ÿWPCç? Æö7w8ÐÂaPöÿâ²WÔbŒEÔÑ[0¥$ fc›WÄéz0¤óv™°»~g2sitc7€Û§w ë‚Æä“ÑHó€\Z©@ÜGì¼åÁ¤ÕbÙ*Ë™ÞíEÓv¿>ÔsÄg)Œ0Iòöy#s4Ó ;¾Yõƒ›/Ê–*(¿}^÷ÙZŠ~®hÐS2ïgk1ä@ë{`©@S‹ÿÞJ ú¥¼Ì]×ÑÝËÃgŸäMj¶vö寬j„¸þ­—pgÛ—ß4€47åiwƒG8‰®M]^oK»QÌbÅL•0s¾Ctò—Éü6‚_%<èÁK¼\–\ò£§ô$³~9ÝËoL'Ïô‡ç›AB`ÚÇ•øÁS$0™ÿ¸HO7Þöõƒ³ G„ÎÝt•¥š9µð§ôYAþ+>¦Ã×èädÏyVl•RmËÀø^^ã|ø™P€°g8h@·*% »Á|As,MV|órspÑå”´_ƒ…¿ÔøÕp½•ìÌd& Ï4[)´ÜDàÑH‹™a:YXF¦ÄµKW!1ä(Ä C3SFÒ•§ÜÀç!®^ÛÖˆÈÊ/ð: ¾"¾[@•½§‰ÌIÚ®>f(ÚCvtR3Hí–Xg^ 0:$^ ^ 0~jwè4ì 0D 1uUNÊNÌNÎÁÐN‘ N“ 72• ‰Ç P 0Ï^ˆ-Ƶ 72{N­N¯N± 1s³±& m×#ÉîU N· % 0´  0Ç¿ 0Û† 0 —a 0»ø 0ï³ 0N¢Æð,¶ 0 DâÆ&!Æì!Ʋ"Æx#!Æ>$ 1_% 72c% 72•%5Ç%ü'´Œ)–@* 0cÖ* 0w9+ 0а+ 0 :, 72Ú,.Ñ - 72Ý- 1Õ. 72ä.N/N/N/N/'/E1E3ºJ8€:d„;„;„;„;Nè>Nê>Nì>Nî>Nð>Nò>Nô>Nö>Nø>Nú>Nü>Nþ> 72? B2? 72O? 72? 72³?Eå?(üœ$¡¡ÔUSUS.,Ô¼e%- (.(3¬($¤¤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  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔReminds€me€of€the€problem€of€classical€liberalism.€€While€classical€liberalism€doesnððtÐ ° Ðòòrequireóó€people€to€treat€each€other€badly,€and€was€originally€intended€so€solve€problems€of€illÐ œì Ðtreatment,€there€is€nothing€in€it€that€òòpreventsóó€ill€treatment.€respectful€or€disrespectful€of€others,/)  Ý ƒ¬($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔHe€has€since€abandoned€the€concept,€or€at€least€its€foundational€role,€recognizing€that€itÐ ° Ðmust€always€be€a€counterfactual.€€Only€a€dialectical€logic,€such€as€that€of€ð ðreconstructive€scienceððÐ œì Ð(Habermas19xx)€can€place€the€idea€and€th€real€in€their€proper,€equally„weighted€relationship.€€IÐ ˆØ Ðsee€the€recognition€of€this€relationship€as€Ô4‚Ý ˆÔÝ‚&ÍOÝÔÿÔòòÝ  ÝÔ5  Ôthe€transition€from€Stage5€to€Stage6€(or€Stage2€toÐ tÄ ÐStage3)€thoughtÔ6õÔÝ‚&ÍO ƒÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ7Ý è 7Ô.€€Discussions€of€the€nature€of€the€ISS€are€still€valuable€for€their€continuing,Ð `° Ðprogressive€identification€of€mechanisms€of€oppression.€€However,€I€believe€that€such€discussionsÐ L œ Ðinevitably€end€as€preaching€to€the€choir€and€excluding€othersðð€perspectives.€€As€I€will€argue€in€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðnext€section,€this€gives€rise€to€its€own€oppression.Stage6( …^Òà$ÈÈÌÔ  Ôà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà ` àòòÔ  ÔÚƒ.Ú3Ú  Ú:Û€.ÛÔ à0xÔóó ~Ý ƒ¬($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔI€have€not€mentioned€the€well„known€Arrow€paradox,€which€says€that€any€reasonableÐ ° Ðvoting€system€cannot€produce€a€rank„ordering€of€alternatives;€€there€will€always€be€ð ðcyclesðð€ofÐ œì Ðchoice,€so€that€norm€A€wins€an€election€against€norm€B,€and€norm€B€wins€an€election€againstÐ ˆØ Ðnorm€C,€and€C€wins€an€election€against€norm€A.€€In€the€face€of€these€cycles,€the€choice€willÐ tÄ Ðalways€depend€arbitrarily€on€the€order€in€which€the€various€alternatives€are€considered. ¼Ý ƒ¬($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAnd€I€accordingly€value€most€highlyð!ð€I€mean€personally€value,€not€grade€valueð!ð€thoseÐ ° Ðstudents€who€do€persist,€and€do€so€without€getting€angry€or€defensive.€€In€the€previous€academicÐ œì Ðyear€alone€these€included€Kris€Gizinski,€Don€Gramke,€Tony€Lewis,€Matt€Nelson,€Dan€Pangerl,Ð ˆØ ÐLisa€Radzak,€and€Robin€Runia.€€I€am€happy€to€be€able€to€acknowledge€their€special€contributionÐ tÄ Ðto€their€courses€and€to€me€personally,€and€I€apologize€to€those€I€have€forgotten€or€failed€toÐ `° Ðrecognize€in€the€first€place. i)3•Ñ37=CIOW_e®®I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a) §Ý ƒ¬($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ôð ðIf€we€had€ham,€we€could€have€ham€and€eggs,€if€we€had€eggs.ðð?Æ8ÿÿÿþýü˜HP DeskJet 830C Series Printer0(,,,,0(0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ŒÜ$¸¸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 GozerBuridan(F$ïïà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àà0p(#(#àÔ2#ÔÙ ÙÚ  ÚÚ  ÚÙ Ù)Ô3  Ôà0Èp(#p(#àÙ Ù‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5WOREssay #Header3Header4Header5Header66789 !"%s+t37;?CGKOS°°-*+x i)/)  +Ý ƒ¬($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔI€cannot€now€understand€why€I€did€not€recognize€that€the€vacuum€worked€well€withoutÐ ° Ðthe€extension€cord€and€poorly€with€it.€€Perhaps€this€was€the€first€time€I€had€done€the€vacuuming;€Ð œì Ðperhaps€I€failed€to€test€the€vacuum€when€directly€plugged€in;€€perhaps€I€just€jumped€toÐ ˆØ Ðconclusions.€€Regardless,€the€point€I€am€makingð!ð€what€egocentrism€looks€likeð!ð€remains€theÐ tÄ Ðsame. †Ý ƒ¬($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMy€grandmother€believed€that€if€you€did€not€unscrew€the€light€bulbs€at€night,€theÐ ° Ðelectricity€would€drip€out€of€them.€€Of€course€it€is€little€wonder€that€her€understanding€ofÐ œì Ðtechnology€lagged€a€bit,€having€been€born€before€the€Wright€brothers€flew. ªÝ ƒ¬($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔSee€the€Glossary€for€the€meaning€of€ð ðmotivateðð€in€this€context. ŒÝ ƒ¬($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€ð ðððShut€upðð,€he€explained.ðð(;3£$´´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$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2#Ô(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à1)0ý!?¡¥©­µ½ÃHeadOfFor the outline I give beneath the title of IA1(a)(i)1)a);i)0vÝC¡¥©­±¹ÁÇHeadOfSecFor the outline I give beneath the title of IA1(a)(i)1)a)= Ý ƒ¬($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔGaventaððs€(19xx)€analysis€of€power€relations€in€a€Kentucky€coal„mining€district€showsÐ ° Ðthat€the€levels€of€system€violence€varied€simply€according€to€how€much€was€necessary€to€maintainÐ œì Ðthe€overall€hierarchy€of€power.€€Direct,€physical€violence€succeeded€in€maintaining€dominance,€butÐ ˆØ Ðthey€were€costly.€€Indirect€means€of€control,€once€they€were€effective,€were€much€less€costly. öÝ ƒ¬($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€refers€to€the€method€Habermas€describes€that€employs€ð ðperformativeÐ ° Ðcontradictionðð.