@enzoreds.bsky.social is rather critical of liberals (should be a fun in the hallway tomorrow); but in fine fashion castigates all the socialists who keep resurrecting Rawls. damagemag.com/2025/02/25/s... - ThreadSky

nescio13.bsky.social • 6 days ago

@enzoreds.bsky.social is rather critical of liberals (should be a fun in the hallway tomorrow); but in fine fashion castigates all the socialists who keep resurrecting Rawls.
https://damagemag.com/2025/02/25/socialism-is-not-liberal-moralism-on-steroids/

Comments

ingridrobeyns.bsky.social•6 days ago

"Liberals simply take desires, preferences, and moral intuitions as given" is not true of all liberals. There have been decades of discussions about "laundering preferences", "ideal preferences", as well as perfectionist liberals who endorse "paternalism" etc.

ingridrobeyns.bsky.social•6 days ago

And thanks Enzo for the reference to limitarianism but I haven't seen any critique on limitarianism starting from autonomy (the opposite is true); Those who *only* endorse *negative* freedom might object, but that's not liberalism but libertarianism. Happy to oppose that view!

ingridrobeyns.bsky.social•6 days ago

I also fail to see the problem with any possible clash of the institutional consequences of what moral values demand: don't you want to describe "life as it is?". Well, value-pluralism is "life as it is". Do you/socialists believe that under socialism we would avoid all value-conflict...?

ingridrobeyns.bsky.social•6 days ago

"Liberals produce moralistic theoretical abstractions that prop up the status quo, or are as radical as they are politically toothless."
You are entitled to your view, but I find this silly. And you may think I say this because I'm a liberal but I am not even sure I am (under your definition).

ingridrobeyns.bsky.social•6 days ago

Because - surprise, surprise - there is more to the world of political philosophy than only socialists and liberals! :)

ingridrobeyns.bsky.social•6 days ago

Yes, there is a clear dividing line between those who think values are indispensable to our political analyses (what you call "moralizing"), and those who *believe* they can do without. (And I'm happy to be your opponent there). That's a meta-theoretical position.

enzoreds.bsky.social•6 days ago

In fairness (no pun), resurrecting Rawls from the left is good academic politics: all those 3rd and 4th generation Rawlsians still control a lot of resources and prestige and are desperate for a lease of ideological life

ostrichstrauss.bsky.social•6 days ago

Ah well if qll we have to do is look at things without any ideology in order to reach the totally non-moral goal of authentic autonomy for all, then let me get right on that thing

lucastosborne.bsky.social•6 days ago

📌

gratefuljim.bsky.social•6 days ago

I’m not accepting any criticism of my beliefs and putting them in action (politics) from some dude that thinks that sentence is worth reading

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply