 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
But you really don't. Even though you emphathize and think you are discounting your own perspective and interests, you really are not. They are always part of the background and are always influencing your views and outlooks. You cannot get rid of them, even when you believe you are. |
That is unproven.
It doesn't matter anyway. As long as we can empathize with people in the ordinary way we do, that is enough. I can certainly understand enough to oppose religious persecution even though I am not religious. That is sufficient.
quote:
Not at all. Seeing as most mental activity is in the unconscious, they are anything but irrelevent. Unconscious thought guides conscious thought and can never be discounted. |
Um... Freud was discredited a long time ago. Besides, even he would tell you that unconscious desires tend to be similar for everyone. So they don't really matter.
quote:
And the application is the problem! Or have you not been reading? |
Sure, hence my saying it. That is not what the original question was about. It doesn't matter anyway. If you want to argue for a general moral skepticism (which is pretty much required by such an extreme position), then fine. But that goes for all moral principles, so anything goes and force is the rule. That's avoiding the debate rather than contributing to it.
It so happens that ordinary people have absolutely no trouble putting themselves in others shoes. This is the basis of moral behaviour. You can quibble about the extent to which we are able to do this, but the evidence suggests that it is quite a lot. In any case it is obviously enough to solve the questions that Rawls wants to ask.
Example, my gay neighbour says, "Bush is going to outlaw homosexuality, that is unjust". I think about what it would be like if Bush outlawed my sexual preference (which also does not harm others) and I realize that Bush sucks. I don't even have to imagine I'm gay to realize this.
Similarly, I imagine what it would be like to be a persecuted religious minority. I simply imagine that atheists are the persecuted minority.
If a Nazi complains, then I imagine what it would be like to be persecuted as a Nazi. But wait, I must universalize this and imagine what it would be like for other people, like Jews, if Nazism was tolerated.
It's not hard. We think like this every day.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
As long as we can empathize with people in the ordinary way we do, that is enough. |
I don't think it is... not for Rawls' original position. We have to forget ourselves entirely. That is what the veil of ignorance is.
quote:
m... Freud was discredited a long time ago. Besides, even he would tell you that unconscious desires tend to be similar for everyone. So they don't really matter. |
A. Freud was not 'discredited'. He may have been incorrect on some things, but his views still form the foundation of psychological theory. It's like saying Newton was discredited by Einstein so his contributions to science are bunk.
B. We all have similar desires; however, the interplay of these desires put us in different places. We, certainly, all don't have a similar interplay. Some people have stronger Id's. Others have overdeveloped Superegos. So it doesn't end in the same place.
quote:
Example, my gay neighbour says, "Bush is going to outlaw homosexuality, that is unjust". I think about what it would be like if Bush outlawed my sexual preference (which also does not harm others) and I realize that Bush sucks. I don't even have to imagine I'm gay to realize this.
Similarly, I imagine what it would be like to be a persecuted religious minority. I simply imagine that atheists are the persecuted minority.
If a Nazi complains, then I imagine what it would be like to be persecuted as a Nazi. But wait, I must universalize this and imagine what it would be like for other people, like Jews, if Nazism was tolerated. |
I notice how your background influenced that  .
When you talked about Nazis, quickly you said you had to universalize and Jews would be impacted. Yet, in homosexuality, you didn't count the view of the Christian, who would not say homosexuality is a harmless thing and would claim that it harms the moral foundations of society. If you are universalizing, then being the Christian would lead you to a contrary result.
However, your background and views have told you that the view of the Christian is less important than the views of the gay person in this event.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:19
|
|
quote:
This is specious.
In the state of nature, only nature allows us to live. |
And nature will take many of us, so what? A natural right is not a right to exceed what nature allows, it is a moral claim against others who would kill us.
quote:
Our pseudo right to decide to live is actually the right not to kill ourselves yet, which is different. |
Define "right" because you sure aren't using the definition in the dictionary. The right to live is a moral claim against others murdering us, not a moral claim against nature killing us with old age. Oh, and calling a right to life a "pseudo right" while claiming suicide is a legitimate right is ridiculous. Both rights derive from the simple notion of ownership - you "own" yourself, that's why you have the right to live or die by your own hand.
