My puzzlement is prodding me to re-iterate, so here goes.
It seems to me that underlying this discussion is some kind of belief
in the importance of being able to do "moral reasoning". Now it could be
that what is being asked in this thread is simply how to write philosophy
articles that use poststructuralist ideas and methods, while at the
same time fulfilling the profession's standards for academic philosophic
discourse. Otherwise, I want to ask: why this need to be able to _reason_
about ethics and morality? If someone asks me: "Why should you have a right
to freedom and dignity?", how can there be an answer to this? How would it
help to present this person with a "definition" of self, humanness,
dignity, or anything at all, from which the person would be supposedly
compelled by the laws of logic to arrive at my "right" to freedom and
dignity? Why would one want to be able to do this?
-malgosia
------------------
It seems to me that underlying this discussion is some kind of belief
in the importance of being able to do "moral reasoning". Now it could be
that what is being asked in this thread is simply how to write philosophy
articles that use poststructuralist ideas and methods, while at the
same time fulfilling the profession's standards for academic philosophic
discourse. Otherwise, I want to ask: why this need to be able to _reason_
about ethics and morality? If someone asks me: "Why should you have a right
to freedom and dignity?", how can there be an answer to this? How would it
help to present this person with a "definition" of self, humanness,
dignity, or anything at all, from which the person would be supposedly
compelled by the laws of logic to arrive at my "right" to freedom and
dignity? Why would one want to be able to do this?
-malgosia
------------------