From: Owleye 




"Phil Roberts, Jr." wrote:

>
> I am supposing that you can replace the term 'love' with the term 'value',
> and therefore you end up with a maxim for valuative objectivity/impartiality
> in which you 'Value your neighbor as you value yourself'.  This is not
> quite the categorical imperative, which was more a matter of DOING something
> rather than of BEING something, but its pretty damn close, and certainly a
> long way from the sort of social contract theory often juxtaposed to
> Kant.  And its compatible with the assumption that 'being rational' is
> simply a matter of 'being able to "see" what is going on', in that I
> am supposing that a valuatively impartial person "sees" more than a
> partial one, which is why it is an attribute we try to find in potential
> jurors.  One's view of the situtation is not clouded with passion, etc.
> when one if valuatively objective/impartial.

1.  What is the "sort of social contract theory" that is "often juxtaposed to Kant?"

2.  What is your objection to it?

3.  How can we be valuatively impartial?  Is this akin to being a field
anthropologist who thinks that she must be value-neutral?

4.  How are values observed?

owleye