After more than a decade, I reread your 2016 Republican disaffiliation essay.
How prophetic you were!
None of us conservatives in 2016 could imagine how one man and his rump collection of supporters could destroy a Grand Old Party, and even more sadly our priceless institutions, alliances and public habits and mores.
Google AI’s answer to a question about a commenter’s criticism of Jay’s thinking “[we] have a right to know what our war aims are.”
GOOGLE AI:
The critique is philosophically legitimate because it raises a valid conceptual problem in the philosophy of law and ethics: whether a "right" can exist if its object is impossible, non-existent, or undefined. However, its conclusion relies on a questionable analogy.
In philosophy, rights are typically understood to correlate with duties. For a right to exist, it must be possible for someone to fulfill the corresponding obligation. The critic argues that "war aims" are often non-existent, shifting, or structurally impossible to define in real-time geopolitics. Therefore, asserting a right to know them is as empty as asserting a right to a biological impossibility like a 200-year lifespan—it is a "spherical ethical claim in a vacuum" because the object of the right does not exist in reality.
However, a defender of the original statement would argue the analogy is flawed:
• The nature of the object: A 200-year lifespan is a biological impossibility. War aims, by contrast, are a political choice. If they do not exist, it is because a government has failed to define them, not because they are inherently against the laws of nature.
• Rights as demands: In political philosophy (especially democratic theory), asserting a "right to know" is often a demand for accountability. It means the government has a moral duty to create and communicate those aims before sending citizens to war.
"I was thinking about the Iran war, and thinking: you and I have a right to know what our war aims are."
Is it philosophically legitimate to assert a "right" to something that doesn't exist? I think the "right to know what our war aims are" is equivalent to a "right to a 200-year lifespan." The spherical ethical claim in a vacuum may be asserted, but there's neither this nor there to the object.
Good stuff as usual! Appreciate the reference to put out more flags, absolutely fantastic. Like you say, not to diminish the rest of Waugh‘s works.
Jay:
After more than a decade, I reread your 2016 Republican disaffiliation essay.
How prophetic you were!
None of us conservatives in 2016 could imagine how one man and his rump collection of supporters could destroy a Grand Old Party, and even more sadly our priceless institutions, alliances and public habits and mores.
Character is truly destiny!
Google AI’s answer to a question about a commenter’s criticism of Jay’s thinking “[we] have a right to know what our war aims are.”
GOOGLE AI:
The critique is philosophically legitimate because it raises a valid conceptual problem in the philosophy of law and ethics: whether a "right" can exist if its object is impossible, non-existent, or undefined. However, its conclusion relies on a questionable analogy.
In philosophy, rights are typically understood to correlate with duties. For a right to exist, it must be possible for someone to fulfill the corresponding obligation. The critic argues that "war aims" are often non-existent, shifting, or structurally impossible to define in real-time geopolitics. Therefore, asserting a right to know them is as empty as asserting a right to a biological impossibility like a 200-year lifespan—it is a "spherical ethical claim in a vacuum" because the object of the right does not exist in reality.
However, a defender of the original statement would argue the analogy is flawed:
• The nature of the object: A 200-year lifespan is a biological impossibility. War aims, by contrast, are a political choice. If they do not exist, it is because a government has failed to define them, not because they are inherently against the laws of nature.
• Rights as demands: In political philosophy (especially democratic theory), asserting a "right to know" is often a demand for accountability. It means the government has a moral duty to create and communicate those aims before sending citizens to war.
"I was thinking about the Iran war, and thinking: you and I have a right to know what our war aims are."
Is it philosophically legitimate to assert a "right" to something that doesn't exist? I think the "right to know what our war aims are" is equivalent to a "right to a 200-year lifespan." The spherical ethical claim in a vacuum may be asserted, but there's neither this nor there to the object.