Laws are just only when government imposes morals residing within its legitimate domain; when it imposes merely values, they may be unjust.
Really, I must be a glutton for punishment. During the past couple of weeks, I wrote two articles on libertarianism and made the point that for a law to be just, it must have a basis in morality. These commentaries evoked quite a response, ranging from lauding me as brilliant to lambasting me for not having two brain cells to rub together. And the negative responses were most notable. For daring to mention morality and law in the same breath, some implied I was like the Taliban, one respondent called me a "neoconservative" and a blogger said I was a socialist (yes, really, yours truly!). Pretty funny that, when talking about a man who proposed the Defense against Tyranny Amendment.
Now, to review the morality/law nexus in brief, I previously wrote (I recommend reading the first two pieces, here and here, for background):
. . . a law states that there is something you must or must not do, ostensibly because the action is a moral imperative, is morally wrong, or is a corollary thereof. If this is not the case, with what credibility do you legislate in the given area? After all, why prohibit something if it doesn't prevent some wrong? Why force citizens to do something if it doesn't effect some good?
In response, libertarians emailed me and said that they didn't impose morality but rather prohibited "force," protected "property rights" or prevented "harm." But unless one objects to governmental use of force to apprehend a murderer or citizens' exercise of self-defense, moral distinctions must be made. Moreover, we couldn't credibly prohibit force, protect property rights or prevent harm in the first place unless unjustly using the first, violating the second or causing the third wasn't "wrong." Ergo, morality.
Another argument I heard was that not all law reflects morality; the example given was law mandating that we drive on the right side of the road. Yet this is where the "corollary thereof" part comes in. Without such a law, more people will be harmed in accidents, and we believe it's "wrong" to allow people to get harmed.
To be fair, a couple of libertarians (one of whom is running for office) wrote me and stated that their informed ideological brethren understand that law must have a moral basis, such as the "non-aggression principle." Yet, while I realize many different conceptions of libertarianism exist, absent an authoritative "Church of Libertarianism" to establish official dogma, I have no choice but to draw my conclusions from libertarians' consensus pronouncements. After all, there are textbook/dictionary definitions of liberalism that sound pretty good, too, yet they describe no liberals I've ever met. I live in the real world; if you seek a denizen of textbook dream-world, I suggest you visit your local college campus.
And if you look at these pronouncements, something becomes clear: The problem here isn't just one of libertarians but of moderns themselves. It is a deep problem that concerns not just the nature of man's law. It concerns the nature of morality itself.
And, certainly, someone is confused. Some respondents said it was me, and one quoted Ayn Rand, writing, "A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality." But think about what this implies. Hint: The idea isn't merely that it's not moral to impose morality, but that it isn't morality if it's imposed.
So let's start an analysis of the nature of morality. I ask you: Who or what determines what we call "morality"? I addressed this in "The Nature of Right and Wrong," writing:
[There are only two possibilities:] [e]ither man does or something outside man does. The idea that man determines right and wrong is known as "moral relativism;" this means that morals are relative to the time, place and people. The idea that right and wrong are determined by something outside of man is known as "Absolute Truth."
And, of course, the latter implies God. After all, if we're saying that "Truth" is something existing apart from man, is inerrant and that we must abide by it – which means it's above man – what are we actually describing? But, now, what are the implications of relativism? I continued:
. . . [Moral relativism] states that morality is determined by man; what is rarely recognized, though, is that if this is so then there is no right and wrong, objectively speaking. Think about it: If 90 percent of humanity said it preferred chocolate ice cream over vanilla, it wouldn't mean that chocolate was "right" and vanilla "wrong." Nor would it mean that chocolate was better in any objective sense – it would simply mean that people happened to like chocolate better. It's illogical to say otherwise. But would it be any more logical to say that murder was wrong for no other reason than the fact that 90 percent of all people preferred that others not kill in a way that we call unjust? Of course not. But if the idea that murder is wrong is simply a function of man's collective preference, it then falls into the exact same realm as the collective preference for a type of ice cream: the realm of taste.
Now, the Founding Fathers, men much admired in libertarian circles, understood this well. They realized that if man is the measure of what is called "morality," then it is merely opinion and based on nothing but air. This is why George Washington stated, "Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." It is why James Madison, known as the father of the Constitution, said in 1785, "Religion is the basis and Foundation of government." And it is why the framers emphasized that men's rights are "endowed by their Creator," as it is this – and only this – that could make them "unalienable." A person has a right to life not because some government somewhere thinks it's cool, because it might cool on the idea 10 years hence. Rather, it can only be a right because there is that eternal, unchanging moral injunction, "Thou shalt do no murder." (Note: "killing" isn't necessarily murder and can be justifiable in self-defense or during the prosecution of a just war based on "The Principle of Double Effect.") So the truth is that the founders would have been confused by only one thing in my block-quoted explanation and asked, "What is ice cream?"
Thus, to whatever extent and in whatever way the founders were libertarians, they were not libertines. The truth is that today's average secular libertarian has as much in common with those "classical liberals" (the actual political-science description of the founders) as modern liberals do. In fact, how many degrees of separation are there between most moderns and the founders? Probably about 24 – the number of the 56 signatories to the Declaration of Independence who held seminary degrees.
If you libertarians feel unloved, I'll emphasize that you didn't invent relativism; it is the characteristic philosophical mistake of our time, with a poll sometime back showing that even 62 percent of so-called "Christians" don't believe in Absolute Truth.
The latter fact is ironic, too, since relativism is joined at the hip with secularism. And this is why the Sultans of Secularism, from Richard Dawkins to Rand (yes, Atlas shrugged and Rand slipped), do their dance of self-deceit. They don't want to come to terms with the implications of their atheism, with the meaninglessness of it, that its corollary of moral relativism negates any and all ideas about what is a right life, a right law, a right government, or a right right. For it would all be taste. Yet neither will they accept God's existence and dominion. So in an effort to lend the atheistic world view meaning and construct a moral foundation within it, they wiggle and jiggle, twist to and fro, jump through hoops and over hurdles, doing intellectual contortions extreme enough to create a sideshow between their ears. All this because they insist upon trying to create the tree without the roots. And this has been done many times – but it is always an artificial tree.
And it begets a superficial life. It is thus not surprising that Objectivist Ayn Rand once said, "Nothing existential gave me any great pleasure. And progressively, as my idea developed, I had more and more a sense of loneliness." No doubt. The reality is that Jeffrey Dahmer, when he was a brutal serial killer, had a better understanding of philosophy than tree-without-roots secularists such as Rand. For, when he was a teen he stated to his parents, "If there's no God, why can't I just make up my own rules?" Now that is Objectivism in action.
As for lawmaking in action, to recognize that true leaves cannot exist without the roots isn't to advocate descent into nanny-state nightmares; it is just to express an obvious truth. And it's one that people obviously are rationalizing away. But why do they do so? Pride is a factor, of course, as is attachments to long-held ideology. Another factor, however, is that many people believe that if they acknowledge the morality/law link, it will open the door for the legislation of an excessive number of values. And while I understand their fear, they have it exactly backwards. Insofar as our government does legislate – which should be a rare occurrence – it must impose morals, not just "values" (which can be positive or negative). For it is only when government imposes morals residing within its legitimate domain that laws are just; when it imposes merely values, they may be unjust. But how can we ensure it will be the former? Well, we must first be in touch with moral reality. Only then will we understand when and what the government should be legislating. But there is little hope society at large will understand something if a social-pressure gag order is placed on discussion of it. This is why I emphasize understanding every aspect of this matter: the nexus between morality and just law; the immorality of excessive law; and, first and foremost, understanding what morality actually is. Because to deny reality for fear it could be twisted is itself a twisting of reality – and the consequences are likely just as severe.
And doesn't history bear this out? Note that there were relatively few laws in far more Christian, "Bible-thumping," morality aware early America. Yet, as our society departs from discussion of morality and the concept itself – even replacing the term with "values" – laws proliferate. It's no surprise, either. How can we expect those unschooled in morality (liberals, for instance) to understand the immorality of excessive lawmaking?
So people who want Rand can have her. I'll side with George, James and the rest of those Taliban, neocon socialists of dead-white-male fame.
Here Mr. Duke triples down on the same simplistic, barely-rephrased caricature from his previous two pieces as if by repetition it might become a serious analysis. When the piece starts out by saying, in essence, “Even though all of the writing of libertarian intellectuals says one thing, the few self-identified libertarians with whom I have had personal interaction say another, so we must suppose that the few self-identified libertarians who happened to reply to my blog posts and whose ideology represents nothing more than a series of convenient, simplistic strawmen represent true libertarian thought”, one cannot be surprised that the result is nothing more or less than the quixotic slaying of said strawmen.
The problem we run into when we try to base government on religious moral “absolute truths” is that there isn’t much consensus among religions on what exactly those absolute truths might be, rendering them something slightly less than absolute. There isn’t even consensus among denominations of the exact same religion on “absolute truths”, as evidenced by those little historical squabbles known as the Great Schism and the Protestant Reformation. In the absence of an “absolute truth” that is actually shared “absolutely” among people of various religious traditions, a reasonable secular facsimile must be relied upon if a society of mixed religious traditions is to be preserved. Perhaps disappointingly to Mr. Duke, there is no ethno-religious qualification for citizenship or participation in society in the United States. Like it or not, this really is, for better or worse, a “proposition nation”. And as such, it is, has been, and always will be, composed of people with divergent ideas as to exactly what constitutes “absolute truth”. Rather than subjugate every person in America to one of the varying Christian moral world views or, alternatively, dividing the government of the country up among the various religious factions each to rule over its own kind, we rely on what amount to man-made moral constructions (despite their being couched in the language of divinity) that can be applied universally while maximizing the autonomy of the individual (or at least that, at one point in time, was the intention).
Of course, Mr. Duke would have us believe that the United States constitution descended from the mount with the Decalogue directly from the hand of God himself and is consequently a perfect reflection of Biblical moral teaching. But if asked to cite, chapter and verse, the Biblical basis for the notion that “all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, only the most convoluted interpretation and cherry-picking of scripture could find such a justification. After all, both the Old Testament God of Moses and the incarnation of God in Christ in the New Testament give specific instruction for the treatment of slaves by their masters and demand the same obedience of slaves to their masters as of man to God. And what is the teaching of the entirety of the Bible itself if not the denial of the pursuit of earthly happiness and instead the pursuit of moral perfection and oneness with God? What place does the right to self defense and the bearing of arms have in a nation governed by the moral principles embodied in Matthew 5:39? What place does lending and the pursuit of profit in a free market economy have in a nation governed by the moral principles embodied in Exodus 22:25, or Ezekial 18:13? More importantly, how do we reconcile those Christian “absolute truths” with the Islamic “absolute truths” of Surah 5:38 calling for the amputation of the hands of thieves, or of Surah 24:2 calling for the public flogging of adulterers, or Sahih Al-Bukhari 9:57 calling for the death of any Muslim who changes his religion? What of the infallibility of the Pope? Could a law in defiance of a papal decree possibly be moral? I suppose that would depend on whose “absolute truth” is more absolute: the Catholic or the Eastern and Protestant Christian churches.
