Log in

No account? Create an account
Philosophy on LiveJournal
.:.....::. .: ..::...:::.

February 2018
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28

Michael Zeleny [userpic]
no respect

Kwame Anthony Appiah derives his honor code from a universal right to respect wherein he presupposes all normal human beings to vest:

Some people think only hierarchical forms of the right to respect should be called “honor.” There’s a reason for this, beyond the insistence of a committed defender of social hierarchy like Edmund Burke: many of the most noticeable forms of honor from the Iliad to the Pashtunwali are, indeed, hierarchical. The issue here is not just a matter of a terminological stipulation, though: I think that much is to be gained by thinking about hierarchical and non-hierarchical codes that assign the right to respect together. The argument for that view is this book.
    What is democratic about our current culture, then, is that we now presuppose all normal human beings, not just those who are especially elevated, to be entitled to respect. But granting everyone recognition respect is perfectly consistent with granting greater appraisal respect to some than to others, because these are different forms of respect. From now, I’ll reserve the term dignity for one species of honor, namely, the right to recognition respect. So now we can say: Honoring some especially is consistent with recognizing the dignity of everyone else. Such dignity does not require the comparative forms of appraisal that go with more competitive forms of honor. It’s not something you earn, and the appropriate response to your dignity is not pride so much as self-respect; after all, if your humanity entitles you to respect, then it entitles you to respect even from yourself!
—Kwame Anthony Appiah, The Honor Code: How Moral Revolutions Happen, W.W. Norton & Company, 2010, p. 130
A fundamental problem with this approach to honor stems from the fact that honoring rational beings entails a recognition of their beliefs about God and life, right and wrong, good and bad. In our current democratic culture, this recognition involves an accommodation of what John Rawls calls the citizen’s comprehensive moral doctrine. One such doctrine subsumes the Christian articles of faith spelled out by Paul of Tarsus in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, which counts homosexuals amongst the unrighteous (adikoi), debarred from inheriting the Kingdom of God. Elsewhere Appiah boasts of having reconciled with his homosexuality as a Christian before he eventually stopped being a Christian. But a Pauline Christian needs must discount this reconciliation of an arsenokoites with the Christian doctrine, as proceeding pursuant to a honor code of a congenital contortionist. Notably, Appiah makes an effort to acknowledge some congenital attributes as “relevant bases for partiality”, while altogether disclaiming their suitability as grounds for moral and social superiority:
The struggle to break the tight connection between honor and birth is nearly as old as the connection itself. Recall Horace—son of a freed slave—addressing Maecenas, the richest and noblest of the private patrons of the arts in Augustan Rome, some two millennia ago. Maecenas “says it’s no matter who your parents are, so long as you’re worthy,” but Horace complains that most Romans take the opposite view.6[6. Horace, Sermones, I.6, II.7-8.] Anyone who offers himself for public office, the poet grumbles, gets asked “from what father he may be descended, whether he is dishonorable because of the obscurity of his mother.”7[7. Ibid., II.34-37.] This is the feature of the old system of honor that we have rejected, as we have grown suspicious of the idea that some people deserve better (or worse) treatment on account of identities they did not choose. Social status—class, if you like—should grant you no moral rights, people think; nor should your race or gender or sexual orientation.8[8. Ascriptive identities to which one is assigned by birth, such as family membership, can, I should insist, be relevant bases for partiality. You are entitled (indeed, sometimes required) to treat A better than B solely because A is your sister and B is unrelated to you. But recognizing something as a form of partiality is recognizing that there is nothing intrinsically superior about those to whom one is partial: if there were, one's reasons for favoring them could be impartial. See Appiah, The Ethics of Identity, Chapter 6.]
Op. cit., pp. 185, 245
For the purposes of Appiah’s argument, his moral gerrymandering is impotent in its extravagance. It is extravagant because rejecting the old system of honor based on the idea that some people deserve better (or worse) treatment on account of identities they did not choose, would leave our society with no means of legitimately honoring the fast runner or the brilliant mathematician. It is impotent in virtue of leaving room for the Christian pastoral policy of requiring that “homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society”, while asserting “the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of”. And notwithstanding Appiah’s insistence on “granting everyone recognition respect” irrespectively of their sexual orientation, no such granting can take place between himself and and his fellow citizens of the Pauline Christian persuasion. Within the liberal bounds of Rawlsian reasonable pluralism, these latter cannot advocate the use of coercive political power to impose conformity with their views upon non-believers. But they have every right, not only to withhold respect from their fellow citizens whom they find morally wanting, but also to subject them to public displays of contempt.
    To those who object to the incorporation of religion into the range of doctrines subject to recognition by a democratic culture, let it be pointed out that moral objections to homosexual behavior can be and have been made on rational secular grounds, from Plato and Aristotle, to Immanuel Kant and Jean-Paul Sartre. And to those who would carve out sexual orientation from the purview of moral discourse capable of grounding human entitlements to respect, let it be pointed out that secular objections of comparable gravity attach, within comprehensive moral doctrines recognized as legitimate by our democratic society, to a spectrum of divisive issues ranging from abortion to welfare. While a democratic society may warrant the security of abortionists and welfare recipients, it cannot ensure their freedom from disparagement by reasonable citizens whose moral views equate welfare with theft and abortion with murder. That is why any reasonable pluralistic society whose citizens uniformly presuppose all normal human beings to be entitled to respect, is bound to harbor no end of disagreement on the scope of this presupposition, depending on the disparate construals of normalcy within its citizens’ comprehensive moral doctrines. In short, no democratic entitlement to respect can emerge from the mere fact of humanity. Democracy is the right to shame and shun the unrighteous through faith and reason.

