  Ðlooking€for€creative€solutions.€€Thatððs€still€an€instrumental,€objectivating€relationship€with€theÐ $À Ðother,€where€one€recognizes€the€otherððs€different€Good€and€the€necessity€of€catering€to€the€otherÐ ü˜ Ðto€achieve€oneððs€own€Good.€€One€can€even€engage€in€therapeutic€discourse€with€the€other€to€seeÐ Ôp Ðhow€his€and/or€oneððs€own€Good€might€shift€or€deepen€to€permit€a€better€agreement.Ð ¬H ÐÌÌÌThe€sense€of€the€Good€is€not€a€matter€for€moral€judgment.€€This€is€not€a€denial€of€morality,€or€ofÐ  "¨ Ðthe€priority€of€the€Right€over€the€Good,€or€of€the€Right€as€one€element€of€everyoneððs€sense€of€theÐ ä#€  ÐGood€(as€Rawls€argues).€€It€is,€rather,€a€clarification€of€categories.€€When€we€are€trapped€on€aÐ ¼%X" Ðdesert€island€together€and€have€only€two€coconuts€between€us€to€eat,€my€sense€of€the€GodÐ ”'0!$ Ðincludes€my€desire€to€eat€both€of€them.€€As€it€happens,€my€sense€of€the€Good€also€includes€myÐ l)#& Ðdesire€for€you€to€eat€and€survive,€and€these€two€aspects€of€my€sense€of€the€Good€are€apparentlyÐ D+à$( Ðincompatible€in€those€circumstances.€€However,€both€Goods€are€still€meaningful€to€me,€stillÐ -¸&* Ðauthentic€desires€of€mine.€€The€claims€of€morality€may€well€lead€us€to€decide€to€eat€one€coconutÐ d Ðapiece,€but€that€is€a€separate€issue.€€I€need€not€feel€either€ashamed€or€guilty€that€I€want€bothÐ <Ø Ðcoconuts.