To be sure, legislation is a reflection of morality. No serious libertarian thinker has ever suggested otherwise, the scholarly discussion at Mr. Duke’s blog notwithstanding. The question is whose morality? Until the Lord descends and reveals a singular “absolute truth” to every human being on this planet, how may we judge one man’s “absolute truth” more “absolute” than another’s? The answer is that, objectively, we cannot. This is where libertarian moral principles become so useful. By making the supremacy of the individual the moral imperative, libertarianism provides a framework for people of wildly disparate moral conviction to interact and live peaceably while maintaining to the greatest possible extent their individual faith and spiritual enlightenment. Or perhaps reduced to its simplest possible form: People who want Benedict XVI can have him; people who want Muhammad al-Mahdi can have him; people who want Siddhartha Gautama can have him; and people who want Lord Kinbote can have him. I’ll side with Rand, Hayek, Friedman, Mises, Sowell, Rothbard, or anybody willing to participate in a society governed by one basic secular moral principle elevating the individual to the highest position of prominence in secular government, and the rest of those amoral, libertine, perverted, liberal relativists of equally-dead, equally-male, and mostly-white fame.
Patrick
Just curious: What is your opinion of Haidt’s “Understanding Libertarian Morality”?
Believers in political theology, such as Mr. Duke, aren’t going to be impressed by Mr.Mulligan’s arguments. Such believers claim to know precisely what God’s absolute truth is–it is what their church or interpretation of scripture or prophet has said it is, and that’s all there is to it. Conservatives such as Mr. Duke can never be entirely pleased with the American system of government and the Constitution. To borrow a line (albeit somewhat distorting its author’s intent) from George Will, the United States is “ill-founded.” It should have been designed to join together religious moral absolutism and the power of government. Too bad Madison and his friends had seen enough of how that particular alliance worked in the century and a half of religious carnage Western Europe had just experienced in the wars between Catholics and Protestants. Fortunately, our Founders made a choice much wiser than that of today’s right-wing political theologians.
Bill,
I’ve only just now read a summary of the study. It’s certainly interesting, although the results are not that terribly surprising. I think the study reflects the differences in moral perspectives that we’ve flushed out here at this very website many times during the course of our many discussions on libertarian ideology and the nature of morality.
I’ve always been of the opinion that you may indeed form a secular moral society; albeit it would be much more difficult to maintain over the long run. I can’t envision a mechanism that would ensure the ‘transfer’ of the founding moral premises to future generations in order to ensure stability.
Does the Libertarian just move forward and hope for the best? Or does the libertarian just accept that it will indeed change? Or do you envision some mechanism I haven’t thought of to inculcate these principles going forward?
I don’t really see that as any more a problem for a libertarian society than a religious or traditional conservative one. Totalitarianism is really the only political system capable of long-term self-sustainment, which is why it has been the most enduring form of government in human history. Has Christian morality succeeded in sustaining the government or culture envisioned by America’s founders in your estimation? Sadly, history bears witness to the fact that democratic societies have a tendency to fall apart, and relatively quickly at that. A moral, legal, and political system premised on individual liberty is a very new concept historically, and it can be easily argued that its time has already passed. And having no formal orthodoxy or organizational structure as a religious code does, vestigial libertarian morality is far less likely to be preserved if it should entirely disappear than religions institutions that are passed on as much lineally as culturally. Aside from relying on the enduring appeal of libertarian concepts to basic human reason, I can’t think of a good mechanism for preserving a libertarian society in perpetuity, but in fairness, I can’t think of a good mechanism for preserving any other relatively free society either.
“For daring to mention morality and law in the same breath, some implied I was like the Taliban…”
I think it is obvious that people who say, “You can’t legislate morality,” in their mind define “morality” as “a religious mandate I don’t agree with.”
There are a few problems that I find in your article. This is one of them. “It is why James Madison, known as the father of the Constitution, said in 1785, “Religion is the basis and Foundation of government.”
You obviously got that from David Barton. That was a mistake.
David Barton, in his book The Myth of Separation contains a popular version of that this quotation, on page 120:
” Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe . . . Religion . . . [is] the basis and foundation of government.”
This isn’t the only form of the quotation. Here are some other variations:
* ” . . . Religion . . . [is] the basis and foundation of government.”
* “Religion . . . [is] the basis and foundation of government.”
* “Religion [is] the basis and foundation of government.”
* “Religion is the basis and foundation of government.”
I would say the most honest form is the first and second, because they do indicate it has been extracted from something else, the third gives such an indication as well.
The last two forms are the least honest. However, all forms are incorrect, because Madison never said anything like this.
The footnote Barton gives as his source is valid:
The Papers of James Madison, Robert Rutland, ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973), Vol. VIII, pp 299, 304, June 20, 1785.
The first clue that something is wrong here is that these pages turn out to correspond to Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance, a document written in support of separation of church and state. (The complete text of this document may be found at James Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance.)
In Section 1, a little over halfway through it, you will actually find the following sentence, “Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe . . . ”
Now to find the rest of what was used to create version one (the version from page 120 of Barton’s book) we have to jump over to SECTION 15, (I might add at this point it is very rare to see anyone use version one; most use one of the other versions. I guess Barton wanted to spice it up even more and included the above sentence as part of it.)
I will use capitals to indicate the words Barton selected to arrive at his newly created false quote:
SECTION 15, Because finally, ‘the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his RELIGION according to the dictates of conscience’ IS held by the same tenure with all his other rights. If we recur to its origin, it is equally the gift of nature; if we weigh its importance, it cannot be less dear to us; if we consider the ‘Declaration of those rights which pertain to the good people of Virginia, as THE BASIS AND FOUNDATION OF GOVERNMENT,’ it is enumerated with equal solemnity, or rather studied emphasis.
Madison, in other words, was talking about individual’s rights, of which the free exercise of his religion was one, as being the basis and foundation of government. He even refers to the Declaration of Rights that was part of the Virginia Constitution as his example.
Personal, individual rights is what Madison believed to be the basis and foundation of government, not religion itself. Whomever created this false quote knew what he said, knew what they wanted him to say in its place, and set out to create what they wanted him to say.
This was no accident or simple misunderstanding.
You’re using Argumentum ad Vericundium. An appeal to an Improper Authority: An appeal to an improper authority, such as a famous person or a source that may not be reliable. It’s a fallacy that attempts to capitalize on feelings of respect or familiarity with a famous individual.
It’s not fallacious to refer to an admittted authority if the individual’s expertise is within a strict field of knowledge. On the other hand, to cite Einstein to settle an argument about education, or economics, is fallacious. To cite Darwin, an authority on biology, on religious matters is fallacious. To cite the Pope on legal problems is fallacious. And to cite David Barton on what our founders may have said about religion..is fallacious.
I mentioned several problems. The first was the phony quote by Madison. This next claim is something that I would question on a different level. There’s nothing phony about it. I’m sure you feel this is sound. But, I’d like to examine it.Ok?
“So let’s start an analysis of the nature of morality. I ask you: Who or what determines what we call “morality”? I addressed this in “The Nature of Right and Wrong,” writing:
“[There are only two possibilities:] [e]ither man does or something outside man does. The idea that man determines right and wrong is known as “moral relativism;” this means that morals are relative to the time, place and people. The idea that right and wrong are determined by something outside of man is known as “Absolute Truth.”
Can you demonstrate the truth of what you just said? You’re making a value statement here. Can you demonstrate the truth of your values?
When you speak of morality, you are speaking of your values are you not? I assume that you do place a value on your morality. You say that the idea that man determines right and wrong is known as “moral relativism”. That would logically imply that he could do whatever he wants to do. But what does it mean to say, “whatever we want”? Moreover, can you demonstrate the truth of “we will all do whatever we want if we can’t demonstrate the truth of our values”?
You have said this: “The idea that right and wrong are determined by something outside of man is known as “Absolute Truth.” Do you think that Truth is demonstrable? If so, can you provide a demonstration for me?
Well, I for one don’t think values can be demonstrated as true. Is not that hypocritical? If you accept that humans have values, then it’s “their” values. They are not dependent on demonstration, otherwise, why would we consider them “our” values?
What I am saying is that the two ideas are logically incompatible. “Truth is demonstrable” logically entails that “truth is not determined by humans”. It’s a big marble monolith sitting in Mecca that everyone walks around and views objectively as the same thing. If you hold that “humans decide about the truth” then you can’t hold that “truth is demonstrable.” These are mutually contradictory ways of viewing the world. To make it clearer we could instead say, either “truth is determined by human judgment” ( which you are calling “moral relativism) or “truth is determined unequivocally by demonstration.” Not only are these two ideas incompatible, as truth is a value we as humans place on certain ideas or viewpoints, it makes no sense to say it can be determined by demonstration. It is determined by humans.
We might discuss certain consequences of holding or not holding the value. However as it is a value, it is determined by human judgement, not any particular demonstration. So there can be no basis or criteria or standard. Otherwise that would be to remove the human element from this. Truth is determined by humans, not criteria or standards or bases. Moreover, a criteria cannot be its own criteria. Again, it is an issue of responsibility. Even assuming you have a criteria you think is adequate, how did you determine that? Are you responsible for that judgement, or is the criteria responsible? Merely claiming a standard or a criteria or a basis does not help one to demonstrate the truth of values. Instead, it creates a certain amount of hypocrisy. If we claim a basis gives us truth, we then are making the implicit claim that truth requires bases. But then it is plainly obvious our own basis lacks a basis, as it cannot be its own basis. That is simply circular reasoning. It’s a logical fallacy and its an irrational viewpoint. By claiming truth must be demonstrated by bases we undermine our own moral integrity. A similar case might be made for the Christian who says that miracles support his faith in God. Is that not hypocritical? After all, faith is faith. It does not require proof. Similarly, from a Christian perspective, if a person is “good” because he wants to go to heaven, is he not being “bad” as he is pursuing selfish ends. While I think that one can be willing to question “humans have values”, and therefore hold the position non-dogmatically, I don’t think that the notion that “humans have values” is logically compatible with “values are determined by demonstrations.”
It seems that you’re using an appeal to authority once again. You are seeking a “positive methodology” for determining the Truth value of some morality. Well, in fact, I’ve never known a positive methodology that actually works. What I have known are several people who are dogmatic and dictatorial because they think they have a positive methodology. Moreover, as I pointed out before, the positive methodology can’t demonstrate it’s own truth. It’s own standards can’t justify it’s own standards. So those with positive methodologies either have to resort to circular arguments or hypocrisy or both.
I believe in the rational unity of man, reason is the same for all of is. Although the burden of truth falls on each of our shoulders individually, we are all united in the sense we share the same world. Truth is the same for all of us. There is only one truth. We’re each approaching it from different directions and positions and situations. Comparing, contrasting and criticizing these positions helps all of us to weed out error and get nearer to the truth. At least those of us who have an interest in the truth. I believe that we must work to share our ideas and take part in critical discussions and that this is how we progress. I propose a negative methodology. We learn by imaginatively thinking up new idea, new values, new approaches, new positions, then once they are mature enough, subjecting them to criticism. As this is a negative methodology, it need not resort to circular arguments of justification and is therefore not hypocritical. Nor does it attempt the impossible task of taking the burden of judging the truth off our individual shoulders.
Ultimately the question is what is the basis for the Truth of your moral value? If you are going to fall back on religion then you open yourself up to the question of what is the basis for that? The religion can’t be it’s own basis. If, as you’ve previously stated, things require basis, then that must include religion as well. This leads to the dilemma of Infinite Regress vs. your dogma. There’s no way out of that. You could resort to circular logic…but that only admits to irrationality.
>”And it is why the framers emphasized that men’s rights are “endowed by their Creator,” as it is this – and only this – that could make them “unalienable.”
You do realize that the quote comes from Thomas Jefferson. He was a deist. And although he subscribed to the idea of a creator, that term in itself is abiguous. It can mean anything a person wants it to mean. There is no religion implied in that. It is simply in the eye of the beholder and broad enough to cover anybody including an atheist that might view the Big Bang as the “creator”. The creator as an event rather then a being.
He was by his own description a “liberal”. He was also an inventor, and a botonist. Devoted to science. He received the first inoculation for smallpox. He would most certainly have approved of stem cell research, and he created the Jefferson Bible, in which he took a knife and edited out all reference to miricles, leaving only the philosophy in tact.
You might also be hard pressed to find any mention of Jesus from Washington. He was a Free Mason and always made reference to Providence.
These men were a product of their times, and their times was that of the Enlightenment and the philosophy of Locke, Voltair, Newton, Bacon. There’s was the philosophy of reason, and not the religion of Cotton Mather.
Conservative political philosopher Russel Kirk wrote that “Conservatives are champions of custon, convention, and continuity because the prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t know. Order and justice and freedom, the believe, are the artificial products of a long social experience, the result of centuries of trial and reflection and sacrifice. Thus the body social is a kind of spiritual corporation, comparable to the church; it may even be called a community of souls. human society is no machine, to be treated mechanically. The continuity, the life-blood, or a society must not be interrupted”.
Well, it would seem that conservatives share the same fabric of belief in their ideology that one invests into a religion. Conservatives are certainly true believers in the infallibility of their system of thought. However, assuming that we are all fallible humans, just how does an infallible system come from a fallible human being who is prone to error? Is it possible that conservatism could be wrong?
With all this in mind, it’s hard to imagine a conservative going along with a radical revolution in 1776 that was certain to upset the custon, convention, and continuity of the dvil they knew in order to replace it with the devil they didn’t know. It goes completely agains the ideals of conservatism. Their DNA would reject it. I can only speculate, but I have little doubt in my mind as to whose side the conservative would have been on. I believe they were called Tory’s.
>”This is where libertarian moral principles become so useful.”<
Libertarian moral principles can't demonstrate their Truth any more then conservative moral principles can. Niether has a monopoly on Truth. sorry about that. We decide what is true. All of us. Truth is a value, and values cannot be demonstrated as true. Judgments of truth can only rest on human shoulders and can not ever be factually explained.
Our conservative friend here thinks that relativism suggests, Why not just believe anything?
Why don’t you try it for a day and see what happens? My guess is you won’t get far. We do judge the truth. Even without a scientific or factual explanation concerning why or how. Look, you make decisions about the truth everyday. Just like you decide something tastes good, or something is beautiful or something is interesting, you decide if something is truthful. It’s a value decision. What you really want is a way to reduce values to facts. You want to say, “we decide truth because of this undeniable criteria and no other decision is acceptable but this one. We now have an undeniable standard concerning the truth. You are no longer free to determine the truth, but must follow this standard as it is undeniable.” However, if there is no freedom to determine the truth for ourselves, then it is merely a done deal of sorts. An automatic process. It’s like having a trial by jury, but then telling each jurist exactly how he must decide. Or worse, it’s like having 12 personal computers for jury members instead of individual human beings. If there is an undeniable way to demonstrate the truth, then human valuing doesn’t even have a place in the process anymore. This is absurd. What can one make out of a total denial of the value we place on the truth? Do you or do you not value truth? If you value the truth, then how can you square that with a process that determines what we must value as true in advance so that we need no longer value it?
>”How can we expect those unschooled in morality (liberals, for instance) to understand the immorality of excessive lawmaking?”<
As one who would be described as a liberal, I would say that I'm quite schooled in morality. Which is exactly why I don't preach it to others, and why I find yours wanting. What is moral about hypocrisy? The alleged quote by Madison is a false representation. If you didn't know of it, you still used it from a source that was in itself immoral. Bearing false witness I believe is considered immoral by most standards. Even Christian. And attributing that false claim to the man considered the father of the constitution who totally opposed what was suggested is rather disgusting. Wouldn't you agree?
>”Fortunately, our Founders made a choice much wiser than that of today’s right-wing political theologians”<
Good point. During the Supreme Court hearing on the placement of the ten commandments into an Alabama Supreme Court building, Justice O'Connor asked; "Why would we replace a system that has worked so well for us, with one that has worked so poorly for others?"
If an individual decides for himself what is true, truth wouldn’t exist until he was born and had decided that it [whatever “it” is] is true – which is patently absurd. If truth is internal to the individual, he can believe anything because it is his truth … and it is by definition.
Here you are denying absolute truth and at the same time challenging the author to live as though it didn’t exist, IOW, you are saying it does exist. You are talking in circles, contradicting yourself, and making no sense at all.
You are confusing opinion with truth. They are not the same. If truth is a value decision, then if my truth is that you and your ideas are 100% sh!t, it would be true. In addition, if truth is a value decision, why should we accept yours? Why would you bother to post your “truths” since no one would care because they had theirs?
What you are advocating is polylogism, the idea that truth is whatever you want it to be; even two conflicting statements being true at the same time. This is the replacement of reasoning and science by superstition. It is the characteristic mentality of an age of chaos.
This chaos is a consequence of several factors, salient among them is envy due to the inability of social studies to produce a useful social product in anything like the amounts generated by the study of nature, which deals in objective truth; hence truth itself must be attacked.
P.S. And that’s my truth.
reply to adagio4639
I’m always pleased to see someone track down what Madison (or any other Founder) did or did not write about a topic. Good detective work. However, ultimately this sort of exercise doesn’t really matter to conservatives who really believe that the US is a “Christian nation” in the sense they prefer–that is, that Christianity and the American government are woven tightly together. Most of these conservatives don’t quite want a real theocracy, but would be happy with something fairly close to it.
I just love these discussions that reach Manichaean conclusions.
reply to adagio4639 re: your Nov 20 12.56am post:
Most of today’s conservatives are quite illiterate when it comes to 18th century philosophy and theology. I’m never surprised at what they don’t know. You’re correct about Jefferson’s deism. Note as well that he wrote the so-called “Jefferson Bible,” in which he argued that Jesus was a great moral teacher–and nothing more. Jefferson went to considerable efforts to find the best ancient texts available for the four gospels–Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John–and translated them into English–leaving out all of the miracles. Like many other 18th century intellectuals, Jefferson believed that Biblical miracles were nothing more than the fantasies of fairly primitive and certainly uneducated members of an ancient society. Of course, this view could hardly be that of a Biblical Christian. Note also that in the Declaration of Independence he does NOT invoke the Biblical, much less, the Christian God. Instead he writes of “nature and nature’s God.” Historically uninformed contemporary conservatives leap to the wholly unwarranted conclusion that Jefferson is the same sort of believing Christian that they themselves are. No, men as well educated as Jefferson knew the difference between what was called “natural religion” and “natural theology” and its opposite, “revealed religion.” If Jefferson had wanted to invoke the Christian/Biblical God, he would probably have found a different way to identify this deity than “nature’s God.” It was a commonplace among Enlightenment thinkers that some sort of deity might exist, but it was a huge step from that position to the sort of fundamentalist Christianity so loved by so many of today’s conservatives.
Re: Your exchanges with sedonaman. Two points: 1. Confusion about “values”: Historically, the term “value” migrated from economics into moral philosophy, especially in the writings of Nietzsche. He preserved a crucial character of the concept of “value” in economics–that it is inherently subjective. The very idea of an ‘objective value’ is incoherent because a ‘value’ is something a person attaches to some state of affairs. Accordingly, it is not sensible to ask whether a value is true or false. If I prefer Pepsi over Coke, it is silly to ask whether my preference is anything more than my preference. Of course, over time the use of “value” as a vague, general label for any concepts of good/evil, etc. has taken hold. This is why someone can even project the term “value” back into ancient thinking, whether philosophical or religious, where it simply has no applicability. There are no “Christian values”-there are instead instructions and imperatives which the believer asserts come from God, and thus human behavior should conform to these commands. No room for “values” there. Similarly, the ethical teachings of a philosopher like Aristotle are not “values;” they are claims about what truly is good or bad, and are supposed to be proven by showing that they are correct understandings of relevant attributes of human nature.
I’m sure that by now most contemporary conservatives have lost interest in this sort of discussion. They’d much rather adhere to incoherent doctrines than consider thinking outside of their particular set of boxes.
2. On the notion that liberals are “immoral.” Many conservatives think this is virtually a self-evident truth, and do indeed reject the possibility that liberals can have any sort of morality at all. Such a belief serves the political aims of conservatives quite well, for it is often useful to portray one’s opponents in the worst possible light when engaged in ideological warfare. However, conservatives are incorrect in this claim.
The liberal who supports gay marriage, for instance, believes that a society in which gays can marry is better than one in which they can’t. Many modern liberals regard obstacles placed in the path of individuals attempting to fulfill or satisfy themselves require, at the very least, serious and rational defenses. There are, of course, options some people pursue in their efforts to fulfill themselves that cannot be permitted, but these options involve inflicting real, tangible harm on others. If you are offended by gay marriage because your religion tells you it is wrong, my sort of liberal will ask why your particular sensitivities should be grounds for prohibiting persons whom you don’t know or may never even encounter from living as they prefer. In other words, you do NOT have a right not to be offended.
At bottom there is, however, an unbridgeable gulf between liberals and conservatives. Most conservatives believe that the most important thing for people to do is to obey traditional moral teachings, especially those based on the true religion, Christianity. Most liberals believe that the most important thing for people to do is to pursue and attempt to achieve a way of living that is satisfying to them. This really is an either/or alternative.