€€The€discussion€here€sort„circuits€the€dialectical€nature€of€this€method€and€ignoresÐ œì ÐHabermasððs€later€discussion€(19xx:xx)€of€how€one€might€address€the€motivation€problem.€Ð ˆØ ÐNevertheless,€I€think€the€above€discussion€is€fair€within€its€context. ûÝ ƒ¬($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTo€those€not€familiar€with€the€reference,€this€is€stolen€from€Samuel€Johnsonððs€famousÐ ° Ðreply€upon€hearing€of€Bishop€Berkeleyððs€theory€that€what€we€perceive€as€reality€is€only€ourÐ œì Ðimagining€it.€€ð ðòòThusóó€I€refute€Berkeleyðð,€Johnson€said,€kicking€a€chair.€€To€Berkeleyans,€of€course,Ð ˆØ Ðthis€did€not€constitute€a€refutation,€since€in€Berkeleyððs€perspective€the€chair,€the€kicking,€and€theÐ tÄ Ðsensation€were€all€equally€imagined.€€But€Johnsonððs€statement€sets€up€a€curious€echo€betweenÐ `° Ðð ðrefutationðð€and€ð ðreplyðð,€which€we€might€best€characterize€using€the€perspective€of€pragmatism:€Ð L œ Ðwithout€directly€saying€so,€Johnson€is€simply€pointing€out€that€there€is€no€empirical€way€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðdistinguish€Berkeleyððs€theory€from€the€theory€that€what€we€see€as€real€is€actuallyð!ð€whateverÐ $ t Ðð ðactuallyðð€means€in€this€contextð!ð€real.€€Since€Berkeleyððs€claim€has€no€empirical€referent,€it€isÐ  ` Ðmerely€metaphysical€and€therefore€meaningless,€at€least€as€a€description€of€reality. °Ý ƒ¬($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€phrase€ð ðwilly„nillyðð€is€a€contraction€of€the€older€expression,€ð ðWill€he€or€Ô_ÔnillÔ_Ô€heðð,Ð ° Ðð ðÔ_ÔnillÔ_Ôðð€being€an€old€term€for€ð ðnot€willingðð,€so€that€ð ðwilly„nillyðð€means€ð ðwhether€he€wants€to€orÐ œì Ðnotðð. vÝ ƒ¬($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOf€course€in€the€subsequent€blame€game,€the€Democrats€were€able€to€pin€the€blame€onÐ ° Ðthe€Republicans.€€If€they€were€able€to€foresee€this€outcome,€they€might€well€prefer€its€politicalÐ œì Ðadvantages€even€to€having€their€own€budget€passed. ZÝ ƒ¬($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔNote:€€I€am€not€arguing€that€their€preferences€can€be€ignored€on€the€grounds€that€theyÐ ° Ðare€ð ðirrationalðð.€€No€one€of€us€has€the€cosmic€writ€to€pronounce€unilaterally€and€definitively€whatÐ œì Ðis€rational.€€My€example€above€assumes€that€I€truly€know€what€is€going€on€in€their€minds.€€It€mayÐ ˆØ Ðbe,€for€example,€that€what€I€am€seeing€is€their€recognition€of€some€abuser€persona€within€me€thatÐ tÄ ÐI€am€unable€to€admit€into€consciousness,€so€that€their€reaction€is€in€fact€quite€reasonable.€€We€mayÐ `° Ðin€practice€be€forced€to€make€judgments€of€rationality,€but€we€must€not€delude€ourselves€that€weÐ L œ Ðare€doing€so€from€some€non„contingent€standpoint. i) d/)  i)/) Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ ý ÑÑ8€õXXdìdÈ8ÑSeptember€5,€2002Ð ° Ðà€A(#àÔÿÔò òLEVEL:€€xxó óÔÿºÔˆÐ œì Ðò òÔ‡î‹UîXXÔ[Chapter€3]Ô#†XõXîî‹U#Ôó óÐ ˆØ Ðò òÔ‡„Æ„XXõÔà0  àà ° àòòThe€Agreement€Problem:€€Pragmatic€Limits€of€Empathy,€theÐ ´ ÐPersistence€of€Disagreement,€and€the€Use€of€ForceÔ#†XõX„„Æo#Ôó óóóÐ `(#(# Ð[URL:€€TheAgreementProblem]Ð l ¼ ÐÌSECTIONS€(&€perhaps€subsections):ò òó óÐ D ” ÐÓ€ =(vÝ03 ÓÝ"‚7é;"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚7é;]Ýà0  àÔ2vÝÔÚ  ÚIÚ  ÚÔ3  Ôà0` (#(#àÝ  ÝThe€Agreement€Problem݃7é;]ŠÝŒÐ0 €` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚7é;"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚7é;NÝà0  àÔ2vÝÔÚ  ÚIIÚ  ÚÔ3  Ôà0` (#(#àÝ  ÝWhy€Is€It€a€ð ðProblemðð?€€Consequences€of€the€Agreement€Problem݃7é;N{ÝŒÐl ` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚8·¤"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚8·¤nÝà0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2vÝÔÚ  ÚAÚ  ÚÔ3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#àÝ  ÝThe€use€of€force€and€the€abandonment€of€morality݃8·¤n›ÝŒÐX ¸ (#¸ (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚8·¤"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚8·¤ŽÝà0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2vÝÔÚ  ÚBÚ  ÚÔ3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#àÝ  ÝCase€study€(or€maybe€just€an€anecdote)݃8·¤Ž»ÝŒÐôD ¸ (#¸ (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚8·¤"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚8·¤¤Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2vÝÔÚ  ÚCÚ  ÚÔ3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#àÝ  ÝEncouraging€stubbornness€and€game„playing݃8·¤¤ÑÝŒÐà0 ¸ (#¸ (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚7é;"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚7é;½Ýà0  àÔ2vÝÔÚ  ÚIIIÚ  ÚÔ3  Ôà0` (#(#àÝ  ÝExistential€Origins€of€the€Agreement€Problem݃7é;½êÝŒÐÌ ` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚8·¤"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚8·¤Ç Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2vÝÔÚ  ÚAÚ  ÚÔ3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#àÝ  ÝNatural€limits€of€empathy݃8·¤Ç ô ݌и¸ (#¸ (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚8·¤"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚8·¤Ð Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2vÝÔÚ  ÚBÚ  ÚÔ3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#àÝ  ÝVariation€in€senses€of€the€Good݃8·¤Ð ý ݌Фô¸ (#¸ (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚8·¤"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚8·¤ß Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2vÝÔÚ  ÚCÚ  ÚÔ3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#àÝ  ÝDecisions€made€willy„nilly݃8·¤ß ÝŒÐภ(#¸ (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚8·¤"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚8·¤é Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2vÝÔÚ  ÚDÚ  ÚÔ3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#àÝ  ÝDistress€patterns€and€painful€emotion݃8·¤é  ÝŒÐ|̸ (#¸ (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚7é;"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚7é;þ Ýà0  àÔ2vÝÔÚ  ÚIVÚ  ÚÔ3  Ôà0` (#(#àÝ  ÝSummary݃7é;þ +ÝŒÐh¸` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌßA€Y]) °°xdE°?xAßÐ @ ÐÓÓÝ‚#¿ÿÝÌÔ  Ôò òÔ  ÔòòÝ  ÝÝ‚#¿KÝÚƒ.