Erratum: Moral Philosophy and Political ProblemsSource: Political Theory, Vol. 10, No. 2 (May, 1982), p. 266Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/190578 .

Accessed: 09/05/2014 00:16

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Political Theory.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Fri, 9 May 2014 00:16:53 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

266 POLITICAL THEORY / MAY 1982

state of nature not upon rational competition for ever scarcer goods but upon irrational pride, glory, and so on. I believe that my present claims are compatible with Hampton's insightful argument.

22. D. Lewis, Convention (Cambridge, MA, 1969). 23. Inexplicably, Hobbes makes no mention of the consent of bees and ants in the

parallel Leviathan discussion (chapter 17). 24. A physical analogy may illustrate the parallels in question. In Figure 2, A and B are

hypothetical, vectorial components of C; D and E are hypothetically postulated causal antecedents of C. The relationship between (A,B) and C is analogous to the "immanent rationality" that a Lewis-type approach would specify in order to explain what sustains the coordination required for language, and to the "immanent rationality" of any arrange- ment approved (in spirit) by the Everyman of the state of nature, according to nongenetic. Rawlsian hypothetical contract theory. The relationship betwecn (D,E) and C is analogous to the "transitive rationality" that brings about language according to the De Cive account, and that confers legitimacy on an arrangement, according to the genetic (HC,b) approach. An interesting question is whether this distinction between (A,B):C and (D,E):C is clearly made in the writings of Galileo, of which Hobbes was so enamoured.

A. Zaitchik is a senior lecturer in philosophy at Ben Gurion Universitv, Beersheva, Israel. He has published in the areas of political and mxoral philosophy and the philosophy of Jthe mind.

ERRATUM

Please note the following correction to "Moral Philosophy and Political Problems" by Amy Gutmann, which appeared on pages 33-49 of the February 1982 issue of POLITICAL THEORY:

Page 39, the sentence beginning on line 9 of Section III should read: "I shall now turn to "radical" criticisms of analytic philosophy that call into question the very moral intuitions upon which philosophers build their case."

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Fri, 9 May 2014 00:16:53 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions