Comments on: More on Matt Cavanagh

By: Scott Burgess

Scott Burgess — Mon, 22 Mar 2004 17:45:51 +0000

“How deplorable it is then, when one of your correspondents …” Well, it’s your letter, and if you think that “they’ve not done a bad job,” that obviously carries a lot of weight. But my personal opinion is that the sentence deleted by the Grauniad is really the crux of your letter, and for them to remove it is … well … deplorable. I’m glad that you have this means of clarifying your point.

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Mon, 22 Mar 2004 15:17:15 +0000

I don’t think it means anything special to political philosophers. What I meant to convey is that among the many diffent activities that ought to go on in a healthy political system is fundamental inquiry into principles of justice. Other activities being investigative journalism, advocacy, and son on….

By: Stentor

Stentor — Mon, 22 Mar 2004 15:09:37 +0000

A bit OT, but I’m wondering what “political ecology” means to political philosophers. From the context it doesn’t look like you’re talking about “the political economy of human-environment relations,” which is how we geographers and anthropologists use the term.

By: Ian

Ian — Mon, 22 Mar 2004 14:41:12 +0000

I thought letters were edited for reasons of space – this goes way beyond that.

By: push

push — Mon, 22 Mar 2004 10:49:55 +0000

I quite agree with Chris’ deploring of sensationalism seeking. However I find myself sympathetic to Sophie Allen’s views as well. The lack of practical fit between much academic political philosophy and real issues of moral and social significance has troubled me for some time since I made a similar move away from academic political philosophy into more real world settings.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Mon, 22 Mar 2004 10:34:47 +0000

I agree with you in deploring the Guardian's behavior and with Cavanagh in thinking that the concept of equality of opportunity is problematic (though probably not for the same reasons). And of course you're right to say that political philosophers need to entertain hypothesis that ordinary people find outlandish, rather than rejecting them because they are inconsistent with common sense or seem to yield unpalatable conclusions. But I think academics, notably including philosophers and economists, too often err in the direction of being deliberately shocking, either to epater le bourgeois or to demonstrate toughmindedness. As a minor example, I've noted here and here that philosophical examples seem to display gratuitous violence. I haven't read Cavanagh's book yet, but even the favorable reviews, and Crick's supportive letter, suggest that a more accurate title would be Against Some Bad Arguments for Equality of Opportunity. That wouldn't have made such a splash at the time it came out, but it would have been clearer today that the Guardian was quoting him out of context.

By: Dave F

Dave F — Mon, 22 Mar 2004 10:33:01 +0000

Thanks. That’s a despicable edit – the one deploring the distortion in particular – that it would be hard to argue was based on space considerations. This is indeed the value of the blog writ large.