>”If an individual decides for himself what is true, truth wouldn’t exist until he was born and had decided that it [whatever “it” is] is true – which is patently absurd.”" If truth is internal to the individual, he can believe anything because it is his truth … and it is by definition.”"Here you are denying absolute truth and at the same time challenging the author to live as though it didn’t exist, IOW, you are saying it does exist. You are talking in circles, contradicting yourself, and making no sense at all.”"You are confusing opinion with truth”"In addition, if truth is a value decision, why should we accept yours?”" Why would you bother to post your “truths” since no one would care because they had theirs?”“If truth is a value decision, then if my truth is that you and your ideas are 100% sh!t, it would be true.”"What you are advocating is polylogism, the idea that truth is whatever you want it to be;”"This is the replacement of reasoning and science by superstition. It is the characteristic mentality of an age of chaos”"This chaos is a consequence of several factors, salient among them is envy due to the inability of social studies to produce a useful social product in anything like the amounts generated by the study of nature, which deals in objective truth; hence truth itself must be attacked.”<
Envy? Are you a psychologist? If not, what justifies your claim to knowledge of the motives of others? Look at what you've just said. You're making a positive statement about things that you can't possibly know about concerning the psyche of other people. You can't demonstrate the truth of your statement, and yet you claim to be concerned with the Truth. Instead you need to feel that you can bottle something to set on a shelf and observe with your own self righteous indignation all because you can't grasp anything that's being said. Instead of recognizing your own fallibility and the prospect that you could be wrong about something, and possiby learn something that you didn't know before and maybe get closer to the very Truth you claim to be interested in, you resort to dime story psychology. That's too bad/
>”Good detective work.”" However, ultimately this sort of exercise doesn’t really matter to conservatives who really believe that the US is a “Christian nation” in the sense they prefer–that is, that Christianity and the American government are woven tightly together.”"Most of these conservatives don’t quite want a real theocracy, but would be happy with something fairly close to it.”<
You're probably right. Pat Buchanan who is a pretty staunch conservative stated that he would prefer some form of benign Christian Monarchy to a democracy. Conservatism is anti-thetical to democracy. Totally incompatible.
You said, “Truth is a value, and values cannot be demonstrated as true.” But you are demanding that I demonstrate the truth of my statement. Not only that, but it is impossible for me to be wrong if what I say is my value, any more than you are wrong to prefer Pepsi over Coke. I’m just using your own logic to come to my conclusions, and you are too dense and caught up in liberal nonsense to see it. Since it is nonsense, you must revert to demanding objective proof, something you claim doesn’t exist. And you can’t even see that either.
Gestell >”Most of today’s conservatives are quite illiterate when it comes to 18th century philosophy and theology.”<
That was a really good post. Very accurate and a good look at the meaning of value. I think that what people try yard to do is invest their values with Truth to present them as inseparable. Clearly to both you and me, some statements, or let’s say ideas or positions, are more valuable than others. If you believe in the truth, and I scarcely see how you could get by without it, then the question is NOT how to demonstrate it, but how to approach it. Clearly we learn. And clearly the way we do so is by replacing bad ideas with better ones.
You're right about a value. The value that people place on things is purely subjective. I may value the life of a polar bear. Sarah Palin may want it mounted in a trophy room. Clearly we both value some ideas over others, even without any basis. We also both believe in the concept of truth. How exactly a human being arrives at judgments of the truth is an interesting question, but, as far as I know, it appears unanswerable. Why? Because every statement about how we judge the truth in any ultimate sense, would have to logically entail itself. But if it logically entailed itself, it could not judge itself.
If a criteria is undeniable, human judgement may as well be automated. We can program a computer to do it. You know, there are so many possible criticism of this viewpoint it’s hard to know where to begin. For one, it would mean that truth was no longer a value, but a kind of fact. As such there would be no value of truth. However, if there was no truth, then how did we determine how humans judged the truth in the first place?
What I am saying is that we have to accept that judgments of truth can only rest on human shoulders and can not ever be factually explained. We must each judge the truth for ourselves, and we do so fallibly.
So..our friends here say,"What if I decide to take a gun and go shoot someone, or what if I join the Islamic Jihad?" My response is why would you do those things? Simply because you can? While I can’t demonstrate the truth to you, I can certainly inform you that the consequences for those actions would be untold human suffering. Is that not sufficient?
I think what is really evident here is that those calling themselves conservative or in some cases libertarian, subscribe to theories of rationality, that can never prove themselves as true. Yet, they assert their views as absolutely true. The object from my perspective is not to argue with them so much or say "you're wrong, and I'm right". Unlike them, I'm a fallibalist. I know that I could be wrong. My question to them is that they demonstrate why what they're saying is true. I'm only concerned with Truth. Not platitudes. If they can't demonstrate that, why should I take what they're claiming as anything but garbage. Seriously all their flag waving and chest beating and Bible Banging does nothing to convince me of their seriousness when it comes to these issues. Not so much from libertarians but they have their own issues. Too hung up on Ayn Rand. But all this talk about how they're all about "Freedom" and "Liberty" and "values"…is pretty lame.
Example: Conservatives claim that their "values" are American values. They're one in the same. They hold those values, and never compromise them. I think that all of us would agree that George Washington is our greatest president, and is called the father of our country. His values ARE American values. His image is carved into Mt Rushmore. A monument to him sits in the center of the capital named after him. Washingtons values ARE American values.
So..here's a syllogism.
George Washington's values Are American values
George Washington opposed the mistreatment of prisoners.(torture)
Torture is Anti-American
Just in case anybody wants evidence of Washingtons position on this I would offer this:
“Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.” – George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775
Conservatives approve of Waterboarding (which is torture)
Torture is Anti-American
Conservatives are Anti-American
They may argue that the premise in the second syllogism is false, but I would say that they have no leg to stand on. Ronald Reagan prosecuted a sheriff in Texas for waterboarding a prisoner. We've executed those that used it against our troops. We've court martialed our own troops for using it on prisoners in Viet Nam. We subject our own Special Forces to it, in order to prepare them for…Torture if they are captured. Those who've undergone it will tell you that it's torture. The only people that argue against it are those that have never undergone it, or are attempting to justify it to further their own goals by calling it something else. "enhanced interrogation. As if that changes anything. That's like being caught robbing a bank and telling the police that you didn't rob a bank. You simply applied enhanced appropriation of funds. It would appear that conservatives are more than willing to compromise those values that they never compromise when they think it serves their purpose. The hypocrisy is glaring.
>”“Truth is a value, and values cannot be demonstrated as true.” But you are demanding that I demonstrate the truth of my statement.”"Not only that, but it is impossible for me to be wrong if what I say is my value, any more than you are wrong to prefer Pepsi over Coke.”"I’m just using your own logic to come to my conclusions, and you are too dense and caught up in liberal nonsense to see it.”<
Of course. I must be too dense. Caught up in "liberal nonsense". So, because you can't deal with this you resort to name calling as a last refuge. It can't possibly be that this entire thing has gone over your head. No…that couldn't be it could it? You aren't using my logic my friend.
Logic is the study of arguments. It's what we use to evaluate correct reasoning from poor reasoning. Without logic, we have no way of evaluating truth from garbage. The very reason I began posting on this site, is because of the garbage I saw. And I've explained very clearly why I thought it was garbage.
Logic isn't opinion. When we evaluate arguments, we are using specific principles and criteria in much the same way we would use a math formula. If we use those principles and criteria, we are using logic; if we aren't using those principles,and criteria, we are not justified in claiming to use logic or be logical.
In any argument you will very often run into people that claim to be using logic, only to find that their claim is rooted in an emotional attachment to their argument as a result of perhaps defending a long held belief. They might even resort to name calling and call the other person dense. They aren't using logic at all. Logic doesn't care about your beliefs. Logic is pretty cold when it comes to things like that. You haven't been using my logic. If you were, you wouldn't be having a problem with what I've been saying. And I would know that.
When many people use the word ‘logic,’ what they really mean is: ‘some statement I just know is true just because I know it is.’ Big chunks of standard conservative fare about the American founding often display this approach. Of course, there are many different kinds of logic, and it is often hard to tell what an ideologue means when he says he is using logic. Is showing his awareness, for instance, of informal fallacies? Knowledge of informal fallacies is very helpful in picking through political arguments.
Here’s a good site: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/index.html
If more logical firepower is needed, here’s a good site that may whet the reader’s appetite to learn more:
http://www.rbjones.com/rbjpub/logic/log053.htm
>”When many people use the word ‘logic,’ what they really mean is: ‘some statement I just know is true just because I know it is.’”"Big chunks of standard conservative fare about the American founding often display this approach.”"Of course, there are many different kinds of logic, and it is often hard to tell what an ideologue means when he says he is using logic.”"Knowledge of informal fallacies is very helpful in picking through political arguments.”<
Very much. I've found that they aren't too aware of those. They don't understand how an argument is constructed and when it's pointed out to them, they respond with insults.
Libertarian moral principles can’t demonstrate their Truth any more then conservative moral principles can. Niether has a monopoly on Truth. sorry about that.
Well, it’s lucky for us that I said nothing of the kind then, isn’t it? Actually, what I said is that libertarian moral principles are useful precisely because they do not lay claim to being the unvarnished “absolute truth”, but merely the best set of methods to secure a particular value (individual autonomy). Holding libertarian moral viewpoints does not preclude one from holding other moral viewpoints, and allows people who hold a variety of moral viewpoints to engage in a society where their individual moral viewpoints can both be respected and simultaneously not have the binding force of law for others with contrary moral viewpoints.
Most liberals believe that the most important thing for people to do is to pursue and attempt to achieve a way of living that is satisfying to them.
Well, no, not really. Not modern social liberals anyway (which is, I presume, what you mean when you say “liberal” in the modern context). Not if “living your life in a way that is satisfying” includes eating foods with too much fat or cholesterol, or driving your car at a high rate of speed without a seatbelt on, or making lots of money and hoarding it all for yourself without sharing, or taking experimental cancer drugs when you are on the verge of death and have absolutely nothing to lose in doing so, or burning coal to create electricity, or discharging firearms, or any of the thousands of other victimless crimes against social liberal orthodoxy. You again have social liberalism confused with libertarianism or classical liberals. Enamored as you are of 18th century political philosophy, you would think it would be clearer to you than to anyone else that you have less in common with an 18th century classical liberal than just about any other political ideology in existence.
We must each judge the truth for ourselves, and we do so fallibly.
Which is why it is so perplexing that you would deny Mr. Duke or Sedonaman’s professions of their own judgment of truth while simultaneously proselytizing for your own judgment of truth as a higher value. If truth is a subjective individual value, such as an economic valuation of a good or service, or if it is a subjective individual preference, like that of Coke vs. Pepsi, then the truth that you have discovered, and the method by which you discovered it, are no more or less valid than any other truth reached by any other individual by any other method.
While I can’t demonstrate the truth to you, I can certainly inform you that the consequences for those actions would be untold human suffering. Is that not sufficient?
Take a look around the world and peruse the last 10 millennia of human history and you will answer your own question. The short answer is “no, that is not sufficient”, because unless the rejection of human suffering is a shared moral value, which can’t actually exist in your estimation because there is no such thing as objective moral value but merely individual moral preference, you have no basis from which to argue. In point of fact, there are many in the world who are utterly unconcerned with human suffering. Notifying them that their actions would cause human suffering would be meaningless.
They may argue that the premise in the second syllogism is false, but I would say that they have no leg to stand on.
