<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: how not to think about cutting in line: a crash course in normative ethics</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thisfieldisrequired.com/2009/08/06/how-not-to-think-about-cutting-in-line/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thisfieldisrequired.com/2009/08/06/how-not-to-think-about-cutting-in-line/</link>
	<description>ethics is everywhere</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 03:09:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: kant on queueing, or why I am not a kantian &#171; this field is required</title>
		<link>http://thisfieldisrequired.com/2009/08/06/how-not-to-think-about-cutting-in-line/#comment-69</link>
		<dc:creator>kant on queueing, or why I am not a kantian &#171; this field is required</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 23:51:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thisfieldisrequired.com/?p=71#comment-69</guid>
		<description>[...] 18, 2009   In response to my post on how not to think about cutting in line, Jacob Levy makes these important points: I’m puzzled. This seems like the easiest of cases for a [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] 18, 2009   In response to my post on how not to think about cutting in line, Jacob Levy makes these important points: I’m puzzled. This seems like the easiest of cases for a [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: thisfieldisrequired</title>
		<link>http://thisfieldisrequired.com/2009/08/06/how-not-to-think-about-cutting-in-line/#comment-68</link>
		<dc:creator>thisfieldisrequired</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:37:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thisfieldisrequired.com/?p=71#comment-68</guid>
		<description>Thanks so much for the excellent comment, Jacob. I could have said alot more about Kantianism but it would have been too much for the original post. Since you&#039;re pressing, I have decided that this issue is new-post-worthy and will try to write on it tomorrow.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks so much for the excellent comment, Jacob. I could have said alot more about Kantianism but it would have been too much for the original post. Since you&#8217;re pressing, I have decided that this issue is new-post-worthy and will try to write on it tomorrow.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jacob T. Levy</title>
		<link>http://thisfieldisrequired.com/2009/08/06/how-not-to-think-about-cutting-in-line/#comment-67</link>
		<dc:creator>Jacob T. Levy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:22:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thisfieldisrequired.com/?p=71#comment-67</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m puzzled.  This seems like the easiest of cases for a Kantian.  I cannot will as a universal maxim that the cutter be allowed into line, because that would destroy the coherence of lining up.  It&#039;s almost as clean a case as lying: the wrongness lies in the self-contradictory character.  You cannot simultaneously will queues and cutting.  

Or, to put it differently: the cutter him or herself treats others as not-ends-in-themselves.  Their time is not as valuable or important as his/her time.  The one person who unilaterally, without the consent of every other person behind him or her, allows the cutter in thus *also* fails to treat those behind him/her as ends-in-themselves.  

The analysis you give under virtue ethics-- being generous with other people&#039;s time [and without their consent!] is directly relevant to any Kantian treatment, I would think.  When I allow the cutter in, to please my own vain sense of myself as generous, I&#039;m giving away two minutes of my life, *and 18 minutes of 9 other, unconsenting, persons&#039; lives*, to save this new person 20 minutes.  My act toward those 9 other persons is disrespectful and fails to treat them as full agents.  

No?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m puzzled.  This seems like the easiest of cases for a Kantian.  I cannot will as a universal maxim that the cutter be allowed into line, because that would destroy the coherence of lining up.  It&#8217;s almost as clean a case as lying: the wrongness lies in the self-contradictory character.  You cannot simultaneously will queues and cutting.  </p>
<p>Or, to put it differently: the cutter him or herself treats others as not-ends-in-themselves.  Their time is not as valuable or important as his/her time.  The one person who unilaterally, without the consent of every other person behind him or her, allows the cutter in thus *also* fails to treat those behind him/her as ends-in-themselves.  </p>
<p>The analysis you give under virtue ethics&#8211; being generous with other people&#8217;s time [and without their consent!] is directly relevant to any Kantian treatment, I would think.  When I allow the cutter in, to please my own vain sense of myself as generous, I&#8217;m giving away two minutes of my life, *and 18 minutes of 9 other, unconsenting, persons&#8217; lives*, to save this new person 20 minutes.  My act toward those 9 other persons is disrespectful and fails to treat them as full agents.  </p>
<p>No?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: how to think about cutting in line: a follow-up &#171; this field is required</title>
		<link>http://thisfieldisrequired.com/2009/08/06/how-not-to-think-about-cutting-in-line/#comment-60</link>
		<dc:creator>how to think about cutting in line: a follow-up &#171; this field is required</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 07:52:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thisfieldisrequired.com/?p=71#comment-60</guid>
		<description>[...] 12, 2009   Here is the second half to my previous post on this topic, as [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] 12, 2009   Here is the second half to my previous post on this topic, as [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
