Andrew (perspectivism) wrote,

hot slate action

Grandstanding ethicist attacks federal judge! The judge, who's penned several excellent law and economics texts, responds gracefully under fire.

This rough-and-ready written debate is my favorite such find in many months. It showcases an artful balance of direct replies and playing to the onlookers. (hot slate action)

Assessments from this perspectivist onlooker: I of course agree with the federal judge on most every conclusion they dispute. However, I think the ethicist won the debate on its own terms — both philosophically and popularly. The judge surely scored many points on related issues and evoked a lot of commonsensical sympathies, but he could have done better with what he had. The judge's replies felt a little rushed at the end. Oh, and I must agree with Singer that philosophical argument does matter for cultural change — even as I agree with Posner on other factors mattering more. Posner is too morally skeptical, and that's a big part of why he lost the debate.
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.