ÚIÚ  ÚÛ€.Û€Ý  ÝThe€Agreement€Problem݃#¿K…ÝóóÔ ò jԌР'w ÐŒó óÝ  ÝMy€first€glimpse€of€the€ways€of€relating€perspective€came€as€I€struggled€to€take€seriouslyÐ ÿO ÐHabermasððs€recognition€that€the€only€final€standard€of€morality€is€agreement€among€all€affected€byÐ ×' Ða€proposed€norm.€€This€in€itself€is€not€an€outlandish€concept,€because€as€Habermas€notesÐ ¯ÿ Ðelsewhere,€every€moral€injunction€always€already€claims€to€command€the€assent€of€all,€even€whileÐ ‡!× Ðsuch€injunctions€can€only€be€made€contingently.€€Even€fascists€hold€that€their€norms€should€beÐ _#¯! Ðagreed€to€by€all,€even€if€fascism€doesnððt€rest€its€legitimacy€on€that€agreement€but€instead€sees€theÐ 7%‡ # Ðagreement€as€deriving€from€the€legitimacy.€€The€same€is€true€of€U.S.€society,€for€that€matter,Ð '_"% Ðdespite€our€nominal€concern€with€the€consent€of€the€governed.€€ð ðConsentðð€has€two€differentÐ ç(7$' Ðmeanings€here:€€consent€in€the€sense€of€agreeing€to€the€basic€institutions€whereby€leaders€areÐ ¿*&) Ðselected€and€laws€made,€and€consent€in€the€sense€of€participation€in€those€institutions.€€Today,Ð —,ç'+ý ÐÔ_Ôhowever,€the€difference€between€those€two€consents€is€conveniently€ignored,€so€that€theÐ d Ðinstitutions€themselves€are€deemed€legitimized€by€peopleððs€participation€in€themð!ð€or€even€byÐ <Ø Ðpeopleððs€opportunity€to€participate,€regardless€of€its€effectiveness.Ð  ° Ðà  àSo€ð ðagreementðð€by€itself€is€not€what€distinguishes€Habermasððs€moral€theory.€€It€is,€rather,Ð ì ˆ Ðthe€idea€of€agreement€òòin€practiceóó€that€distinguishes€it.€€Habermas€(or€the€ways€of€relatingÐ Ä ` Ðperspective,€for€that€matter)€is€not€satisfied€with€theoretical€agreement,€which€is€the€cover€story€ofÐ œ8  Ðeven€the€meanest€moral€theory.€€Fascists,€classical€liberals,€Kantð!ð€all€argue€that€people€ought€toÐ t  Ðagree€if€they€only€understood€things€aright.€€But€whether€these€arguments€are€simple€or€complex,Ð Lè  Ðsmart€or€stupid,€respectful€or€disrespectful€of€others,€they€are€not€in€fact€justified€except€by€theÐ $À Ðgold€standard€of€peopleððs€actual,€uncoerced€agreement.€€There€is€simply€too€much€room€for€self„Ð ü˜ Ðdelusion€to€allow€anyone,€or€even€any€group,€to€assume€othersðð€agreement.€€We€need€not€evenÐ Ôp Ðblame€self„delusion;€€all€of€us€are€unknown€to€each€other€to€some€extent.€€I€will€discuss€this€inÐ ¬H Ðmore€detail€in€ððIII;€€my€point€here€is€simply€that€no€norm€can€really€be€said€to€be€agreed€to€unlessÐ „  Ðit€isð!ð€duhð!ð€òòreallyóó€agreed€to.Ð \ø Ðà  àThere€has€been€much€discussion€of€the€conditions€under€which€agreement€can€be€said€toÐ 4 Ð Ðbe€uncoerced.€€Some€of€this€discussion€concerns€the€so„called€ð ðIdeal€Speech€Situationðð€(ISS),Ð  "¨ ÐHabermasððs€initial€foray€into€the€question.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€And€of€course€the€general€questionð!ð€what€are€theÐ ä#€  Ðmechanisms€of€oppression?ð!ð€extends€beyond€the€specifically€Habermasian€language€andÐ d Ðframework€of€the€ISS.€€But€despite€the€extensive€work€in€this€area,€we€must€remember€that€it€isÐ <Ø Ðstill€only€about€a€contingency.€€Our€basic€proposition€is,€ð ðòòIFóó€we€can€achieve€uncoerced€agreementÐ  ° Ðto€a€norm,€then€it€is€morally€valid.ðð€€The€discussions€about€the€ISS€and,€more€broadly,€the€natureÐ ì ˆ Ðof€oppression€are€concerned€only€with€what€the€predicate€clause€means;€€they€are€not€concernedÐ Ä ` Ðwith€whether€agreement€an€in€fact€be€reached.€€I€sense€that€the€belief€is€that€true€harmony€isÐ œ8  Ðblocked€primarily€by€oppression,€so€that€once€we€understand€and€overcome€oppression,Ð t  Ðagreement€will€follow€naturally.€€In€the€forum€of€the€ISS,€the€true€exchange€of€perspectives€willÐ Lè  Ðlead€quickly€or€at€least€reliably€to€an€agreed„upon€norm.€€Well,€perhaps€so,€but€I€can€also€see€anÐ $À Ðopposing€argument:€€the€more€we€ensure€that€everyoneððs€views€are€duly€included€in€ourÐ ü˜ Ðdeliberations,€and€the€more€we€guarantee€that€everyoneððs€agreement€is€autonomous€andÐ Ôp Ðuncoerced,€the€slower€and€harder€it€will€be€for€us€to€reach€agreement.€€Oppression€gives€at€leastÐ ¬H Ðan€appearance€of€agreement;€€I€donððt€see€any€magical€force€for€agreement€arising€just€because€weÐ „  Ðare€released€from€oppressionððs€lockstep.€€The€achievement€of€agreement€remains€a€problem.Ð \ø Ðà  àThis€is€not€òòtheóó€agreement€problem,€however.€€We€face€the€agreement€problem,€in€myÐ 4 Ð Ðsense,€when€we€need€to€act€even€though€disagreement€remains.€€In€real€life,€failure€to€decide€isÐ  "¨ Ðusually€a€decision€itself,€and€there€is€no€guarantee€that€the€necessity€of€deciding€will€bringÐ ä#€  Ðagreement.€€So€the€agreement€problem€is,€ð ðWhat€are€we€to€do€when€we€are€as€yet€unable€to€reachÐ ¼%X" Ðagreement?€€What€is€morality€when€we€lack€the€affirmation€of€its€gold€standard?ðð€€I€am€remindedÐ ”'0!$ Ðof€the€title€of€the€book,€òòWhat€to€Do€until€the€Messiah€Comesóó.€€Even€while€we€seek€agreement,Ð l)#& Ðeven€while€we€refuse€to€admit€anything€less€as€defining€morality,€what€do€we€do€in€the€meantime?Ð D+à$( Ðà  àDo€not€take€this€as€an€idle€question,€or€a€matter€of€application€instead€of€theory,€orÐ -¸&* Ð(worse)€idle€trouble„making.€€From€a€pragmatistððs€point€of€view,€ð ðby€their€fruits€ye€shall€knowÐ d Ðthem.ðð€€Morality€inheres€in€what€we€actually€do,€not€in€what€some€counterfactual€theory€asserts.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р<Ø ÐIf€the€òòactualóó€results€of,€say,€discourse€ethics€is,€ð ðPeople€sit€around€trying€to€reach€agreement€whileÐ  ° Ðactual€decisions€get€made€willy„nillyð!ð€through€institutional€inertia,€or€default,€force,€or€fraudððð!ð,Ð ì ˆ Ðthen€it€is€an€ideology€of€powerlessness,€not€morality.Ð Ä ` ÐÝ‚#¿ÿÝÌÔ  Ôò òÔ  ÔòòÝ  ÝÝ‚#¿j)ÝÚƒ.ÚIIÚ  ÚÛ€.Û€Ý  ÝWhy€Is€It€a€ð ðProblemðð?€€Consequences€of€the€Agreement€Problem݃#¿j)¤)ÝóóÔ ò ‰)ԌРt  ÐŒó óÝ  ÝPlease€note€that€I€am€not€arguing€either€against€agreement€as€the€criterion€of€morality€or€againstÐ Lè  Ðfair€decision€processes.€€All€I€mean€to€do€here€is€point€out€their€practical€consequences.€€But€whatÐ $À Ðòòareóó€the€practical€consequences€of€the€agreement€problem?€€Are€they€so€dire€that€the€ordinary€levelÐ ü˜ Ðof€disagreement€must€be€termed€a€Problem?€€One€might€argue€that€discourse€ethics€need€serveÐ Ôp Ðonly€as€an€ideal€version€of€morality,€one€we€can€aspire€to€and€be€guided€by,€so€that€our€actualÐ ¬H Ðdecisions€are€merely€imperfect€rather€than€Immoral.Ð „  Ðà  àI€have€some€sympathy€for€that€argument.€€I€believe€that€discourse€ethics€and€other,€similarÐ \ø Ðphilosophies€do€in€fact€help€us€even€if€they€only€serve€as€ideals.€€However,€I€also€believe€that€thereÐ 4 Ð Ðare€some€important€ways€in€which€mere€idealization€creates€serious€problemð!ð€yes,€Problems€andÐ  "¨ ÐImmorality.€€I€take€up€these€problems€below.Ð ä#€  Ðâ âÝ‚$HêÿÝÐ ¼%X" ÐÔ  Ôâ âÝ  ÝÝ‚$Hêß.Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àà  àò òÔ  ÔÚƒ.ÚAÚ  Ú.Û€.ÛÝ  ÝThe€use€of€force€and€the€abandonment€of€morality݃$Hêß.$/ÝÔ à0f/ÔŒÐd` (#` (# ÐŒó óÝ  ÝThe€agreement€problem€asks€us€how€we€are€able€to€relate€to€each€other€when€the€only€certainty€ofÐ <Ø Ðmoralityð!ð€universal,€uncoerced€agreement€of€those€concernedð!ð€cannot€guide€us.€€Guides€such€asÐ  ° Ðmajority€rule€do€exist,€but€they€provide€at€best€shaky€ground.€€It€surely€is€not€true€that€theÐ ì ˆ Ðmajority€is€always€right.€€And€if€morality€has€been€exhausted€when€we€fail€to€reach€agreement,Ð Ä ` Ðwhat€moral€force€remains€to€persuade€the€minority€to€accept€its€status,€particularly€if€it€finds€itselfÐ œ8  Ðmore€or€less€a€permanent€minority,€and€particularly€if€it€sees€its€basic€values€being€threatened?€Ð t  ÐAnd€in€a€larger€sense,€even€the€existence€of€a€majority€is€questionable,€since€any€norm€will€beÐ Lè  Ðð ðagreed€toðð€in€quite€varying€degrees:€€only€a€few€people€support€it€wholeheartedly,€others€see€it€asÐ $À Ðacceptable€but€not€idea.€Others€see€it€as€bad€but€better€than€anarchy.€€Furthermore,€it€seems€clearÐ ü˜ Ðthat€there€are€òòmanyóó€possible€norms€that€could€produce€equally€large€(and€equally€divided)Ð Ôp Ðmajorities.€€The€mechanisms€by€which€the€proponents€of€potential€norms€identify€them,€advertiseÐ ¬H Ðthem,€and€attract€support€to€themð!ð€these€very€mechanisms€are€subject€to€inequalities€andÐ „  Ðinjustice.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð \ø Ðà  àAnd€so€on.€€My€point€is€not€that€majority€rule€is€uniquely€bad€but€rather€than€once€we€noÐ 4 Ð Ðlonger€have€the€philosophical€compass€of€universal,€uncoerced€agreement,€we€appear€to€be€leftÐ  "¨ Ðdirectionless€and€adrift.€€And€when€we€are€in€this€situation,€the€temptation€is€to€use€force.€€ByÐ ä#€  Ðforce€I€mean€any€means€of€getting€oneððs€way,€physical€force€being€one€means,€but€deception,Ð ¼%X" Ðgame„playing,€and€the€like€being€included€as€well.€€To€put€this€in€Habermasððs€neat€language,€forceÐ ”'0!$ Ðincludes€all€instrumental€action.Ð d Ðà  àThis€is€a€rather€detached€and€formal€description€of€the€sit6uation.€€Let€me€state€it€as€oneÐ <Ø Ðusually€encounters€it.Ð  ° ÐÓÓÓ  Óà8  àThose€asshole€Tweedledums€are€proposing€to€enforce€on€us,€the€Tweedledees,Ð ì ˆ Ðimmoral€and€abusive€practices.€€Weððve€repeatedly€tried€to€explain€to€them€why€theirÐ Ú v Ðactions€are€wrong,€pleaded€with€them,€but€they€donððt€listen.€€They€are€deaf€to€logicÐ È d Ðand€blind€to€plain€facts.€€The€selfish€bastards€care€only€for€their€own€prejudices€andÐ ¶R  Ðmake€fun€of€our€concerns.€€The€fact€that€they€outvote€us€only€shows€that€there€happenÐ ¤@  Ðto€be€more€of€them€and€that€their€leaders€have€blinded€them€to€our€concerns.€€TheirÐ ’.  Ðposition€has€no€moral€authority,€only€the€force€of€coercion€and€strategic€advantage,Ð €  Ðand€we€will€resist€it€with€whatever€means€we€have€until€they€at€last€see€why€weððreÐ n  Ðright.Ð\ø Ð Ð  ÐÌÓf9ÓÓx9ÓIt€goes€without€saying€that€the€Tweedledums€describe€the€Tweedledees€in€equally€dismissiveÐ 8Ô Ðlanguage.Ð ¬ Ðà  àI€have€written€the€above€in€language€that€may€make€it€appear€to€be€a€caricature,€notÐ è„ Ðreality.€€But€despite€this€tone,€I€am€serious,€because€it€describes€pretty€accurately€my€sense€of€theÐ À\ Ðcultural€conflict€in€the€United€States€between€liberals€and€conservatives€or€in€HabermasianÐ ˜4 Ðlanguage€(and€more€accurately)€between€the€proponents€of€system€rationalization€and€those€of€theÐ p  Ðmeanings€embodied€in€existing€lifeworlds.€€In€their€quest€to€gain€the€advantages€of€certain€systemÐ H ä Ðconfigurations,€system€rationalizers€are€willing€to€advocate€ways€of€relating€that€override€local,Ð  "¼ Ðparticularistic€social„cultural„economic„political€arrangements.€€Indeed,€I€exaggerate€when€I€sayÐ ø#”  Ðthey€are€ð ðwilling€toðð€override€local€arrangements;€€my€sense€and€personal€experience€is€that€theyÐ Ð%l" Ðaccord€these€local€arrangements€no€value€whatsoever,€taking€notice€of€them€only€as€sources€ofÐ ¨'D!$ Ð(irrational)€resistence.€€Thus€the€system„rationalizers„dominated€mediaððs€coverage€of€the€WTOÐ €)#& Ðprotests€in€Seattle€portrayed€them€primarily€in€terms€of€anarchists€and€rioters,€ignoring€the€manyÐ X+ô$( Ðother€groups€who€had€simply€come€to€protest€what€they€anticipated€to€be€WTOððs€intent€ofÐ 0-Ì&* Ðbulldozing€their€ways€of€life€through€trade€liberalization.€€I€donððt€want€to€make€this€sound€overlyÐ d Ðconspiratorial,€however,€because€there€is€a€far€simpler€explanation€for€this€pattern€of€coverage:€Ð <Ø Ðthat€the€people€who€own€and€manage€the€media€cannot€see€the€other€protests€as€anything€butÐ  ° Ðanarchists€and€riotersð!ð€if€not€today,€then€tomorrow.€€From€their€point€of€view,€after€all,€there€isÐ ì ˆ Ðnothing€that€really€separates€the€other€protesters€from€the€anarchists€and€rioters.