Posted by special_k on March 19, 2006, at 17:38:24
In reply to Re: am i allowed to say... » agent858, posted by Dinah on March 19, 2006, at 11:34:09
> I think you're perfectly ok saying that you endorse laws prohibiting the torture of small children.
yup. but... legality is different from morality... (it is illegal to drive on the right side of the road - but not immoral; it is immoral to lie (mostly) - but it is not illegal unless it is done in a court of law).
> Or that you do not endorse torturing small children.
but my claim was stronger than that... besides which: FOR FUN. that bit is really very important.
> Or that it makes you very angry when small children are tortured.
no... i don't think thats quite it either...
> Or that you are sure that most people would not endorse torturing small children.
tag 'for fun' on the end of that and i think you will find... that that is pan-cultural. that is as close to universal as you are going to find (closer than incest would you believe). that is not to say it is universal in the sense that EVERYBODY explicitly believes it is morally wrong... but it is to say that the majority of individuals in every known culture believe it is wrong to torture an innocent child for fun. those who disagree... tend to be the individuals who we regard to be 'lacking' a moral sensibility...
> You're also allowed to present facts and allow others to draw conclusions (or to counter with facts they consider to have been missing from your post).torturing innocent children for fun is wrong is a moral fact.
see... i believe in moral facts. i am not alone. lots of people (philosophers) believe in moral facts. discovering those moral facts... is tricky... and candidates for moral facts are fairly debatable... but i think you will find that torturing an innocent child for fun is morally wrong is not something that is seriously debated...
> I can't find your post now, but didn't you say somewhere that if people looked at things without emotion, a consensus would be reached? Doesn't that imply a shared ranking of values? And a shared belief system about unprovables?
ah... interesting :-)
a 'shared ranking of values'... well... you would need to discuss values and the thought is that in discussing ranking of values... over time... rational people should converge. how do ya mean 'shared belief system about unprovables?'
there might be convergance in the belief that: 'there is .5 probability that phi is finite and a .5 probability that phi is infinite' (not that that is necessarily unprovable... but you get what i mean)
> I can't share your opinion about consensus being inevitable, because while I think the majority of people value the same things, I think they may rank their values differently.well... don't you think the ranking of values could be something that rational people could converge on?
> And I also think different people have different world views, beliefs about human nature, etc.
right. and that is where everybody has something to offer :-) because these rational people who converge... the thought is they get there by sharing their initial knowledge and so they have the same starting base and then they reason from there...
> I've often thought the major difference between conservatives and liberals isn't a difference in what they want. It's more a difference in belief systems about the strengths and weaknesses of man. I used to say that conservatives take a more pessimistic view of human nature, while liberals are optimists. But I think I was incorrect. I think they are optimistic and pessimistic about different aspects of human nature.hmm. but should be be optimistic and pessimistic about different aspects of human nature (or even the same ones)? that would be worth discussing... i guess there may be a difference between the ideal govt given real world constraints on the people who are currently in power (so someone might say taxes should be lowered because they believe current admin doesn't spend it widely) and the ideal govt (so there is no contradiction in that same person saying they believe taxes should be raised and spent on cleaning up the environment and health and welfare etc).
> If we put our minds together, perhaps we can come to a better system than the one we have now."yes.
> would be better designed to reach consensus than one that starts in the immortal words of Saturday Night Live "Jane, you ignorant slut ...".
?
i don't do this... do i?
poster:special_k
thread:621784
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20060304/msgs/622170.html