Perverse reasoning on behalf of the Rule Egoist Principle as attributed to Hobbes
In her well-crafted
and devastating critique of Gregory Kavka’s ascription of the “Rule Egoist
Principle” to Hobbes’s theory, S.A. Lloyd discusses what looks to be an “optative
justification” for this principle:
“[O]nly the
Rule Egoist Principle gives the Law of Nature the status it would need in order
to do what we want it to do; therefore the Rule Egoist principle is true. Here
the force of our desire to achieve peace is communicated backward into an
optative justification of the prerequisites for satisfying that desire, of the
sort ‘let the Rule Egoist Principle be so.’ We want the self-preservation that
comes from peace; the Laws of Nature could not secure peace unless they had the
status of binding moral principles; for them to have that status, the Rule
Egoist Principle would have to be true; therefore, the Rule Egoist
Principle[!]. The Rule Egoist Principle is justified as a necessary requirement
for our having the Laws of Nature do what we want them to do.”
As she
proceeds to explain, we generally do not find such optative justifications
acceptable. What I found especially intriguing in this discussion is the
example she uses to illustrate the sort of perverse logic—figuratively and
literally—at work in such reasoning:
“Optative
justification would justify, for instance, the stalker’s belief that the movie
star will love him when she meets him, because his actions in pursuit of her
couldn’t have their desired effect unless this were true. The form of optative
justification is: A because only if A may desired effect x be obtained. This
invites wishful thinking, an acknowledged species of cognitive defect. Thus,
the stalker reasons: because I desire that she love me, and to love me she must
meet me, and for her to meet me I must take certain instrumentally related
steps, but my taking those steps could not effect her loving me unless it were
true that she’ll love me when she meets me; therefore, she’ll love me when she
meets me. This stalker logic does not differ at all in form from that of
positing the Rule Egoist Principle as securing self-interest (this is the force
of Kavka’s ‘one ought’) because unless the Rule Egoist Principle were true,
following the Laws of Nature, which are needed for peace, which is needed for
securing self-interest, would not secure peace and thus self-interest.” From
S.A. Loyd’s Morality in the Philosophy of
Thomas Hobbes: Cases in the Law of
Nature (Cambridge University Press, 2009): 172-73.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home