€€Once€oneÐ Ä ` Ðaccepts€the€view€that€people€can€protect€their€social€arrangements€regardless€of€the€consequencesÐ œ8  Ðfor€the€whole€society,€then€anarchy€and€riot€are€the€immediate€logical€consequence€and€thereforeÐ t  Ðthe€eventual€practical€result.€€If€Pamela€Protester€believes€that€her€individuals€beliefs€entitle€her€toÐ Lè  Ðdefy€broader€social€choices,€what€is€that€but€anarchy?€€We€cannot€make€the€law€subject€toÐ $À Ðpeopleððs€individual€judgment€(or€communitiesðð€local€judgment)€of€whether€they€like€it€or€not.€€SoÐ ü˜ Ðin€the€mediaððs€eyes,€according€to€my€theory,€their€focus€on€anarchists€and€rioters€is€completelyÐ Ôp Ðlegitimate€as€a€way€of€encapsulating€[what€they€see€as]€the€foundation€of€the€protests€as€a€whole.€Ð ¬H ÐTo€me€it€is€much€more€plausible€to€see€the€biased€coverage€as€a€result€of€a€shared€worldview€thanÐ „  Ðas€a€conspiracy.€€Viewing€something€as€a€conspiracy€implies€that€the€conspirators€understand€yourÐ \ø Ðviews.€€In€the€ordinary€course€of€life€this€is€an€easy€conclusion€to€reach,€given€how€obvious€oneÐ 4 Ð Ðfeels€oneððs€perspective€is€and€how€hard€one€has€tried€to€communicate€it.€€But€however€natural€thisÐ  "¨ Ðinference€may€seem,€it€fails€to€take€into€account€egocentrismð!ð€the€egocentrism€of€the€others,€whoÐ ä#€  Ðcannot€hear€what€youððre€saying€except€through€the€filter€of€their€own€preconceptions,€and€oneððsÐ ¼%X" Ðown€egocentrism,€which€leads€one€to€believe€that€others€òòmust€doóó€[òòsicóó]€understand€oneððsÐ ”'0!$ Ðperspective.Ð l)#& Ðà  àI€know€I€am€afflicted€with€that€egocentrism.€€I€try€consciously€to€resist€it,€but€it€is€soÐ D+à$( Ðautomatic€a€response€that€I€often€discover,€too€late,€that€I€have€slipped€into€it.€€As€a€teacher,€I€Ô_ÔamÐ -¸&* Ðable€to€do€this€without€my€students€calling€me€on€it.€€òòTheyóó€recognize€it,€of€course,€but€most€find€itÐ d Ðtoo€difficult,€or€too€unlikely€of€success,€or€too€unimportant,€to€persist€in€challenging€it.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€ThisÐ <Ø Ðegocentrism€appears€outside€the€classroom,€too,€because€my€various€sources€of€status€let€meÐ  ° Ðexercise€it€without€being€called€on€it.€€Status:€€I€am€white,€tall,€well„spoken,€neatly€dressed,€andÐ ì ˆ Ðhighly€educated.€€Getting€away€with€it:€€My€paradigmatic€case€occurred€in€1971€or€1972,€whenÐ Ä ` Ðmy€(now€ex-)wife€and€I€were€graduate€students€living€in€the€attic€of€a€home€owned€by€Mr.€&€Mrs.Ð œ8  ÐSchmidt€(not€their€real€name).€€Mr.€Schmidt€had€Ô_ÔhadÔ_Ô€to€drop€out€of€school€early,€and€worked€in€aÐ t  Ðnearby€factory€as€an€unskilled€laborer.€€One€day€as€I€started€to€vacuum€our€attic,€I€found€this€taskÐ Lè  Ðquite€difficult.€€Our€vacuumððs€short€power€cord€would€reach€only€about€a€quarter€of€the€attic,€soÐ $À Ðthat€I€was€going€to€be€repeatedly€required€to€shift€it€from€one€hard„to„reach€socket€to€another.€Ð ü˜ ÐMr.Efficiency€had€the€brilliant€idea€of€eliminating€all€this€hooking€and€unhooking€by€using€a€50'Ð Ôp Ðextension€cord€I€happened€to€have€in€the€car.€€However,€when€I€attempted€this,€the€vacuumÐ ¬H Ðwouldnððt€run€well.€€When€I€next€encountered€Mr.Schmidt,€I€complained€to€him€that€somethingÐ „  Ðwas€wrong€with€the€power€lines:€€there€wasnððt€enough€power€being€delivered€to€the€outlets.׃2×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€HeÐ \ø Ðtold€me€that€the€extension€cord€was€causing€the€problem,€because€the€voltage€drops€the€furtherÐ 4 Ð Ðaway€from€the€source€one€goes.€€I€told€him€this€was€not€so,€knowing€(or€believing,€anyway)€thatÐ d Ðthe€copper€wiring€in€the€extension€cord€was€virtually€a€perfect€conductor€and€therefore€could€notÐ <Ø Ðaccount€for€such€a€marked€reduction€in€power.€€After€all,€I€had€just€graduated€in€appliedÐ  ° Ðmathematics€from€Brown€University,€with€a€minor€in€physics.€€I€knew€Faradayððs€Laws,€andÐ ì ˆ ÐMr.Schmidt€was€a€school€dropout€with€the€uneducatedsðð€superstitions€about€how€electricityÐ Ä ` Ðworks.׃3×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€After€a€few€ð ðyes€itððs€the€extension€cordðð„€ð ðno€it€isnððtðð€exchanges,€Mr.Schmidt€got€angryÐ œ8  Ðand€walked€off.€€It€was€only€years€later€that€I€learned€that€he€was€right€and€I€was€wrong.Ð t  Ðà  àThese€little€stories€arenððt€just€meant€to€purge€my€conscience€but€to€say€in€as€immediate€aÐ Lè  Ðway€as€I€can€how€this€egocentrism€works.€€And€I€hope€that€they€yield€something€more€than€theÐ $À Ðconclusion€that€Iððm€an€ass.€€Even€if€that€were€true,€as€my€friends€assure€me,€I€think€that€if€you€areÐ ü˜ Ðhonest€with€yourself,€you€will€find€much€of€yourself€to€recognize€in€my€prejudices€and€experience.€Ð Ôp ÐMy€point€is€not€that€youððre€an€ass€too€but€rather€that€this€is€a€very€common,€natural,€and€even€inÐ ¬H Ðsome€ways€necessary€behavior.€€In€the€midst€of€lifeððs€unscripted€turbulence€we€must€makeÐ „  Ðthousands€of€judgments€instantly,€and€preconceptions€and€assumptions€are€often€all€that€we€feelÐ \ø Ðwe€have€time€for.€€This€is€not€a€state€of€affairs€to€be€sought,€and€I€am€not€recommending€the€useÐ 4 Ð Ðof€prejudices€when€the€opportunity€exists€for€true€knowledge,€but€it€is€often€simply€what€we€areÐ  "¨ Ðfaced€with€in€the€human€condition.€€I€will€return€to€this€topic€of€the€human€condition€in€the€nextÐ ä#€  Ðâ âsection.Ð ¼%X" ÐPerhaps€an€implicit€or€intuitive€sense€of€limits,€but€nothing€clear.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð d Ðâ âÝ‚$HêÿÝÌÔ  ÔÝ  ÝÝ‚$Hêà]Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àà  àò òÔ  ÔÚƒ.ÚBÚ  Ú.Û€.ÛÝ  ÝJumping€to€force݃$Hêà]^ÝÔ à0I^ԌР°` (#` (# ÐŒó óÝ  Ý€€Once€one€reaches€the€boundary€of€discourse€ethics€and€its€mutual€respect,€it€is€a€very€short€stepÐ ì ˆ Ðfrom€there€to€the€violence€that€can€erupt€when€decisions€need€to€be€made€without€the€validationÐ Ä ` Ðof€agreement.€€This€was€brought€home€to€me€at€a€panel€I€attended€recently€at€a€professionalÐ œ8  Ðconference.€€The€panel€was€concerned€with€understanding€how€political€systems€could€beÐ t  Ðstructured€to€prevent€oppression.