Thanks Nathan this helps a lot. I had never come across this phrase and
thought it might be some kind of deconstructionist formulation. Perhaps it
does in an indirect way have something to do with what Derrida talks about
in Specters of Marx. A framework or frame is necessary and this I think
does take into consideration Kant's concern for right taking precedence over
the good. I think Derrida is also responding to Heidegger's notion of
enframing which H demonizes. Isn't Derrida trying to make the point that
inistitutional frames are the only way to ensure that right does precede the
necessarily biased pursuit of goods and partisan interests? What I was
reacting to initially is the possible doublespeak in the phrase which seemed
to suggest that one should take apart ontology in a systematic way. Such a
project would make no sense.
>
> > And I write: What does "deontological framework" mean? Is this an
> > oxymoron? (Possibly the oxymoron to end all oxymorons?) But seriously,
>I
> >
> > don't mean to be glib but the referent of this phrase is not at all
>clear
> > but perhaps you are referring to texts I am not familiar with.
> >
> I think it is a reference that you are not familiar with. To put it
>simply, deontological morality refers to a Kantian and post-Kantian (i.e.,
>early Rawls) insistence that the right is prior to the good. In other
>words, that an action or arrangement should be judged as moral insofar as
>it
>is right, insofar as it accords with a set of rational rules or imperatives
>which are derived independently of any conception of the good. Thus, for
>Kant, morality had to follow from a categorical imperative whereby duty is
>willed, so that mere compliance with the rules is not sufficient. Or for
>Rawls, the basic structure of society should rest upon rules which do not
>presuppose some prior conception of the good life but rather maximize
>freedom (understood in terms of individual rights) for everyone to live
>his/her own conception of the good. The standard line made by
>deontologists
>against utilitarians is precisely that the latter presuppose a conception
>of
>the good, that they make this good prior to the right (the rules, in short,
>are to be judged on whether they maximize the good of general happiness,
>conceived in various ways by Bentham, Mill and others), and that this
>position could justify the removal of rights from some individuals to
>satisfy the good of others.
>
> Anyway, deontology has very little to do with being non-ontological
>in the way you are thinking above. It doesn't mean simply 'ontic' -- since
>the ontic realm is one that Kant, for example, would find insufficient to
>ground morality.
>
> Hope the above also does something to answer Greg's initial
>question.
>
> Later,
>
> Nathan
> n.e.widder@xxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [The sport of understanding is a game without rules, forever demanding
> > that
> > we make them up as we go...
> > Chris Daly]
> >
> > ______________________________________________________
> > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
thought it might be some kind of deconstructionist formulation. Perhaps it
does in an indirect way have something to do with what Derrida talks about
in Specters of Marx. A framework or frame is necessary and this I think
does take into consideration Kant's concern for right taking precedence over
the good. I think Derrida is also responding to Heidegger's notion of
enframing which H demonizes. Isn't Derrida trying to make the point that
inistitutional frames are the only way to ensure that right does precede the
necessarily biased pursuit of goods and partisan interests? What I was
reacting to initially is the possible doublespeak in the phrase which seemed
to suggest that one should take apart ontology in a systematic way. Such a
project would make no sense.
>
> > And I write: What does "deontological framework" mean? Is this an
> > oxymoron? (Possibly the oxymoron to end all oxymorons?) But seriously,
>I
> >
> > don't mean to be glib but the referent of this phrase is not at all
>clear
> > but perhaps you are referring to texts I am not familiar with.
> >
> I think it is a reference that you are not familiar with. To put it
>simply, deontological morality refers to a Kantian and post-Kantian (i.e.,
>early Rawls) insistence that the right is prior to the good. In other
>words, that an action or arrangement should be judged as moral insofar as
>it
>is right, insofar as it accords with a set of rational rules or imperatives
>which are derived independently of any conception of the good. Thus, for
>Kant, morality had to follow from a categorical imperative whereby duty is
>willed, so that mere compliance with the rules is not sufficient. Or for
>Rawls, the basic structure of society should rest upon rules which do not
>presuppose some prior conception of the good life but rather maximize
>freedom (understood in terms of individual rights) for everyone to live
>his/her own conception of the good. The standard line made by
>deontologists
>against utilitarians is precisely that the latter presuppose a conception
>of
>the good, that they make this good prior to the right (the rules, in short,
>are to be judged on whether they maximize the good of general happiness,
>conceived in various ways by Bentham, Mill and others), and that this
>position could justify the removal of rights from some individuals to
>satisfy the good of others.
>
> Anyway, deontology has very little to do with being non-ontological
>in the way you are thinking above. It doesn't mean simply 'ontic' -- since
>the ontic realm is one that Kant, for example, would find insufficient to
>ground morality.
>
> Hope the above also does something to answer Greg's initial
>question.
>
> Later,
>
> Nathan
> n.e.widder@xxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [The sport of understanding is a game without rules, forever demanding
> > that
> > we make them up as we go...
> > Chris Daly]
> >
> > ______________________________________________________
> > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com