[quote]nephorm wrote:
I have to disagree here… by that measure, it would seem that a democratic vote would legitimize the Holocaust, for example.[/quote]
I’m sorry if I wasn’t being clear, but that was not at all what I was saying.
By “more intrinsically human” I did NOT mean “right” or humanE or even legitimate. It’s HH that is making that association (human = right), not me. By “more intrinsically human” I meant… human. Not right. Not humane. Humans are imperfect, and hence often wrong. Doing incredibly evil things is unfortunately very human – even though not humanE at all.
Human != HumanE != Legitimate != Right
I could give a much greyer example that will make the distinction even more obvious: the death penalty.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Hmmm. Odd. Hspder has given us two looks:
[…]
Anyone else confused?[/quote]
It’s called Social Democracy. No contradiction there if you actually understand it. Unfortunately, you really don’t want to understand it, or you might find yourself liking it… Oh, the horror…
[quote]hspder wrote:
I’m sorry if I wasn’t being clear, but that was not at all what I was saying.
By “more intrinsically human” I did NOT mean “right” or humanE or even legitimate. It’s HH that is making that association (human = right), not me. By “more intrinsically human” I meant… human. Not right. Not humane. Humans are imperfect, and hence often wrong. Doing incredibly evil things is unfortunately very human – even though not humanE at all.
Human != HumanE != Legitimate != Right
I could give a much greyer example that will make the distinction even more obvious: the death penalty.
[/quote]
Fair enough, but Headhunter’s point was that objective right and wrong don’t follow from our preferences, but rather from the nature (he said ‘definition’) of man. I disagree with what I think he means when he says that the definition of man is as a rational creature, but that’s a tangent.
So I took your response to be in the spirit of HH’s dispute: that there is something about the nature of man that entails that he has an ethics suited to him. In that context, I thought that “the most human” was referring to this quality. Also, you earlier stated that “the mob defines the objective standards of justice.” As such, I thought you might be intending a quasi-Rousseauean “general will” argument, insofar as the general will never errs.
But taking into account the difference in meaning, we’re still left with the problem that simple democracy does not adequately address the issues of a standard that transcends preferences or human will… objective good. And if we wish to dispense with troublesome notions of transcendant values, hierarchies, or justice, we’re left in a relativist quagmire.
You really think Tom hasn’t read and heard this particular philosophy hundreds of times? He’s 76 years old. I mean, do you also think he’s the janitor or something? How many janitors do you think Stanford needs?
Anyway, we have talked about this many times. We’re actually both moral absolutists, so we don’t disagree on the principle… the problem are the specifics.
Want an example? Most of the time, when arguing morals, we end up arguing about homosexuality – Sowell is one of the most homophobic people I know and he’s always clamoring about the “gay agenda” – and HE is the one saying “well, the MAJORITY OF AMERICANS have voted against gay marriage, so it MUST be wrong”.
[quote]hspder wrote:
It’s called Social Democracy. No contradiction there if you actually understand it. Unfortunately, you really don’t want to understand it, or you might find yourself liking it… Oh, the horror…[/quote]
Also, I’d like to quickly point out that as a Social Democrat, you are expressing a preference for a certain set of values, which I assume you believe to address both the shortcomings and strengths of human beings qua political and ethical actors.
As such, your stance is not value-free or value-neutral (unlike NominativeProspect’s). So perhaps we can agree, then, that there are objective goods for human beings, based on their natures, and simply disagree as to what those goods are.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
As such, I thought you might be intending a quasi-Rousseauean “general will” argument, insofar as the general will never errs.[/quote]
Not at all. The majority errs – a LOT.
Remember Rousseau’s comments following Lisbon’s Great Earthquake on November 1, 1755?
[quote]nephorm wrote:
But taking into account the difference in meaning, we’re still left with the problem that simple democracy does not adequately address the issues of a standard that transcends preferences or human will… objective good.[/quote]
Absolutely. Hence Social Democracy.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
And if we wish to dispense with troublesome notions of transcendant values, hierarchies, or justice, we’re left in a relativist quagmire.[/quote]
True. But the truth is, that quagmire is part of humanity. There’s very little anyone can do about it. As humans, we’re not built to intrinsically respect transcendent values, hierarchies or principles of justice. Laws are meant to be broken. Leaders are meant to be questioned and replaced. Morales change. Our Founding Founders did all three.
Personally, I am a moral absolutist, but humanity, in general, will never be able to adopt absolute moral values, because there’s so many of them to choose from…
[quote]hspder wrote:
nephorm wrote:
As such, I thought you might be intending a quasi-Rousseauean “general will” argument, insofar as the general will never errs.
Not at all. The majority errs – a LOT.
Remember Rousseau’s comments following Lisbon’s Great Earthquake on November 1, 1755?
[/quote]
Which is why, if that had been what you were intending to say, I would’ve had to disagree with you… we do not have a society wherein it is possible to establish the general will. The majority can easily err, according to Rousseau, but the the general will is invariably correct.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
So perhaps we can agree, then, that there are objective goods for human beings, based on their natures, and simply disagree as to what those goods are.[/quote]
Absolutely. I never said otherwise. My point is that in a Democracy, the majority decides on which of the “goods” end up being “canon”.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I even offered to never post in this Forum again if he posted a pic of that, which never happened. (He’s had time now to fake them, so no Hspder, you can’t do it now.) Man, Prof X, Vroom, and so forth would’ve loved it!
Your posts are slowly becoming more tolerable, however, I still think someone rammed blunt metal objects into your head as an infant or possibly tried strangling you with your own birthcord. I mean, I know that is what I personally would do with the spawn of Satan. Maybe I’m the minority on that one.[/quote]
Nah, my mom died when I was 4 (for real) so I attribute my psychosis to that. Hmmm…if you recognize that you’re crazy, are you still crazy? Because then, maybe your idea comes from being crazy, and ad infinitum…
He is a brilliant guy, no doubt of that. If he is a faculty member there, I congratulate him. I also pity the students.
