Dear Malcolm,
You write:
>actually quite happy with exclusion as a political tactic. But again: who
>is being excluded, and in whose interests? Are these my interests? If
>not, then the instance of power that secures the exclusion is *bad*. If
>so, then the same instance is *good*. My point is that ethical criteria
>come after the fact of political identification. The central question is
>not "Am I right or wrong about this or that question?" - it is "Which
>side am I on?" Only once you've decided that can one begin answering
>empirical or ethical questions.
This poses a couple of questions you might have thought about:
1) How do you distinguish questions of political identification from
ethical questions
2) If politics comes before ethics, why do ethics at all
Yours, Kjetil
You write:
>actually quite happy with exclusion as a political tactic. But again: who
>is being excluded, and in whose interests? Are these my interests? If
>not, then the instance of power that secures the exclusion is *bad*. If
>so, then the same instance is *good*. My point is that ethical criteria
>come after the fact of political identification. The central question is
>not "Am I right or wrong about this or that question?" - it is "Which
>side am I on?" Only once you've decided that can one begin answering
>empirical or ethical questions.
This poses a couple of questions you might have thought about:
1) How do you distinguish questions of political identification from
ethical questions
2) If politics comes before ethics, why do ethics at all
Yours, Kjetil