by J. L. Speranza
-- for the Grice Club.
KRAMER, comment in 'ex ante, ex post', refers to 'arms' length' and 'good faith' and I agree. He notes:
"So that the parties will not later
disagree on the meaning of what they have said to each other, they say it explicitly. The distinguishing feature, I think,
is the need for detailed precision, not anything to do with helpfulness."
Oddly, my American friend (I have more than one, but you get my draft), thinks it's all about LIABILITY!
---
Oddly, Hohfeld uses 'liability', but his system is so complex than the much less elaborate Hartian in me gets scared!
When H. L. A. Hart succeeded Goodhart as Professor of Jurisprudence at Oxford, they said, "Goodhart without the good".
--- Oddly, Grice LIKED Hart! -- Personally, I always was SCARED of Hart. My tutor would quote him, and everybody would quote him, authoritatively. It seemed that all Hart said was 'sacred word'. But then one reads N. Lacey's bio of the man, and sees that he was so full of doubts!
--- Hart was from a higher class than Grice. They never met before the war, since Grice was stuck in Corpus Christi, while Hart was flirting with Ayer and Berlin at the creme de la creme. Ah well.
What has 'liable' to do with this?
It seems that the expectations are there, and the need of precision is instrumental to this protection from liability. Hohfeld uses 'liability' differently, though. Perhaps. From the wiki under 'correlative':
"Hohfeld linked each entitlement to a corelative and its opposite."
Elements ----- Correlatives ------ Opposites
Right --- Duty ------ No Right
Privilege or Liberty -- No Right ---- Duty
Power -- Liability --- Disability
Immunity ----- Disability ------ Liability
-- How this translates into something like the utilitarian ethics on which Grice's cooperative (he want it or not) depends may require some thought, or not!
[edit] References
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Oddly, my American friend (I have more than one, but you get my draft), thinks it's all about LIABILITY!
ReplyDeleteI don't understand why you say this.
What HE says is that in the USA, but I think the means ANYwhere, what you do is influenced by the liability (of it all). Consider political correctness, or discrimination, or whatever.
ReplyDeletePeople won't use political incorrect language, or won't discriminate, not necessarily, my friend's cynic view goes, not because people don't feel they should NOT, but because people are scared or fear that they will held liable, if that's the word.
People, too, become 'liabilities', in his view. When someone becomes a liability -- which is almost like becoming a redundancy --, the whole system operates on the basis of the system's own protection. I should see if I can find other contexts for this, or how the phrase should translate in terms other than itself.
But in any case, the point is that when agent, in a system of co-agency, A and B, acts, what we have is A's willingness not to be liable to any action on the part of B such that will impose a restriction on the freedom of A, and vice versa.
The concept of liability, in any case, especially as used by Hohfeld, would need some application. It seems like a very useful one. Etc.