quote:
In addition, the pseudo right to decide to live can be impeded at anytime by nature, which is not conform to the definition whereas our right to kill ourselves cannot be impeded by nature. |
Which is why a natural right to live is a moral claim against others who would kill us. Morality doesn't restrict nature's effects on us, it restricts us acting against each other.
quote:
Slavery and genocide are not included in the state of nature, and cannot preexist society. |
You said we have no right to live unless "society" says we have that right. Therefore a society that says genocide and slavery are okay aren't violating the rights of those enslaved or murdered.
quote:
But a society practising slavery would necessarily declare that the slaves have lost the natural right to kill themselves, aknowledging shamelesly the violation of the slaves natural right. |
A slave can kill themself whenever they want and many have, slavery is not about preventing a slave from committing suicide, it's about forcibly acquiring their labor. You say slaves have no right to be free from slavery, only a right to commit suicide. Why? Is not suicide an expression of self-determination - freedom? Slaves aren't free and you think that's fine if society says they aren't free, but then you claim slaves should be free to commit suicide because that is their right. We don't have a right to live, only a right to kill ourselves - why?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
No, they have not always supported civil rights. Once the Democrats began to support civil rights activists in the 1950s and 1960s, an increasing number of Republicans, such as Barry Goldwater during the 1968 campaign, opposed racial desegregation of public places.
And today, Republicans still do not favor civil rights or equality. They oppose subjecting gay and lesbian American citizens to the same laws as straight American citizens. We have one set of laws for gays and lesbians, and another set of laws for straights.
To me, that is second-class citizenship for gays and lesbians. |
Whatever you may believe, Mr.Fun, the truth lies in the fact that the Republican Party always supported civil rights. Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act because he said it was an unconstitutional infringement of States Rights. But he was among only a handful of Republicans to vote against. The bulk of the vote went with the Republican leadership who had been cooperating with Humphrey and Johnson.
Prior to 1964, Republicans had been in favor of civil rights legislation, but this had always been blocked by the Democrats. In 1960, Kennedy defeated Nixon in large measure because of the civil rights issue. He signalled the South that he would not introduce civil rights legislation during his administration.
When Nixon was elected, he began Affirmative action as we know it, with goals and timetables. This was a repeat of what he did during the Eisenhower administration. Partly because of this, the South backed Carter 100% in the 1976 election.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
I don't think it is... not for Rawls' original position. We have to forget ourselves entirely. That is what the veil of ignorance is. |
We don't. That is an heuristic device. We can get the same results as the veil for most situations by simply reversing what everyone else does, rather than discounting our own preferences. The veil of ignorance requires you to consider yourself as any person in the prospective society.
Let's say I can't imagine myself as gay. I can get the same result (tolerance is required) by imagining that almost everyone else is gay, and I am the persecuted minority.
quote:
A. Freud was not 'discredited'. He may have been incorrect on some things, but his views still form the foundation of psychological theory. It's like saying Newton was discredited by Einstein so his contributions to science are bunk. |
No. He's ****ed.
quote:
When you talked about Nazis, quickly you said you had to universalize and Jews would be impacted. Yet, in homosexuality, you didn't count the view of the Christian, who would not say homosexuality is a harmless thing and would claim that it harms the moral foundations of society. |
This is, of course, an empirical claim and so is irrelevant to the test. The Christian (or anyone else in the original position) would have to demonstrate that the bad consequences would happen before deeming it unworthy of protection. As it stands, there is no evidence that homosexuality is socially harmful to a degree that would outweigh the harm inflicted upon homosexuals by them.
quote:
If you are universalizing, then being the Christian would lead you to a contrary result. |
No. Because any sane person knows that it is worse to be persecuted for one's sexuality than it is to be prevented from persecuting others.
If they say different, then they aren't discounting their own beliefs (which they are perfectly capable of doing). Generally, when someone makes a claim like this, they are bullshitting.
quote:
However, your background and views have told you that the view of the Christian is less important than the views of the gay person in this event. |
Not really, if a Christian placed himself in the gay person's place, they could not help, things being what they are, that the rights of the persecuted trump the rights of those who wish to persecute. They have no reasons to complain, they just want to **** over gay people.
Of course, fundies aren't going to like this. But the same argument protects them from persecution.
Funny how we can generate such debates over the foundations of liberalism. The conservatives still have nothing but mere prejudice.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-11-2004 09:31
. We are in the Poly OT, so we may be on our 4th or 5th question 
|