Similar to how I pity yours?[/quote]
I pity 'em too! Right now, we’re just finishing the Laws of Human Thought (Modus Ponens, Tollens, Transitivity) and hardcore factoring, which I call Algebra on Viagra (they found that name hilarious, btw). I don’t teach Physics any longer, as math is really my thing.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
hspder wrote:
nephorm wrote:
As such, I thought you might be intending a quasi-Rousseauean “general will” argument, insofar as the general will never errs.
Not at all. The majority errs – a LOT.
Remember Rousseau’s comments following Lisbon’s Great Earthquake on November 1, 1755?
Which is why, if that had been what you were intending to say, I would’ve had to disagree with you… we do not have a society wherein it is possible to establish the general will. The majority can easily err, according to Rousseau, but the the general will is invariably correct.[/quote]
“The world is my idea.”
— first line in Schopenhauer’s masterpiece.
I propose that making moral standards relative is a trick. Since the majority can use (abuse) its collective power to rob from their more productive citizenry, they therefore embrace and endorse relativistic morals. This leaves morality open to a vote (as Hspder proposes), which must lead to chaos. The world is a reflection of these ideas.
The main difficulty with their scheme is the non-cooperation of the victims. What if I don’t want to help others? Should I be forced? Libs say yes, because of relativistic moralism. If I haven’t produced enough, will I be punished then too? Yes, according to the Libs. Moral relativism thus allows a gradually more violent society, where gangs try to take possession of the government, so they can club all the other gangs. Hence the world of today…
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I propose that making moral standards relative is a trick. Since the majority can use (abuse) its collective power to rob from their more productive citizenry, they therefore embrace and endorse relativistic morals.[/quote]
I would suggest that a claim of objective standards is sufficient for the kind of violence you are talking about. Relativism has its own set of problems.
[quote]hspder wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I don’t teach Physics any longer
My prayers have been answered! There is a God! Hallelujah![/quote]
Mine too! My true academic love is mathematics. I was merely helping out while we searched for the right person.
By the way, Doc, you never answered my question about Hillary: if she came to speak at Stanford and a MINORITY of students objected to her gracing the grounds of Stanford, do they have the same right to have her barred that the little lib-fascists have, to bar GWB?
But taking into account the difference in meaning, we’re still left with the problem that simple democracy does not adequately address the issues of a standard that transcends preferences or human will… objective good. And if we wish to dispense with troublesome notions of transcendant values, hierarchies, or justice, we’re left in a relativist quagmire.[/quote]
I re-read this and am in awe! This is a truly brilliant paragraph! We either have to establish an independent, objective standard of ethics, or we’re doomed to ethics at the mercy of public opinion polls.
Can we use the defining characteristic of MAN, whatever that may be (rational being, IMO and from Rand) as that standard?
My head nearly fell off when I read the sentence about laws are supposed to be broken. Laws are not supposed to be broken as their purpose is to protect the citizens from government and one another. Laws were never made to be broken. Laws were made to enforce a better quality of life for everyone. You sound like a criminal.
It’s called Social Democracy. No contradiction there if you actually understand it. Unfortunately, you really don’t want to understand it, or you might find yourself liking it… Oh, the horror…[/quote]
I should have suspected you would tuck and run. My point was that the two extremes that you have posited really aren’t reconcilable. You can’t both trust the powers of democracy and hold to a personal position that people are really just too stupid to govern themselves.
There is plenty of wiggle room in between under normal circumstances - i.e., not going as far as thinking that people are irredeemably stupid, but that they need governance - but you haven’t established any for yourself by committing to such extreme positions.
And please, I beg you - try something other than the “you just don’t get it” routine regarding political theory. I know about Social Democracy just fine. Do you have anything in your playbook other than to act like a condescending know-it-all? I thought it was a fair question - looks as though you haven’t the stuff to answer it.
I suspect the response would have some of the usual, desperate attempts at personal validation on these threads. That would include any and all of your usual self-aggrandizing statements that contain “Stanford is the greatest institution in the history of the world and I work there! I turned down Harvard! I have three PhDs! I make half a million dollars!”, etc.
And it would be a waste of time. The Stuart Smalley approach doesn’t hold much currency anymore, Hspder. Just FYI.
[quote]blck1jack wrote:
Laws were made to enforce a better quality of life for everyone. You sound like a criminal.[/quote]
And you sound like you’re delusional…
Your statement that laws “enforce a better quality of life for everyone” is one of the most naive things I’ve ever read. Tell me, are you one of those guys that never drives over the speed limit?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I thought it was a fair question - looks as though you haven’t the stuff to answer it.[/quote]
I have answered it many times. It’s not about not “having the stuff” – it’s about not having the time or the inclination to repeat myself. Again. Especially because looking at the way you asked the question, you really wouldn’t get it anyway…
With regards to the condescending attitude – well, I’m definitely not alone.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
By the way, Doc, you never answered my question about Hillary: if she came to speak at Stanford and a MINORITY of students objected to her gracing the grounds of Stanford, do they have the same right to have her barred that the little lib-fascists have, to bar GWB?
No evasions, just answer. [/quote]
Why I need to explain Democracy over here is beyond me – but it’s a pleasure for me to do it, so I’m happy to.
That would depend on what the majority thought about the minority barring her – i.e., if the majority didn’t mind bowing to the objections of the minority, sure. They would just meet somewhere else, like Bush did. If the majority really-really wanted her there and refused to go somewhere else, they’d win, so the minority would have to be the one bowing.