The premise of the 1st or 2nd syllogism may be false, and consequently so could the conclusion. How could we possibly know? Your examination of the evidence which you used to reach the premise to create the syllogism is fallible and non-objective. Consequently, no one has any reason to care what you think anymore than you have a reason to care what anyone else thinks. You are concerned with a truth that cannot be proven because it is inherently subjective, so your subjective valuation of the truth is inconsequential to another’s subjective valuation of the truth.
The hypocrisy is glaring.
Indeed.
Logic is the study of arguments. It’s what we use to evaluate correct reasoning from poor reasoning.
If truth is merely a subjective valuation of moral preferences, then “logic” is nothing more than one man’s moral bias applied to the arguments of another, and is consequently useless in the evaluation of reasoning. Logic cannot be its own basis any more than divine revelation can.
Logic isn’t opinion.
Then logic must be truth! Now we’re getting somewhere. Objective truth DOES exist after all. It’s called “logic”. Now we just have to define logic without relying on subjective human moral values. Go ahead.
You haven’t been using my logic. If you were, you wouldn’t be having a problem with what I’ve been saying. And I would know that.
So if he were using your logic he would agree with your conclusions and you would recognize his logic as correct? Sounds almost like your logic is not fallible. But how can that be if all human reason is fallible and there is no objective truth? I forgot – logic is objective truth. And your logic is logic (identity property). So consequently the conclusions reached as a result of applying your logic are objective truths. QED.
When many people use the word ‘logic,’ what they really mean is: ‘some statement I just know is true just because I know it is.’
Clearly. “You aren’t using my logic because if you were using my logic your logic would reach the same conclusions as mine and your logic would make sense to me” would seem to fit this description.
>”Actually, what I said is that libertarian moral principles are useful precisely because they do not lay claim to being the unvarnished “absolute truth”, but merely the best set of methods to secure a particular value (individual autonomy).”"Well, no, not really. Not modern social liberals anyway (which is, I presume, what you mean when you say “liberal” in the modern context).”"You again have social liberalism confused with libertarianism or classical liberals.”"Enamored as you are of 18th century political philosophy, you would think it would be clearer to you than to anyone else that you have less in common with an 18th century classical liberal than just about any other political ideology in existence.”
Again you assume that those of that period would have remained in the 18th Century. They were visionaries for sure. What makes you think that their vision would have come to a halt at the end of the 18th century? Do you think that they would have given up thinking?? Do you think that they would have stood in the way of progress and advancements for the good of the country and humanity? Jefferson was the first to have a smallpox inoculation. He was an inventor, a botonist, a biologist, a lawyer, a philosopher, and a scientist. He would certainly never have allowed religious dictates to stand in the way of stem cell research. What kind of morons do you think they were?
>”Which is why it is so perplexing that you would deny Mr. Duke or Sedonaman’s professions of their own judgment of truth while simultaneously proselytizing for your own judgment of truth as a higher value.”“If truth is a subjective individual value, such as an economic valuation of a good or service, or if it is a subjective individual preference, like that of Coke vs. Pepsi, then the truth that you have discovered, and the method by which you discovered it, are no more or less valid than any other truth reached by any other individual by any other method.”“Take a look around the world and peruse the last 10 millennia of human history and you will answer your own question. The short answer is “no, that is not sufficient”,”"In point of fact, there are many in the world who are utterly unconcerned with human suffering. Notifying them that their actions would cause human suffering would be meaningless.”"The premise of the 1st or 2nd syllogism may be false, and consequently so could the conclusion. How could we possibly know?”"Objective truth DOES exist after all.”" Now we just have to define logic without relying on subjective human moral values. Go ahead.”"So if he were using your logic he would agree with your conclusions and you would recognize his logic as correct?”"Sounds almost like your logic is not fallible.”"But how can that be if all human reason is fallible and there is no objective truth?”"Clearly. “You aren’t using my logic because if you were using my logic your logic would reach the same conclusions as mine and your logic would make sense to me” would seem to fit this description.”<
Hve you considered the possibility that the argument that is made under claims of being logically sound is shown to not be that at all? That the claim has been falsified? All statements and claims are open to criticism. If the person who claims to be using "my logic" is shown that his claim is false..then what? The person can reject that falsification if he chooses to defy the logic of the illustration. But the falsification is still valid. For example:
A: Why are you rational?
B: Because I listen to God.
A: How do you know that listening to God is rational.
B: Because God told me.
That’s circular.
Now you may insist that it's not, call me a name and claim that you're using my logic. But if you refuse to accept the evidence of the circular reasoning going on here that doesn't change the fact that that is exactly what is happening. If you can't see that this is circular than it's likely that you haven't understood much else that's been discussed either.
Not sure why my responses didn’t post. Or why everything went into italics. It was a lengthy response and I’m not inclined to do it again. This system has a few quirks to it.I do appreciate your post, and I’m sorry my response to it didn’t take.
“but merely the best set of methods to secure a particular value (individual autonomy)”
But is it? Is the libertarian willing to entertain any position and hold all his positions, including his most fundamental standards, goals and decisions, and his basic philosophical position itself open to criticism? Is he one who never cuts off an arguement by resortng to faith, or irrational commitment even to libertarianism itself, to justify some belief that has been under severe critical fire; is he one who is committed attached addicted to no position? If not then how can you make a claim of individual autonomy?
“You again have social liberalism confused with libertarianism or classical liberals.”
You seem to think that liberalism is something static. That it stopped being what it is in the 18th Century hence the term “classical liberal” Why would you presume that the liberalism of our founders would have remained locked in that period? They already show’d signs of their radical nature with the revolution. Todays modern conservative will be quick to tell us that today’s modern liberal is not a liberal by their standards. But liberalism doesn’t care about their standards. It never has. Liberalism doesn’t stay in one place. Including the 18th Century. And the liberalism of our founders was always meant to evolve. Liberalism is never content to remain stationary. The conservative may not like what it has evolved into by their conservative standards, but that’s to be expected. Again it isn’t liberalisms intention to meet conservative standards. Liberals have their own and those standards continue to evolve as new challenges are confronted. So the complaint from the right that today’s liberals aren’t liberals is complete hogwash. F.A. Hayek said, “there has NEVERbeen a time when liberal ideals were fully realized and when liberalsim did not look forward to further improvement of institutions. With this in mind, why would any conservative or libertarian not understand that the liberalism of the 18th century was never meant to remain in the 18th century. It was always moving forward. It always will. And there is really nothing that the conservative can do to stop it. They can try to slow it down, but in the end they will yield to it as they always have, which is how we managed to create the womens right to vote, enact child labor laws, voting rights, civil rights, social security, medicare and other institutions that America wants. It’s always conservatism that blocks it, and it always becomes part of American life anyway.
What makes you think that their vision would have come to a halt at the end of the 18th century? Do you think that they would have given up thinking?? Do you think that they would have stood in the way of progress and advancements for the good of the country and humanity? Jefferson was the first to have a smallpox inoculation. He was an inventor, a botonist, a biologist, a lawyer, a philosopher, and a scientist. He would certainly never have allowed religious dictates to stand in the way of stem cell research. What kind of morons do you think they were?
What in God’s name are you even talking about? That paragraph wasn’t even addressed to you, and I have absolutely no clue what this is supposed to have to do with anything contained in the my quoted statement. Stem cell research and its relation to small pox inoculations in the 18th century may well be an interesting topic of discussion, but it certainly doesn’t have anything to do with the difference between 18th century classical liberalism and the moral and philosophical principles contained therein and their relation to modern social liberalism, which is premised upon a very different set of moral and philosophical principles.
Now you may insist that it’s not, call me a name and claim that you’re using my logic. But if you refuse to accept the evidence of the circular reasoning going on here that doesn’t change the fact that that is exactly what is happening. If you can’t see that this is circular than it’s likely that you haven’t understood much else that’s been discussed either.
I haven’t called you any names or endeavored to use your logic. The example construction that you have posted is very clearly a textbook example of circular logic, but the only problem is that aside from you, I haven’t seen anybody else in the comments section here present that argument (although a similar construction could definitely be inferred from Mr. Duke’s original article, you appear to be ascribing that logical construction to sedonaman and not Mr. Duke).
You are endeavoring to present a case that your conception of truth and morality is of superior quality to all others while at the same time insisting that morality and truth are relative and ultimately personal. I don’t think anyone in this discussion is at a loss for comprehension of your argument. That they disagree with your conclusion is no more an indication of their stupidity or ignorance as your disagreement with their conclusion is of yours. Considering your original contention that there is no objective standard by which to measure truth, moral or otherwise, your new proposition that any competing conception of truth or morality to yours (including secular moral concepts) is defective is a bit surprising and out of character with your original proposition. That’s all.
I do appreciate your post, and I’m sorry my response to it didn’t take.
That’s alright. I think we’re basically just spinning our wheels here anyway. I’ll leave you fellows to continue the moral relativism argument – it’s a bit tangential to the original piece anyway.
It seems we were composing our comments at the same time. A quick reply:
But is it? Is the libertarian willing to entertain any position and hold all his positions, including his most fundamental standards, goals and decisions, and his basic philosophical position itself open to criticism? If not then how can you make a claim of individual autonomy?
Yes, it is. The libertarian is willing to entertain other positions as long as they are based upon the same fundamental premise of the supremacy of the individual. Modern social liberalism is not at all concerned with the supremacy of the individual. Quite the opposite, it is concerned with the supremacy of the collective and the subjugation of the individual to the group. You cannot claim to support individual autonomy while stripping individuals of their autonomy. So in that sense, you would be correct to compare libertarianism to any other moral system (Mr. Duke may want to take note – libertarianism is NOT an amoral ideology).
You seem to think that liberalism is something static. That it stopped being what it is in the 18th Century hence the term “classical liberal”
“Liberal” is nothing more or less than a relative term to differentiate ideas that are new from those that are old. The term “classical liberal” has a very specific meaning so as to differentiate it in time from social liberalism and other ideologies that have come to be known as “liberal” in a relative sense. That the founders rejected the “conservatism” of the 18th century, which entailed monarchical authoritarianism and economic mercantilism, is no indication whatsoever that they would have accepted democratic authoritarianism and economic collectivism. Change for the sake of change is mindless, and I doubt that the founding fathers, after having risked their fortunes, reputations, and their very lives in order to establish a political system premised on the supremacy of the individual would have, if they had lived long enough, woke up one morning and said “to hell with it, you know what sounds fun today? Communism!” They were revolutionaries, but not for the sake of being revolutionaries. Had the ideology of individualism been known as “conservatism” in the 18th century, they would have called themselves “conservatives”, and if it had been known as “flying monkeyism” they would have called themselves “flying monkeyists”. The term itself is relative, and consequently rather meaningless unless it is used in historical perspective.
You do bring up and interesting point though. Now that, as you say, democratic authoritarianism and economic collectivism have become accepted ideas, can you still lay claim to the “liberal” title, or is it the people who oppose such ideas who are actually liberal? I fundamentally disagree with more policies of America’s federal government than I agree with and would like to see the government changed dramatically from the form it takes today. Yet I think if I identified myself as a “liberal” I would not find much sympathetic company in most of the groups who identify with the term. I don’t think Thomas Jefferson or James Madison would either.
