Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site ubvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!timeinc!phri!pesnta!amd!amdcad!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
From: tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Is self-consistency just another dogma?
Message-ID: <229@ubvax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 24-Jun-85 14:27:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: ubvax.229
Posted: Mon Jun 24 14:27:54 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 29-Jun-85 04:10:09 EDT
References: <301@ihlpm.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Ungermann-Bass, Inc., Santa Clara, CA
Lines: 29

In article <301@ihlpm.UUCP>, cher@ihlpm.UUCP (cherepov) writes:
> --
> The main problem is that all views of morals that I am aware of
> treat self-contradictions as undesirable pests and try to
> resolve and rationalize them out.
> They don't have to. Self-contradiction can be declared a virtue.
> Of course, that would invite some problems.
> 
> I guess, I would be interested to hear what others think about it:
> was that possibility explored by any big-name people,
> did such philosophy ever exist, comments, etc.

Moral philosophy is in a time of big changes, where a lot of old
Kantian rational dogma is getting thrown out and being replaced
by Aristotle brought up-to-date.

Most Kantian-type philosophers don't even think self-contradiction
is possible.  But Aristotle and modern writers in moral philosophy
and rational choice theory discuss the problem of *akrasia*, or
weakness of will, a lot.  Jon Elster's *Ulysses and the Sirens*
comes up with lots of times when one's own self-contradictoryness
should be taken-into-account in decisions.  There's also some
discussion of the lack of a problem in self-contradiction in
Bernard Williams' book, *Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy*.

Many people who contradict themselves are more adaptable, too.

Tony Wuersch
{amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw