I do have quite a few questions and obvious flaws that I see in our previous philosophers that we studied, but Kelsen brings his critiques of other teachings to the forefront of his philosophy. I think it is odd that such a large portion of the reading we had was talking about how other philosophers are wrong. Especially when there are several blatant flaws with Kelsen's philosophy. For example, the idea of justice being social happiness can't always work because there will be conflicting wants and needs and what makes people happy might not be what is right. I think that it is wrong for Kelsen to critique these great philosophers so openly because they can't defend themselves, and also they laid the foundation for what he is trying to do. Do you agree or disagree?
I think that there is some real substance in his arguments and they are very intriguing but it is just odd to me that a philosopher would spend more ink on critiquing others rather then coming up with a definite set of rules for himself. Now this could just be the article that we read, but it seemed like he was lacking a real set of defining rules explaining his stand point on justice.
In what aspects do you think Kelsen's writings are different then the ones that we have recently talked about? Do you like this style more then the others? If yes why? If no what don't you like?
I think it's easy to dislike Kelsen, simply because our class is seeking a clear definition of justice, and so many philosophers have complied, but Kelsen says, "Surprise! There isn't one!" I think when he spoke about social happiness, he was discounting the tempting assertion that social happiness could be an absolute definition. It's a tool he uses to prove that absolute justice cannot exist.
ReplyDeleteIt troubles me, too, that he spends a great deal of time proving others wrong but does not give us a definite method of finding justice, but I'm not sure if that's a fair criticism, considering what he's arguing. I think Kelsen values tolerance, deliberation, and democracy as tools for determining what will be best for a group of people at any given time. Do you agree? Or do you think there are moral opinions on which we can all agree?
I do agree with you that Kelsen's criticisms seem to down play the importance that all philosophies play in society as we know it. However, just like any great piece of literature, the recorded ideas of these philosophers need to be critically viewed from many dimensions. One of Kelsen's arguments is that we should approach the position on subjective topics with an open and questioning mind and I think this is precisely what he is doing although there is no way for the philosophers who have died to rebuttal.
ReplyDeleteIn answering Katie's questions, I do believe that a majority of people could come to an agreement on moral values but the opinions of these people on any given moral topic are subject to change at any point. Look at the U.S. in the past century. In the 1900s, the majority of Americans would deny homosexuals any type of social rights what so ever. Clearly denial of civil liberties today would be considered an injustice but 100 years ago this injustice would have been justifiable to many.