“That paragraph wasn’t even addressed to you, and I have absolutely no clue what this is supposed to have to do with anything contained in the my quoted statement.”
Then perhaps what you might think of doing is not mixing your comments to me with the comments of other people. In a post with comments that are directed toward me if you’ve said something to someone else that I find problematic, I’ll be inclined to jump in. Theres a way to avoid that. Post to one person at a time.
“Stem cell research and its relation to small pox inoculations in the 18th century may well be an interesting topic of discussion, but it certainly doesn’t have anything to do with the difference between 18th century classical liberalism and the moral and philosophical principles contained therein and their relation to modern social liberalism, which is premised upon a very different set of moral and philosophical principles.”
No it isn’t. If the question is the state of liberalism of the 18th century vs. the liberalism of today, the question is how would we know what those that we refer to might have evolved into in a more modern setting. These men were a product of their times and theres no reason to believe that they wouldn’t be today as well. The principles of todays liberal are still rooted in the words of Locke, Voltair, Rouseau, Hume, Jefferson, and all of the Enlightment philosophers. The Age of Reason. Thomas Paine. ( Beck should be horsewhipped for claiming any kinship with Paine) That hasn’t changed. As a modern liberal I can say emphatically that I for one still hold to those ideas. Paine was all about Freethought and the most liberal of them all. He was the closest thing to a socialist at that time. We understand for example that it wasn’t as much Decarte’s reason as it was Newtons Laws; not abstraction and definition ( the hallmark of conservatism – their need to define people is stunning), but rather observation and experience. The real power of reason lay not in the possession, but in the acquisition of truth. The ideal for knowledge was a further development of 17th century logic and science with an emphasis on:
The particular rather than the general ( deduction rather then induction.David Hume was of that period and introduced the Problem of Induction.)
Observable facts rather then principles ( conservatives cling to their principles)
Experience rather than rational speculation.
Liberalism is more easily recognized for what it is not, than for what it is.
“I haven’t called you any names or endeavored to use your logic.”
I didn’t mean you personally. I was speaking rhetorically. It was an example. Understand?
“I haven’t seen anybody else in the comments section here present that argument (although a similar construction could definitely be inferred from Mr. Duke’s original article, you appear to be ascribing that logical construction to sedonaman and not Mr. Duke).”
Ok..there’s a great amount of confusion here. It’s late and I’ll attribute it to that. I was not suggesting that either party used circular logic in what they had said. It was an example. I was however pointing out that within the arguments that Sedonaman used, his claim was that he used “my logic”. I said he had not and if he had I would have seen it. Furthermore it isn’t “My logic”. You questioned that claim by me. I used the illustration of a circular reasoning process to show that it would be clearly understood by anybody with intellectual honesty that a person was using faulty logic whether he’d admit to it or not. So when I say that he was not using “my logic” because I would have seen it, it is because I use deductive reasoning and he doesn’t. I know it well, and I’m assuming that you do also. His calling me names doesn’t change that. Ok?
As for Mr Duke, I found him to be intellectually dishonest. His attributing a false statement to Madison which clearly came from a notorious historical revisionist, let me know what I need to know regarding him. He’s a conservative and it’s what I’ve come to expect from them. A willingness to lie to promote their ideology. Clealy Truth doesn’t matter to them. So I have no use for Conservatism. It’s crap and always has been. Considering that this discussion has centered around the Truth, I’m not surprised that he hasn’t posted anything to add to this discussion.
“You are endeavoring to present a case that your conception of truth and morality is of superior quality to all others while at the same time insisting that morality and truth are relative and ultimately personal.”
No.I’m questioning yours. And others. Also,what I’m doing is exposing some hypocrisy here. I’ve already done it with Duke, and now it’s about those that assume that they have some kind of lock on objective truth. I don’t claim to. I’ve never made that claim and never will. And once again as I’ve already stated which you’ve either ignored or missed or simply can’t get past…I’m not a relativist. Ok?? I will post this for you one more time, and then you’re on your own. “Truth is the same for all of us. There is only one truth. We’re each approaching it from different directions and positions and situations.”
Do you see it in there. “TRUTH IS THE SAME FOR ALL OF US. THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUTH!. Now..you keep insinuating that I’m saying that truth is relative. I haven’t said that at all. That indicates to me that you do not grasp what I have said in this thread.
I used this example before but I don’t think it posted:
20 people enter a room. Its large and empty except for an elaborate sculpture in the center of the room. The 20 people circle that statue standing 6 feet apart from each other. The scupture represents the Truth. Each of the persons in the circle is asked to describe the Truth. You will get 20 different answers. Why? Because they are all seeing the same thing from diffent points of view. You are seeing it from your side, but you cannot see the object jetting out from the bottom of the sculpture that faces the person directly opposite you. The person across and to the right does not see the curve in the sculpture that you see. But all of you see the Truth. It is one. All of you see it, but you cannot see what isn’t in your line of sight.You only see it from your perspective. And that’s as it should be. It’s beyond our ability to conceive of. We do get glimpses of it now and then when we can get rid of the things that obscure it.
I have never said that truth is relative. What I’ve said and I’ll say it again, is that you cannot own it. You have no monopoly on it. It’s far to vast for anyone to grasp. We get glimpses of it, and the best way to find it that I’ve come accross is not through inductive means. You dont present an idea and then look for a bunch of things to support the idea. Thats induction and you’ll never prove your idea is true. So if it’s the truth that your after..that won’t get you there. There is another way. Through he stripping away of garbage that obscures the truth. As a sculptor chips away at a block of marble to reveal that statue within, he removes those things that obscure the truth. It’s through deductive reasoning that we can falsify a claim. If we can disprove a claim then it’s one less thing to obscure the truth, and we have a clearer vision of reality. It’s a deductive process. It’s how science goes about disproving a theory. A theory that can withstand relentless criticism stays. Those that can’t are tossed, and the Truth is more clearly represented. You’ll never own it, so don’t act is if you can, and play the moral superiority game. I’m not claiming any such thing as moral superiority. I’m holding those that do exactly that accountable for their own posturing. Demonstrate the truth of your values to me if you can. If you can’t, then keep them to yourself. I have mine and do fine without anybody attempting to
LEGISLATE MORALITY which is what this thread is about.
“What I’ve said and I’ll say it again, is that you cannot own it.”
“The real power of reason lay not in the possession, but in the acquisition of truth. The ideal for knowledge was a further development of 17th century logic and science with an emphasis on:
The particular rather than the general ( deduction rather then induction.David Hume was of that period and introduced the Problem of Induction.)”
Observable facts rather then principles ( conservatives cling to their principles)
Experience rather than rational speculation.
There you have the view of a modern liberal and those of the philosophers of the Enlightenment itself. Show me the inconsistancy.
The claim that modern liberals have nothing in common with “classical liberalism” is bogus, and fostered by those that would go out of their way to discredit the very thing that this country was founded upon. Liberalism evolves. That’s what it does. Liberalism IS change, and it never stays in one place. What shape it took in the 18th century was based on life at that time. This is now. The clock moves forward not backward.
“The libertarian is willing to entertain other positions as long as they are based upon the same fundamental premise of the supremacy of the individual.”
You’re expressing a view known as foundationalism. Your saying that you are willing to entertain other positions as long as they are based on someting( in this case – the supremacy of the individual) Your suggesting here that things require basis, so what is the basis for your basis? It can’t be it’s own basis. You’re facing something called the “Munchhousen Trilema”. Foundationalism cannot escape this. It must choose between an Infinite regress; the necessity to go further and further back in search for foundations for the foundation, or a logical circle in the deduction. Circular logic. Statements are used in the process that in themselves are in need of foundations- or a dogmatic breaking-off of the process at a certain point which involves an arbitrary suspension of the principle of sufficient reason. That is to say Infinite regress vs. dogma.Or circular logic. Those are now your choices. Bon apatite.
A rationalist philosophy cannot establish its own foundations.
“Quite the opposite, it is concerned with the supremacy of the collective and the subjugation of the individual to the group.”
I’m afraid you’ve been reading too much Ayn Rand. I read her in my twenties. It was fun. Like a comic book. Then I moved on. For your information as a liberal..I do not believe in the supremacy of the collective. That’s Ayn Rand hogwash. The charactors in her books are black and white. We are not Ellsworth Touhy. He’s an exaggerated charactor designed to elicit an emotional response. And it obviously worked on you. The boiler plate attacks of “the supremacy of the collective”. Really?? But this does tell me what I need to know.
“You cannot claim to support individual autonomy while stripping individuals of their autonomy.”
You don’t have the autonomy that you think you have. In fact I probably have what you wish you had. I have no addiction to dogma of any kind. You do. I do not carry theories of rationality. You do. I’ve already pointed it out. You lay claim to something; “autonomy” while at the same time you are bound to dogma. I said this before. Can a libertarian be one who is willing to entertain ANY position and holds ALL his positions, including his MOST FUNDAMENTAL STANDARDS,GOALS, AND DECISIONS, and his BASIC PHILOSOPHICAL POSITION itself, open to criticism; one who NEVER cuts off an argument by resorting to Faith, or irrational, commitment to justify some belief that has been under severe critical fire; one who is COMMITTED, ATTACHED, ADDICTED to NO position?? And that includes Libertarainism and it’s entire philosophy/ideology.
The fact is that you cannot do this without imposing a condition which allows you to hold onto your libertarian dogma. Theres no autonomy in that my friend. How can you claim autonomy when you clearly have to place a condition on my question to you? Did you think that would escape me??
So you are confronted with the dilemma of looking for the basis for your basis or stopping the process and resorting to circular reasoning. Which is irrational. I think you know that. It is a logical fallacy, which I already know that you recognize.
“Had the ideology of individualism been known as “conservatism” in the 18th century, they would have called themselves “conservatives”, and if it had been known as “flying monkeyism” they would have called themselves “flying monkeyists”. The term itself is relative, and consequently rather meaningless unless it is used in historical perspective.”
So now it’s all relative. I see. There is a history of conservatism that essentially is the preservation of existing institutions. That goes back thousands of years. There is a breaking of that with the social contract which spawned liberalism. Although the word “liberal” appears in the Bible in Isaiah 32;5-8. It’s the rejection of the Divine Right of Kings. Your explanation is an attempt at justification through relativism.
There is no autonomy for a person attatched to dogma I’m afraid. You’ll cling to it no doubt because it’s convinced you that your individuality is at stake. Your own ego needs that. The fact of the matter is that it isn’t. But like most religions you’ve accepted it and are willing to subject yourself to the dogma of a theory of rationality that isn’t even your own idea.
A person such as myself needs to distinguish between the truth and falsity in every case, at least when such a case comes up for questioning. That’s what an individual does. You on the other hand need only apply your theory of rationality to whatever assertion is in question. As such, you need never distinguish between truth and falsity. Your theory does that for you. Because I maintain my autonomy, I have a need to distinguish between truth and falsity, You do not.
In other words, if such a theory of rationality existed and really worked, the truth would take care of itself. We would never have to decide anything. What I’m is asserting is that we always must decide, such that there can’t really be a method, or meta-method, at least not in any positive sense. But that is what an individual does.
An example might be induction. Theories of rationality using induction are a bit like this: First, we look at particular cases. When we note a pattern that is repeating itself, after a certain number of repetitions of a “particular” our theory of rationality tells us to classify it as a universal. After many observations of “a swan is white” I classify “all swans are white.” as true.
Certain Christians perhaps assert that their method for deciding truth is to listen to God, divine inspiration, or to trust the word of God as presented in the bible. Some scientists say we should use induction, some Christians divine inspiration or the Bible, Buddhists perhaps emphasize meditation … Conservatives listen to Rush Limbaugh, Libertarains read Ayn Rand…hopefully you get the picture. Rather than rely on human judgment, actual judgment is placed upon some theory of rationality. It’s rooted in authoritrianism. Each one that I’ve pointed to rely’s on an appeal to authority. Ad Vericundium. The heavy lifting has already been done. Now, they receive instruction on how to think.
I suggest, that there simply is no positive method whereby we can obtain the truth. Not only this, I suggest that attemping to hold to such a positive method might narrow our viewpoint such that the quest for truth is made more difficult. In an attempt to get our decision about the truth to fit with some narrow view of what the method of truth should be, we will be restricting ourselves in a way that is unnecessary. After all, there is no one method that is the end-all-be-all of obtaining truth.
Ultimately determining truth is something inexplicable that humans do. There’s no way to figure out how they do this, such that it can be condensed into a sure fire algorithm. There’s no way to create an algorithm that would determine truth.
Rather than any positive method, a negative method is sort of suggested. We can approach the truth primarily by trying to understand new ideas, letting these new ideas come into conflict with previously held ideas, and thereby making adjustments which bring us closer to the truth. Note, I take the term new ideas fairly broadly such that it could conceivably even be taken as a new observation. For example, I find a black swan. I now hold that there is at least one black swan. That’s a new idea for me. New ideas if rejected, of course, don’t really come into conflict with older ideas. There’s no rule that says we must take on board any new idea. What we must do is look for new ideas, or think them up, and then take them under consideration.
As we take on new ideas, we bring them into conflict with the old ones. The sorting process leaves us closer to the truth. The more we can do to facilitate this process the better we can do at getting nearer to the truth.
One way to facilitate this process is to argue against positive methods for obtaining the truth, which overly restrict our viewpoints. You I’m afraid are offering a positive methodology called Libertarianism.
An important thing to note is that theories of rationality lead to irrationalism. Imagine you have a theory of rationality.
How did you decide about this theory? In your case it’s libertarianism. As this is your meta-theory, it can not judge itself in terms of rationality. Any positive argument in regards to rationality cannot judge itself without creating a circular argument.
I used this before, but it bears repeating. For example:
A: Why are you rational?
B: Because I listen to God. ( or Ayn Rand )
A: How do you know that listening to God (Rand)is rational.
B: Because God (Rand)told me.
That’s circular.
Another question, why should all other theories be subservient to one particular theory of rationality? When crossing the street do you actually apply a theory of rationality? “Hm, I see some cars coming. Is that a rational thought? Let’s see, what does my theory of rationality say about this?” Nobody does this. The only reason people use theories of rationality is when they want to assert moral superiority. That’s the only purpose they serve. Some people want to say their opinion is better than someone else’s opinion. In order to show it is better, they resort to a theory of rationality.
The only possible benefit you can possibly receive from having a positive theory of rationality is it can give you a sense of moral superiority when dealing with others. That is, if you think your theory of rationality is correct, you could be sure you were right and whoever disagrees with you is wrong. Or at least you could argue that way. However, your opponent could merely point out your theory of rationality itself was also irrational. At this point the argument ends. You both take your irrational stand and the only way to resolve the conflict is to engage in violence.
People who hold close to some theory of rationality at this point usually ask weird questions, like, “what if a man believes the moon is made of green cheese?” or “why should I accept that cold blooded murder is wrong?”
They feel as if without some theory of rationality they will be lost without rudder at sea. However, it is perfectly acceptable NOT to believe the moon is made of green cheese, even if you don’t have a theory of rationality. It is perfectly acceptable to hold that cold blooded murder is wrong even without a theory of rationality. It’s as if people who want a theory of rationality think they need permission to think this way or that. They don’t.
In this sense, I tend to think I may be showing far more trust in humanity than traditional theories of rationality do.
“Yet I think if I identified myself as a “liberal” I would not find much sympathetic company in most of the groups who identify with the term.”
I think that’s the least of your worries. Nobody is going to mistake you for a liberal, but I do find it amusing that so many people find a need to define themselves in liberal terms.
Thanks for your time.
…
But logic is not an end in itself; it is a tool to arrive at truth. What kind of reasoning is your statements like “logic leads us to truth” and “truth is a value, and values cannot be demonstrated as true”? How can logic lead us to truth if truth [a subset of values, according to you] cannot be demonstrated as true?
That you’ve explained very clearly is your value, just like your preference for Pepsi over Coke. It’s not my value; and, according to liberals, all values are of equal worth. Nor can you claim the moral high ground because morality is relative, according to liberals, so there is no ground higher than another.
If I proved that there was such a thing as objective truth, my conclusion itself would be an objective truth. But if you proved there was no such thing as objective truth, your conclusion [i.e., “there was no such thing as objective truth”] would contradict itself because it would claim to be an objective truth, something it says doesn’t exist.
The idea that there is no objective truth is an article of faith for liberals, something you and Gestell deride conservatives for using in their reasoning.
reply to sedonaman,
In what book did you read that the idea that there is no objective truth is an article of faith for liberals?” Or is this something you just know is so because you know it is so? I think what you want to say is that liberals don’t believe in what you claim are objective truths–which is a very different issue. Or do you even have any idea what you think you’re talking about?
Offhand I can’t think of any liberals who claim there is no ‘objective truth.’ I’d try to help you identify some of them if you had any idea what you meant by ‘objective truth.’ Maybe what you’re claiming is that there are factual states of affairs that are what they are regardless of whether or not you or anyone else happens to recognize this. So, the statement ‘the earth revolves around the sun’ is (objectively) true whether or not anyone on earth had yet discovered this fact. Fine, and I can’t think of liberals who would disagree. But what if your claim is that the American founders were inspired by God? Tell me how you’d go about demonstrating this. First there would have to be some sort of absolutely compelling proof that God exists, since, if he doesn’t exist, logically no one can be inspired by him. And please don’t reply by saying that the Bible tells you so, because, once more, you’d have to prove that the Bible is correct, which brings you back again to whether God exists.
Now let’s try another type of claim: ‘the free market provides the best possible allocations of goods and services.’ Sounds great, except for the fact that, in conventional free market theory, this is not a matter of anybody doing any empirical observation at all. It is instead dependent on how the concepts included in it are defined. So, the claim is a theoretical (and debatable) proposition, not an empirical generalization. Besides, we can always ask ‘best’ according to whose criteria?
Of course all of this is tiring for a conservative ideologue for whom such things are just ‘philosophy’ and thus suspect.
Not at all. Would you call adagio’s statement “truth is a value, and values cannot be demonstrated as true” an objective truth, article of faith, or something else? I don’t think we are going to get anywhere until he answers that question.
“But logic is not an end in itself; it is a tool to arrive at truth.”
I believe that’s what I said. Let me look.”Logic is the study of arguments. It’s what we use to evaluate correct reasoning from poor reasoning.”
Yep. What didn’t you get?
“What kind of reasoning is your statements like “logic leads us to truth” and “truth is a value, and values cannot be demonstrated as true”?”
Do you not value truth? I’ve said all along that you cannot demonstrate objective truth. I have never once denied that objective truth is real. What I’ve said is that nobody can own it. The best way that I’ve found in getting to the truth is by stripping away those things we know to be false. If we can know something is false, we know it by it’s opposite. If Truth did not exist, there would be no falshoods. But there are. Eliminate what is false, and what you have as the remainder..is Truth. Keep using that process of elimination and each time you will get closer to it. But if you think that it’s something that can be owned, possessed, or that you and your theory of rationality have a lock on it….you’re terribly wrong. It’s a bit bigger than that. This is where logic comes in. It’s a tool that helps us to weed out false arguments, such as this one.
” It’s not my value; and, according to liberals, all values are of equal worth.”
Where did you come up with this? Can you demonstrate the truth of that statement for me. Like maybe some article you read, or better yet..some kind of liberal manifesto? That would be good. I’d like to see the official liberal doctrine. Show it to me. I have many values. I don’t know about you, but something’s I place a higher value on than others. I place the highest value on something that can never be fully realized and that is the Truth. Obviously thats an abstract concept as opposed to the value I place on some material object. But, what I can do in order to keep things real in my life, is expose as much falsehood as I may find, in order to clear the air, so to speak, for the Truth to reveal more of itself. The easiest way to do that is to simply ask question of the people that present theories of rationality. Get them to explain why their theory of rationality is true. That’s difficult for them to do.
“If I proved that there was such a thing as objective truth, my conclusion itself would be an objective truth.”
Yep..guess it would.
“But if you proved there was no such thing as objective truth, your conclusion [i.e., “there was no such thing as objective truth”] would contradict itself because it would claim to be an objective truth, something it says doesn’t exist.”
I don’t usually deal in hypothetical questions like this because they generally present a scenario that couldn’t exist in the first place and then ask me to respond. First of all what you’re saying here is that if “I could prove there was no such thing as objective truth”,,,you’re suggesting that I or somebody could actually “prove a negative”. How can you prove on a universal level that something..God lets say..doesn’t exist. You’d have to search every corner of an infinite universe which contradicts that possible search in the first place. If the universe is infinite you could never complete the search that would prove the non-existence of this thing.
But if that reality could actually happen, then the rest of your question, “would contradict itself because it would claim to be an objective truth, something it says doesn’t exist.”
would be accurate. The proof of the non-existance of a Universal Truth..would in itself be a Universal Truth. Fortunately for both of us…I don’t think that to be the case. As I’ve said throughout this thread, I’m not a relativist. I do accept the reality of an Objective Truth. But it isn’t like some huge cube standing in the middle of Mecca that we all walk around and look at and see the same thing objectivly from every side. I’m afraid it’s something greater than that. You can’t Box up Truth and take it home with you. Those that think that they can are the very ones that propose legislating their morality on the rest of us. They are dangerous people, and need to be brought back to earth.
“The idea that there is no objective truth is an article of faith for liberals,”
Really??? I didn’t know that. Show me the article. Do you have a link to it? Did you read that somewhere? If so…then give me the link because I’ve never seen that. That claim in and of itself, illustrates more clearly than just about anything, the extent that your own theory of rationality has brain washed you. Who told you this? An article of faith?? Is there some Doctrine of liberalism that you can offer me? Some Canons like those of Conservative Russell Kirk that define what we believe in? Some Manifesto like that of Mark Levin that tells us what we are? Who defines what a liberal is?
