* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Fetzer Makes Sure To Butcher/Under-Cut The Inquiry/Discussion, Just To Start
(Apollonian, 10 Oct 15)
(Apollonian, 10 Oct 15)
Fetzer, the academic hack, professional flack, once again shows the world his great ability to butcher, corrupt, and subvert the rational inquiry upon a given subject, and it always begins with his basic confusion regarding fundamentals, called, "metaphysics." Fetzer then supplements his subversion(s) w. ample doses of question-begging.
And after metaphysics, the basics, are confused, corrupted, and under-cut, the inquiry is destroyed, as in this case regarding (a) ethics, and then (b) more specifically, corporations.
Thus the basic metaphysical issue regards beginning premise on nature of reality: is it objective (Aristotle) or not? For no progress can be made upon any other, non-objective premise, ONLY objectivity providing for logic and reason, A is A, etc.
Ethics then, properly understood, answers or regards the issue of human action, humans being rational, creatures of will, having thus to CHOOSE among alternatives. Thus ethics is entirely within the objective nature (metaphysics).
And as ethics has to do w. logic btwn ends and means, following necessary metaphysical premises, we see means must serve ends, ultimate end being survival and thriving of the rational creature, all this consistent w. objectivity, fundamental metaphysics.
Observe then, above, Fetzer subverts and corrupts his analysis when he states,
"According to Ethical Egoism, for example, an action is right if it brings about as much happiness for you personally as any available alternative. Consequences for others simply don’t count."
For "EGOISM" is the metaphysical fact, in all objective reality, egoism being basic nature of the human being, creature of will. Thus human egoism (a redundancy) must merely be tempered w. reason, as taught by none other than Tom Hobbes and John Locke--rational egoism.
WHY and HOW would Fetzer work to subvert the discussion by means of the added sentence, "Consequences for others simply don’t count"? For indeed, Hobbes' entire discussion is demonstration of the very opposite thesis, consequences absolutely do count, and Hobbes' brilliantly demonstrates why and how, his discussion being prelude to his great "SOCIAL CONTRACT" theorization, taken-up again by Locke, which Fetzer TOTALLY IGNORES and overlooks.
So we see Fetzer so miserably undercuts and destroys the basic philosophic and ethical inquiry, and the further discussion about specific issue of corporations is actually irrelevant. For the only proper place of corporations then is consistent w. social contract, "right-reason," and rule-of-law, something which isn't difficult, for how can corporations properly be held above or aside fm the law as it regards humanity?--impossible in reason, BUT which is the case, presently, as we live in a dictatorship run by psychopaths and criminals ("central-bankers" at top) who push an irrational, subjectivistic view of reality--not un-like Fetzer's.