Crossposted to [info]larvatus and [info]philosophy.


Apparently, democracy is also the right to couch homophobia in millennia-old philosophical reasoning based upon the moral foundations (arguable in them selves) of an extinct society and a conveniently cherry-picked religion. Why not try looking at homosexuality from a modern, amoral standpoint and see it as it is: a matter of emotional import that has nothing to do with doctrinal superstitions from the Bronze Age.

Democracy is the right to couch your phobia in any garb whatsoever, including brown shirts and jackboots. We draw the line at speech likely to incite imminent violence. Otherwise, anything goes.

Wow, this is just unmitigated crap. I hoped that your reinstatement would do some good for the community, but I suppose that is not to be the case. Still, this post -- and any others you might make -- will stand until your inanity irritates me or one of the other mods to the point of no return. That point, for your reference, is nigh.

I thought you just wanted to be amused (though that post wasn't amusing)

Hiding hatred behind convoluted ambiguity is not honorable.

You misunderstand my position. Our current democratic culture needs must accommodate the comprehensive moral doctrines of radical queers on a par with those of fundamentalist Christians. Privileging ones over the others by postulating universal respect would subvert the Constitutional principles of our culture.

Why are you translating "arsenokoites" as homosexuals? There doesn't seem to be any good reason for this, and it does seem rather manifestly intolerant.

See the LSJ entries for ἄρσην and κοίτη. That said, the point is not that I am choosing to translate this term one way or another, but that its “rather intolerant” translation is deeply entrenched within the comprehensive moral doctrine of Pauline Christianity.

This may be new to you, but we do not aim for our society to be purely democratic. Pure democracy is impractical and is theorized to be highly unstable by many political philosophers (take Plato's Republic as the oldest example I can think of).

The aim of modern societies is, in the simplest of terms, to keep everyone alive, free, safe, and happy as much as it is practically possible, approximately in that order of priority.

I said nothing about pure democracy. It is well understood that our society has a mixed constitution, as advocated by Aristotle in Politics 1294a ff.

In that case you must see how your argument for respecting homophobia because that would be democratic is irrelevant to modern society.

Not very far into L’Être et le néant, Sartre applies his objection against any free being that that exists in itself (être-en-soi) identifying its nature with any factitious aspect of itself, to the notion of homosexuality as a “sexual orientation”.

Democracy != ...

Democracy is the right to shame and shun the unrighteous through faith and reason.

As a political scientist, I feel the need to object strongly to this. Democracy in itself entails no such thing as "right", let alone "right to X". At its base it entails nothing more than the empirical fact of a polity in which the majority exercise political power. I'm afraid that this is a gross misuse of a term which has been well established from antiquity.

Re: Democracy != ...

As a political scientist, you should be well versed in the art of the possible. One relevant possibility, as suggested above, is taking our Constitutional republic as the paragon of modern democracy. In fact, Appiah does just that in discussing “what is democratic about our current culture”.