€€It€could€have€been€a€panel€on€Marxism,€or€communitarianism,Ð Lè  Ðor€discourse€ethics,€or€classical€liberalism,€or€libertarianismð!ð€no€matter;€€all€seek€to€endÐ $À Ðoppression,€though€they€understand€oppression€in€different€ways€and€look€to€different€sorts€ofÐ ü˜ Ðremedies€for€it.€€So€in€this€panel€I€watched€a€series€of€well„educated,€well„dressed,€well„spoken,Ð Ôp Ðarticulate,€good„looking€academics€talk€about€the€need€to€respect,€solicit,€and€take€cognizance€ofÐ ¬H Ðall€points€of€view.€€During€the€question€period€following€the€panel,€I€asked€the€panel€generallyÐ „  Ðwhat€they€thought€should€be€done€if,€despite€all€their€arguments,€people€didnððt€agree€with€them.€Ð \ø ÐAfter€some€moments€of€dead€silence,€one€of€the€panelists€finally€said€that€(paraphrasing)€ð ðtheyÐ 4 Ð Ðwould€have€to€be€forced.€€I€mean,€weððve€given€them€every€opportunity€to€understand€our€logic.ðð€Ð  "¨ ÐEven€though€I€was€expecting€that€general€answer,€I€was€taken€aback€by€the€baldness€of€the€reply,Ð ä#€  Ðbut€if€the€rest€of€those€present€reacted€to€it,€it€was€only€with€nodding€heads.€€The€Asch€effectÐ ¼%X" Ðovercame€me,€and€the€discussion€moved€on.Ð ”'0!$ Ðà  àBut€what€is€objectionable€about€that€reply?€€Doesnððt€it€just€state€the€reality€of€theÐ l)#& ÐÔ_Ôsituation?€€We€(political€theorists)€spend€a€great€time€trying€to€find€ways€to€be€just€to€everyone.€Ð d ÐSurely€the€time€to€disagree€with€our€conclusions€is€while€weððre€developing€them,€not€afterwards?€Ð <Ø ÐIf€weððre€playing€each€other€in€a€tennis€tournament,€isnððt€it€unfair€to€play€a€game€and€then,€if€oneÐ  ° Ðloses,€to€say€that€the€game€didnððt€count?€€In€any€case,€whatððs€the€alternative€to€force?€€MoreÐ ì ˆ Ðdiscussion€will€likely€result€only€in€further€disagreement,€even€if€the€original€objections€areÐ Ä ` Ðaddressed.Ð œ8  Ðà  àI€understand€these€objections,€and€I€do€have€an€answer€to€suggest,€which€is€the€point€ofÐ t  Ðthis€chapter.€€Before€I€present€it,€though,€I€want€to€motivate׃4×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€it€so€you€can€see€what€problem€IððmÐ Lè  Ðactually€trying€to€address.€€I€am€òònotóó€trying€to€address€the€problem€of€finding€a€way€to€marchÐ $À Ðinevitably€to€agreement;€€the€Mnchhausen€trilemma€says€no€such€logically„inevitable€agreementÐ ü˜ Ðcan€exist,€and€our€thus„mistaken€preoccupation€with€it€leads€us€to€neglect€what€I€see€as€the€realÐ Ôp Ðproblem.€€This€ð ðreal€problemðð€is€the€disrespectfulness€with€which€we€treat€others€when€we€grantÐ ¬H Ðourselves€the€authority€to€force€compliance.€€Suppose€I€were€to€post€the€following€in€newspapersÐ „  Ðâ âaround€the€Ô_Ôcountry:Ð \ø ÐÓÓÓ  ÓÔ& § Ôâ âJanuary€15,€2002Ð d ÐÓmÓÓ  Óà8 @ àò òÔ‡„Æ„XXõÔNOTICEÔ#†XõX„„Ævm#Ôó óÐ Rî ÐÓ[mÓÓmÓÌà8  àIt€has€been€shown€that€Chiltonianism,€described€in€the€book€ð ðWays€of€RelatingððÐ £ ? Ð(available€at€cost€from€the€Chilton€Institute)€is€Right.€€Members€of€the€ChiltonÐ ‘ - ÐInstitute,€expert€political€theorists€one€and€all,€unanimously€agree€that€its€logic€isÐ   Ðflawless€and€that€disagreement€is€merely€evidence€of€ignorance€or€emotionalÐ m  Ðdisturbance.€€This€is€to€notify€you€that€we€at€the€Chilton€Institute€will€therefore€beÐ [ ÷ Ðreplacing€the€current€U.S.€political€regime€with€Chiltonianism.€€You€will€cooperate,Ð Iå Ðof€course,€since€you€will€see€that€Chiltonianism€is€Right,€but€Chiltonians€are€morallyÐ 7Ó  Ðentitled€to€use€force€to€compel€those€who€cannot€understand€its€Rightness.Ð%Á Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à(Signed:)Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àò òÔ‡î‹UîXXõÔSteve€Chilton,€Maximum€LeaderÔ#†XõXîî‹U‰q#Ôó óÔ'§dmÔÐÝy Ð Ð  ÐÓòlÓÓæmÓÌWould€you€rejoice€that€the€perfect€political€system€had€at€last€been€found?€€Even€though€youÐ ã Ðhavenððt€read€the€book€yet€and€donððt€know€what€Chiltonianism€is,€do€you€accept€that€its€advocatesÐ »W Ðhave€a€right€to€compel€your€obedience€in€the€event€of€your€disagreement?€€You€do€want€to€beÐ “/ Ðsaved€from€your€own€ignorance€and€emotional€disturbances,€donððt€you?Ð k Ðà  àO.k.,€so€you€wouldnððt€rejoice.€€As€a€matter€of€fact,€youððd€probably€think€that€MaximumÐ Cß ÐLeader€Chilton€was€a€nut€and€that€the€Institute€was€a€danger€to€the€community,€so€that€bothÐ  · Ðshould€be€suppressed€immediately.€€And€yet€this€is€precisely€the€position€the€above„mentionedÐ ó! Ðpanelists€are€taking;€€Iððve€merely€made€its€features€a€little€more€prominent.Ð Ë#g Ðà  àð ðYes,€but€the€difference€is€that€Maximum€Leader€Chilton€is€at€the€very€least€a€dangerousÐ £%?! Ðnut€and€potentially€an€evil€dictator,€while€weððre€moral,€considerate€people.ððÐ {'!# Ðà  àWell,€stated€baldly€in€this€way,€itððs€pretty€apparent€that€this€argument€is€simply€dogmatic,Ð S)ï"% Ðnot€logically€valid.€€ð ðIððm€right€and€youððre€wrongðð€isnððt€a€very€persuasive€argument.׃5×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Hereððs€aÐ ++Ç$' Ðbetter€response:€€ð ðThe€difference€is€that€Maximum€Leader€Chilton€sounds€like€a€Hitler€or€Stalin,Ð d Ðwho€terrorized,€exiled,€imprisoned,€or€even€killed€dissidents.€€We,€on€the€other€hand,€wouldnððt€useÐ <Ø Ðthese€terrible€methods.ðð€€And€it€is€true€that€violence€can€have€a€variety€of€levels,€from€physicalÐ  ° Ðpunishment€and€compulsion€to€mere€propaganda.€€But€once€the€barrier€between€respect€andÐ ì ˆ Ðdisrespect€is€broken,€it€is€much€less€clear€what€actions€can€be€morally€justified.€€From€a€practicalÐ Ä ` Ðperspective,€the€milder€the€form€of€violence€employed,€the€cheaper€it€is€to€deploy€and€the€lessÐ œ8  Ðresistance€and€reaction€will€arise€from€its€use.׃C×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€But€the€question€is€not€what€level€of€violenceÐ t  Ðmost€efficiently€enforces€or€protects€oneððs€concept€of€the€Right;€€the€question€is,€rather,€how€doÐ Lè  Ðwe€decide€what€level€of€violence€is€justifiable€to€achieve€that€end?Ð $À Ðà  àI€am€not€claiming€that€humans€become€animals€once€the€moral€certainty€of€agreement€isÐ ü˜ Ðleft€behind.€€Centuries€of€common€and€statutory€law€have€given€us€some€guidelines€about€the€useÐ Ôp Ðof€force;€€they€represent€what€might€be€called€our€collective€intuition€about€such€issues.€€WeÐ ¬H Ðrecognize€that€the€use€of€force€is€something€to€use€carefully,€not€indiscriminately.€€Nevertheless,Ð „  Ðthis€still€remains€only€an€Ô_Ôintuition,Ô_Ô€and€a€beleaguered,€battered,€and€disputed€one€Ô_ÔatÔ_Ô€that.€€I€takeÐ \ø Ðheart€from€the€existence€of€the€intuition,€but€I€believe€that€we€need€to€clarify€its€nature.€€ThatððsÐ 4 Ð Ðwhat€Iððm€attempting€to€do€in€this€chapter,€in€Chapter5,€and€really€in€this€work€as€a€whole.€€So€toÐ  "¨ Ðreturn€to€my€original€example,€of€my€colleaguesðð€willingness€to€turn€to€force,€my€objection€is€notÐ ä#€  Ðtheir€contemplation€of€force€itself€but€rather€their€treating€it€without€any€concern€for€its€perils€andÐ ¼%X" Ðfor€the€moral€responsibility€its€use€must€entail.Ð ”'0!$ ÐÔ_Ôà  àÌÝ‚$HêÿÝÌÔ  ÔÝ  ÝÝ‚$Hê<Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àà  àò òÔ  ÔÚƒ.ÚCÚ  Ú.Û€.ÛÝ  ÝThe€Prisonerððs€Dilemma€problem:€€Encouraging€stubbornness€and€game„playing݃$Hê<cÝÔ à0¥ÔŒÐ °` (#` (# ÐŒó óÝ  ÝThis€section€of€the€essay€has€focused€on€what€makes€the€agreement€problem€a€ð ðproblemðð.€€TheÐ ì ˆ Ðfinal€reason€is€the€possibility€that€the€requirement€of€agreement€can€be€used€strategically€toÐ Ä ` Ðnegotiate€a€better€deal€for€oneself.€€If€agreement€is€indeed€taken€as€the€only€criterion€of€morality,Ð œ8  Ðthen€one€can€withhold€oneððs€agreement€as€a€bargaining€tactic.€€Even€if€one€actually€believes€thatÐ t  Ðthe€proposed€norm€is€perfectly€o.k.,€why€not€see€if€one€canððt€get€a€bit€more€by€threatening€toÐ Lè  Ðdefect?Ð $À Ðà  àThe€obvious€replyð!ð€that€if€one€person€uses€that€tactic,€so€can€everyone€else,€to€theÐ ü˜ Ðdetriment€of€allð!ð€is€not€effective,€at€least€on€the€face€of€it.€€Adherents€of€the€rational€choice€modelÐ Ôp Ðof€social€decisionmaking€can€simply€point€out€that€while€this€possibility€of€general€defection€isÐ ¬H Ðindeed€a€consideration,€one€that€any€rational€actor€needs€to€factor€into€h/her€calculations,€it€is€notÐ „  Ða€òòmorally€bindingóó€consideration;€€it€imposes€no€duty€on€h/her€specifically.Ð \ø Ðà  àA€discourse„ethics€rejoinder€to€that€might€be€that€the€rational€actor€has€things€backwards:€Ð 4 Ð ÐHabermas(19xx)€has€shown€that€this€òòisóó€a€morally€binding€consideration,€not€just€in€some€generalÐ  "¨ Ðsense€but€rather€through€a€method€that€can€prove€it€to€each€specific€actor.׃D×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€ð ðPerhaps€soðð,€repliesÐ ä#€  Ðâ âthe€rational€actor,€ð ðbut€òòthusóó€I€refute€discourse€ethicsððð!ð€acting€as€s/he€pleases,€regardless€of€whatÐ ¼%X" Ðis€supposedly€moral.׃E×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€I€will€not€pursue€this€issue€farther€here.€€It€leads€directly€into€theÐ d Ðâ âmotivation€problem€and€the€meaning€of€ð ðmoralðð.€€Habermas€did€address€this€issue,€but€not€in€aÐ <Ø Ðway€that€entirely€solved€the€problem.€€Iððll€address€the€issue€more€thoroughly€later.Ð  ° ÐÝ‚#¿ÿÝÌÔ  Ôò òÔ  ÔòòÝ  ÝÝ‚#¿e‹ÝÚƒ.ÚIIIÚ  ÚÛ€.Û€Ý  ÝExistential€Origins€of€the€Agreement€Problem݃#¿e‹Ÿ‹ÝóóÔ ò „‹ÔŒÐ Ä ` ÐŒó óÝ  ÝI€will€be€arguing€that€the€Agreement€Problem€cannot€be€philosophized€away€but€rather€comesÐ œ8  Ðfrom€the€nature€of€human€existence€itself,€at€least€insofar€as€I€am€able€to€see€its€limits.€Ð t  ÐEstablishing€this€claim€is€a€necessary€preface€to€my€subsequent€discussion,€which€involves€theÐ Lè  Ðnature€of€morality€beyond€agreement.€€If€disagreement€is€not€inevitable,€then€we€would€spend€ourÐ $À Ðtime€better€in€figuring€out€how€to€achieve€it€than€in€saying€what€we€should€do€in€its€absence.€€ButÐ ü˜ Ðif,€as€I€claim,€disagreement€is€and€always€will€be€the€usual€result€of€moral€discourse,€then€we€needÐ Ôp Ðto€spend€our€time€looking€at€what€to€do€then.Ð ¬H Ðà  àThe€points€below€are€quite€brief;€€my€purpose€is€to€list€and€describe€them,€not€to€proveÐ „  Ðthem.€€In€my€mind€at€least€no€proof€is€necessary€for€these€obvious€points.Ð \ø Ðâ âÝ‚$HêÿÝÐ 4 Ð ÐÔ  Ôâ âÝ  ÝÝ‚$HêPÝà0  àà0` (#(#àà  àò òÔ  ÔÚƒ.ÚAÚ  Ú.Û€.ÛÝ  ÝVariation€in€senses€of€the€Good݃$HêP•ÝÔ à0×ÔŒÐd` (#` (# ÐŒó óÝ  ÝThe€first€problem€is€of€course€that€we€disagree€on€what€we€want€to€see€happen.€€I€want€to€see€aÐ <Ø Ðcountry€where€everyone€worships€Gozer,€while€you€want€a€country€with€freedom€of€religion.€Ð  ° ÐDisagreement€is€inevitable.€€One€might€settle€the€issue€through€some€grudging€compromise,€butÐ ì ˆ Ðthis€would€not€be€true€agreement.€€It€might€be,€for€example,€that€our€beliefs€are€so€firmly€rootedÐ Ä ` Ðthat€any€compromise€would€vanish€at€the€first€hint€of€a€problemð!ð€sort€of€like€the€famousÐ œ8  ÐMolotov„von€Ribbentrop€non„aggression€treaty€between€Stalin€and€Hitler,€where€each€found€itÐ t  Ðmomentarily€inconvenient€to€attack€the€other€but€fully€intended€to€when€prepared.Ð Lè  Ðà  àEven€a€shared€sense€of€what€is€desirable€can€create€disagreement€when€there€is€a€limitedÐ $À Ðsupply€of€it.€€Stranded€on€a€desert€island€together,€we€might€both€desire€that€coconut,€but€thatÐ ü˜ Ðdoesnððt€mean€Iððll€let€you€have€it€or€even€agree€to€share€it.Ð Ôp ÐÝ‚$HêÿÝÌÔ  ÔÝ  ÝÝ‚$Hêô•Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àà  àò òÔ  ÔÚƒ.ÚBÚ  Ú.Û€.ÛÝ  ÝNatural€limits€of€empathy݃$Hêô•–ÝÔ à0]–ԌЄ ` (#` (# ÐŒó óÝ  ÝMorality€is€a€matter€of€empathy€for€the€other,€so€that€one€takes€h/her€sense€of€TWIW€as€seriouslyÐ \ø Ðas€oneððs€own.€€Agreement€might€arise€by€accident€even€without€such€empathy,€even€withÐ 4 Ð Ðsubstantial€misunderstanding€of€the€other,€but€only€in€the€sense€that€a€clock€that€doesnððt€run€is€stillÐ  "¨ Ðright€twice€a€day.€€I€therefore€simply€detail€a€couple€of€the€reasons€why€empathy€cannot€ever€beÐ ä#€  Ðperfect.Ð ¼%X" ÐÝ‚ÒàÿÝÌÔ  ÔÝ  ÝÝ‚Òà™Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà ` àòòÔ  ÔÚƒ.Ú1Ú  Ú:Û€.ÛÝ  ÝHistorical/geographical/cultural݃Òà™7™ÝÔ à0™ÔŒÐl)#&¸ (#¸ (# ÐŒóóÝ  ÝPeople€live€in€different€lifeworlds,€with€different€background€assumptions.€€One€could€argue€thatÐ D+à$( Ðeven€the€most€intimate€of€friends€still€see€the€world€in€different€ways,€so€that€their€empathy€Ô_ÔwillÐ -¸&* Ðalways€be€imperfect,€even€if€such€imperfection€comes€to€light€only€rarely.€€But€regardless€ofÐ d Ðwhether€you€share€that€belief€of€mine,€it€seems€plain€to€me€that€there€the€differences€in€lifeworldsÐ <Ø Ðand€thus€in€empathy€grow€rapidly,€the€more€two€people€are€separated€by€culture,€by€geographicalÐ  ° Ðdistance,€and€by€their€own€personal€histories.€€I€mention€geographical€distance€not€to€say€that€itÐ ì ˆ Ðcreates€different€lifeworlds€(although€it€seems€likely€to)€but€only€to€say€that€the€less€opportunityÐ Ä ` Ðpeople€have€to€interact€with€each€other,€the€less€able€they€will€be€to€come€to€understand€eachÐ œ8  Ðotherððs€sense€of€the€Good.Ð t  ÐÝ‚ÒàÿÝÌÔ  ÔÝ  ÝÝ‚ÒàEžÝà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà ` àòòÔ  ÔÚƒ.Ú2Ú  Ú:Û€.ÛÝ  ÝRecognition€of€concrete€but€not€abstract€connections݃ÒàEžlžÝÔ à0žÔŒÐ$À¸ (#¸ (# ÐŒóóÝ  ÝI€am€jumping€ahead€a€bit€here,€since€I€wonððt€be€discussing€this€factor€until€Chapters4€and€5,€butÐ ü˜ Ðthe€point€is€pretty€simple.€€In€a€complex€society€like€ours,€my€actions€(and,€more€generally,€myÐ Ôp Ðways€of€relating)€will€have€consequences€for€people€I€am€not€likely€to€meet.€€I€can€understand€inÐ ¬H Ðthe€abstract€that,€say,€dumping€waste€into€the€river€here€will€mean€problems€for€the€peopleÐ „  Ðdownstream,€and€so€we€pass€antipollution€laws€to€recognize€that€general€understanding.€€But€thatÐ \ø Ðdoesnððt€mean€I€can€empathize€with€those€others€in€any€detail.€€To€me,€the€cost€savings€of€dumpingÐ 4 Ð Ðmy€waste€into€the€river€might€make€the€difference€between€survival€and€bankruptcy,€somethingÐ  "¨ Ðthat€seems€to€me€obviously€more€important€than€inflicting€a€smelly€river€on€others.€€But€of€courseÐ ä#€  Ðthis€likely€misunderstands€the€problems€downstream,€which€might€be€not€the€smell€but€(say)Ð ¼%X" Ðhaving€their€fishing€industry€destroyed.€€So€while€laws€and€general€customs€certainly€try€toÐ ”'0!$ Ðinstitutionalize€what€would€be€our€empathic€concern€for€others€(were€we€able€to€meet€them),€theyÐ l)#& Ðare€inevitably€clumsy€tools€and€cannot€create€the€actual€detailed€knowledge€necessary€for€realÐ D+à$( Ðempathy.Ð -¸&* ÐÝ‚$HêÿÝÌÔ  ÔÝ  ÝÝ‚$Hê,¥Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àà  àò òÔ  ÔÚƒ.ÚCÚ  Ú.Û€.ÛÝ  ÝDecisions€made€willy„nilly݃$Hê,¥S¥ÝÔ à0•¥ÔŒÐ<Ø` (#` (# ÐŒó óÝ  ÝEven€if€none€of€the€previous€difficulties€were€present,€finding€agreement€still€takes€time:€€time€toÐ  ° Ðdevelop€or€clarify€our€empathy€for€each€other,€time€to€work€out€the€details€of€what€seems€right€inÐ ì ˆ Ðconsequence.€€Unfortunately,€decisions€often€have€to€be€reached€willy„nilly:׃F×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Failure€to€decideÐ Ä ` Ðwill€be€a€decision€in€itself,€one€that€may€be€worse€for€both€of€us€than€the€adoption€of€either€oneððsÐ œ8  Ðpreference.€€Thus€the€story€of€Buridanððs€ass,€referred€to€in€Chapter1.€€The€ass€must€decide€whichÐ t  Ðbale€to€eat€from;€€failing€to€decide€means€starvation.€€If€weððre€coming€to€a€T€intersection,€and€IÐ Lè  Ðsay€to€go€left€and€you€say€to€go€right,€failure€to€decide€means€running€right€off€the€road.€€IfÐ $À ÐRepublicans€and€Democrats€fail€to€agree€on€a€budget€bill,€as€happened€in€the€ClintonÐ ü˜ Ðadministration,€the€government€simply€stops€functioning,€an€outcome€worse€than€eitherÐ Ôp Ðproposal.׃GT×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Endless€such€situations,€both€real€and€imagined,€could€be€listed€here.Ð ¬H ÐÝ‚$HêÿÝÌÔ  ÔÝ  ÝÝ‚$Hê~«Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àà  àò òÔ  ÔÚƒ.ÚDÚ  Ú.Û€.ÛÝ  ÝDistress€patterns€and€painful€emotion݃$Hê~«¥«ÝÔ à0ç«ÔŒÐ\ø` (#` (# ÐŒó óÝ  ÝFinally,€there€are€simply€situations€in€which€people€are€emotionally€unable€to€agree€to€anyÐ 4 Ð Ðresolution€other€than€their€own,€no€matter€how€unreasonable€their€preferred€outcome€might€be.€Ð  "¨ ÐFor€example,€I€have€known€several€people,€both€men€and€women,€who€fought€off€any€kind€ofÐ ä#€  Ðphysical€contactð!ð€a€hug,€a€pat€on€the€back,€even€shaking€handsð!ð€because€they€had€been€abused€asÐ ¼%X" Ðchildren,€physically€and/or€sexually.€€Any€physical€contact€immediately€brought€up€old,€painfulÐ d Ðmemories,€so€much€so€that€they€were€unable€to€see€the€gesture€in€its€present„time€context.€Ð <Ø ÐDetermined,€intentional€therapeutic€discourse€over€months€or€years€changed€this,€but€when€aÐ  ° Ðdecision€needs€to€be€made€more€quickly€than€that,€their€position€is€unalterable.׃H×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ì ˆ ÐÝ‚#¿ÿÝÌÔ  Ôò òÔ  ÔòòÝ  ÝÝ‚#¿‹°ÝÚƒ.ÚIVÚ  ÚÛ€.Û€Ý  ÝSummary݃#¿‹°Å°ÝóóÔ ò ª°ÔŒÐ œ8  ÐŒó óÝ  ÝUniversal,€uncoerced€agreement€is€rare€even€under€the€best€of€circumstances.€€This€means€thatÐ t  Ðwhile€we€can€aspire€to€agreement,€we€rarely€realize€that€happy€state.€€Lacking€moralityððs€goldÐ Lè  Ðstandard€of€agreement,€we€find€ourselves€in€a€moral€never„never€land,€where€we€are€guided€onlyÐ $À Ðby€the€rather€uncertain€compass€of€our€intuitions.€€However,€intuition€lacks€the€discipline€thatÐ ü˜ Ðactual€discourse€provides,€allowing€all€sorts€of€extra„moral€forces€to€push€our€intuitions€this€wayÐ Ôp Ðand€that.€€We€cannot€be€certainð!ð€indeed,€we€have€good€reason€to€doubtð!ð€that€a€groupððsÐ ¬H Ðcollection€of€intuitions€will€even€approximate€acceptable€moral€norms.Ð „  Ðà  àIf€intuition€were€all€that€was€left€us,€we€could€reconcile€ourselves€to€this€uncertainty;€€weÐ \ø Ðmight€even€console€ourselves€that€intuition€can€still€produce€good€judgments,€even€if€we€canððtÐ 4 Ð Ðdefend€them.€€I€believe,€however,€that€we€have€not€yet€reached€the€true€frontier€of€publiclyÐ  "¨ Ðjustifiable€moral€considerations.€€With€the€understanding€of€moralityððs€ground€presented€inÐ ä#€  ÐChapter2,€I€try€in€the€rest€of€this€chapter€to€describe€moral€considerations€that€lie€beyondÐ ¼%X" Ðagreement.