The word “conservative” doesn’t appear in the Bible. But the word “liberal” does.
KJV – ISAIAH 32
5 The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said [to be] bountiful.
6 For the vile person will speak villany, and his heart will work iniquity, to practise hypocrisy, and to utter error against the LORD, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail.
7 The instruments also of the churl [are] evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right.
8 But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand.
It seems that God is quite pleased with the liberal. He doesn’t have very nice things to say about those that despise them.
So who defines a liberal?
Conservatives..that’s who. They revile us, slander us, call us traiters, anti-American…you know all the names and tactics. And that is because they present a competing ideology that is rooted in aristocracy, monarchy, theocracy and all other forms of authoritarian rule. And they want that back. Essentially conservatism is the domination of society by a groiup devoted to aristocracy. The very same people that we broke from in the revolution. It is totally incompatable with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It’s a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on complete deception ( note Mr Dukes reference to the false insertion of words that Madison never said to make his case )and a commitment to the Machiavellian concept that the ends justify the means, and has no place in the modern world.
It’s an ideology actually formalized by Russell Kirk who provided 6 canons that conservatives follow. Canons? Conservatism today has taken on the mantle of a religious cult. It has a doctrine that must be followed religiously or you risk excommunication. The problem with ideological thinking like this is that it assumes it’s own infallibility; that it is flawless. Yet fallible men created it. Is it even remotely possible that it could be wrong? Can an idea created by fallible men be infallible?
“Would you call adagio’s statement “truth is a value, and values cannot be demonstrated as true” an objective truth, article of faith, or something else? I don’t think we are going to get anywhere until he answers that question.”
I don’t deal in articles of faith. Articles of faith are relative and as I’ve said, I’m not a relativist. I’m only concerned with Truth, and you could probably understand from that, that I’m not a relativist. My statement here clearly indicates that I think that objective truth is real. I think that all theories, and statements presented as factually true must be falsifiable. If they don’t fall into that sphere, it’s because they are metaphysical and outside the realm of the physical universe. (Does God exist?…depends alot on you view God)
So when I say that Truth is a value, and values cannot be demonstrated as being true..I’m saying that Absolute Truth is not demonstrable. At best you will get glimpses of it. Any attenpt to demonstrate Truth inductively is logically impossible. That is objectively true. To attempt to do so requires that a person justify a position which will require more justification for the basis of the first justification, and on and on into infinite regress. I for one place a value on Truth. I think you probably do as well. There are many conservatives that don’t. I think if Mr.Duke valued Truth he wouldn’t have attempted to pass off a lie with regards to Madison. Perhaps he was simply too lazy to fact check the claim made by David Barton. Maybe he simply wants to “believe” that Barton is an honest broker. Whatever the case may be..as a writer he should make certain that what he writes is factually accurate, and the Truth. I falsified his claim. Now we know more of the Truth about what Madison actually said. Absolute Truth reaches infinitely beyond all of that. What we got was a glimps of it. So, now those that post to this forum, will know that truth. What will be interesting to see is if Mr.Duke continues to promote that lie, or retracts the claim, and begins to actually question the authority of people like Barton, and Beck who promotes him.
BTW..Sedonaman..have you been able to locate that “article of faith” you were referring to yet…
“The idea that there is no objective truth is an article of faith for liberals,”
…or was that simply something that you were told by your theory of rationality? I really would like either a link to that article of faith, or doctrine of liberalism or whatever. Maybe you could name that person who told you that, or the source that provided you with this illuminating idea? OR, as an alternative, an admission on your part, that your statement is false. In the future..beware of making absolute statements that you can’t back up. Avoid making statements that employ universal quantifiers. They can very easily be exposed as falshoods and I don’t think that you want to gain the reputation of presenting lies.
Faith [secular]: belief that is not based on proof – dictionary.com. Take the liberal idea that truth is a cultural artifact [see polyogism]. Where is the proof that this is true? In fact, show me any liberal idea that is backed by rigorous, logical proof. There isn’t any, so that truth is a cultural artifact is a belief that is not based on proof, IOW, an article of faith.
You ask what is a liberal? Then you go on some rant that conservatives define liberalism. The real climax of it is when you state,
I don’t think there is a better explanation of liberal beliefs … and it was stated by a liberal.
As far as a reference is concerned, see “Academia …and the Truth”, particularly Section IV, by John Kekes
Professor of Philosophy and Public Policy at the State University of New York, Albany
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12837
I would wager that the term “liberal” has changed significantly in the last 1,200 that have elapsed since Isaiah. Not to start a religious argument, but my Bible says “prince” not “liberal”.
If the question is the state of liberalism of the 18th century vs. the liberalism of today, the question is how would we know what those that we refer to might have evolved into in a more modern setting.
This is an irrelevant question based on pure speculation. If indeed the founders had lived long enough and, as you suggest, eventually abandoned every facet of their 18th century philosophy and embraced the polar opposite moral foundation of social liberalism and Marxism, it wouldn’t make their 18th century philosophy any more or less important or correct. The philosophy isn’t good because it came from the 18th century or because it came from the guys who founded America, it’s good because its moral premise is the supremacy of the individual. Despite your protestations to the contrary, classical liberalism and social liberalism share little or no underlying moral philosophy despite being couched in similar language.
He’s a conservative and it’s what I’ve come to expect from them. A willingness to lie to promote their ideology. Clealy Truth doesn’t matter to them. So I have no use for Conservatism. It’s crap and always has been.
This is a simplistic generalization that could just as easily, if not more so, be applied to social liberals, and is essentially what your entire “argument” boils down to. Conservatives are wrong because they are conservatives and conservatives are wrong. For someone who believes that the truth can be seen from a variety of different perspectives and that no one perspective is the correct one, you sure seem to hold one perspective in higher regard than all others. Essentially your argument is that absolute truth is incomprehensible, but that you have comprehended it more clearly than anyone else. Which, when compared to the religious conservative perspective on absolute truth, is really a distinction without a difference. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, as the saying goes.
I have never said that truth is relative. What I’ve said and I’ll say it again, is that you cannot own it. You have no monopoly on it. It’s far to vast for anyone to grasp.
Right. So if no one owns it, and every perspective on it is different, how is it that you can judge another’s perspective of it? There’s no wrong answer. Only different perspectives. So how do you presume to judge another’s perspective or compare it to your own? The very act of judging another’s concept of truth renders your theory invalid. If you can judge another’s concept of truth, then there must be a standard by which to judge it.
Incidentally, in the field of physics the concept that observations are affected by the perspective of the observer is known as… “relativity”.
Demonstrate the truth of your values to me if you can. If you can’t, then keep them to yourself. I have mine and do fine without anybody attempting to
LEGISLATE MORALITY which is what this thread is about.
We cannot demonstrate the truth of our values by your standard because no objective truth can exist. At best, we could “prove” what the truth looks like from our particular perspective, which may be different than the truth from a different perspective. So in the absence of any objective truth, or even of any moral “common denominator”, what right have we to create any laws at all? By forcing compliance with some standard of behavior, we are, in fact, legislating morality (this is the one regard in which Mr. Duke’s original piece is correct). If we punish or reward any behavior we are making a moral judgment on that behavior. The only question is what moral standard we will use to judge behavior. If you really practiced your principles, you would be advocating for total anarchy. That is the only political system capable of not legislating morality.
A rationalist philosophy cannot establish its own foundations.
Correct. No philosophy can. Philosophy requires foundations, and foundations are nothing more or less than self-created axioms. You can attribute your axioms to nature (or reason, which is an extension of nature), acknowledge that your axioms are fabrications of the human mind, or attribute your axioms to something beyond nature and the human mind.
I’m afraid you’ve been reading too much Ayn Rand… I do not believe in the supremacy of the collective. That’s Ayn Rand hogwash.
How is it that you can demand, with the force of law, one person to forfeit his money to provide health care accommodations to another if you value the individual more highly than the collective? You cannot. How is that you can demand, with the force of law, one person to forfeit his money to provide a monthly retirement stipend to another if you value the individual more highly than the collective? You cannot. How is it that you can demand, with the force of law, one person to carry insurance against damage that he might do to another’s property if you value the individual more highly than the collective? You cannot. Your irrational obsession with Ayn Rand notwithstanding, the moral values of social liberals are concerned with groups, not individuals. You may believe your views to be more nuanced than that, but if you break the ideology down to its most fundamental moral premise, that is what you are left with.
In fact I probably have what you wish you had. I have no addiction to dogma of any kind.
LOL. Okay. If that helps you feel more personally satisfied with your ideology, then that’s fantastic. I have no psychological hang ups that require me to pretend that my ideology is not actually ideology. And I’d much rather be a slave to my dogma than to the dogma that you practice but dare not identify.
You lay claim to something; “autonomy” while at the same time you are bound to dogma.
Well, yes and no. I lay claim to “autonomy”, meant to be understood as the supremacy of the individual, as the highest moral goal. I couldn’t very well lay claim to individualism as my moral standard while being willing to embrace collectivism, now could I? That would be a contradiction. Just like advocating collectivism while claiming to embrace individualism.
There is a history of conservatism that essentially is the preservation of existing institutions. That goes back thousands of years. There is a breaking of that with the social contract which spawned liberalism… Your explanation is an attempt at justification through relativism.
Correct. That’s by definition. That’s what “conservative” means. “Conservative” is, defintionally, the opposite of “liberal”. The terms themselves, by definition, are relative. This is not a justification. It’s the identity property. “Near” and “far” are relative terms as well – they are essentially meaningless outside of context (in cosmic terms, “near” can be a few billion miles; in conversational terms, “near” could be a few feet to a few miles). This terminology did not change with the advent of liberalism in the 18th century either. As has happened throughout history, once the new (“liberal”) ideology became the accepted norm, those who desired to preserve it became “conservative” and those who desired to change it became the new “liberals”.
A person such as myself needs to distinguish between the truth and falsity in every case, at least when such a case comes up for questioning. That’s what an individual does. You on the other hand need only apply your theory of rationality to whatever assertion is in question. As such, you need never distinguish between truth and falsity.
A person such as yourself needs to cling to the idea that his decision-making process transcends the confines of standard human reasoning and concepts of truth so that you can justify whatever disparate whims happen to strike your fancy on a particular day, week, month or year as the product of some esoteric analysis rather than knee-jerk emotionalism. A theory of irrationality versus a theory of rationality. Take your pick.
What I’m is asserting is that we always must decide, such that there can’t really be a method, or meta-method, at least not in any positive sense. But that is what an individual does.
Of course we “must always decide”; and of course we do! Using one’s moral standard to reach consistent conclusions about the world is not an indication of poor reasoning, low intellect, or dependence on authority. Conversely, trying to have no moral standard and reaching inconsistent conclusions is not an indication of sound reasoning, high intellect, or independent individualism.
What we must do is look for new ideas, or think them up, and then take them under consideration.
Yes. And failing to replace an old idea with a new idea, or only embracing ideas that advance a particular moral principle, is not an indication of defective thinking. In fact, constantly re-evaluating our ideas and desperately seeking new ideas merely because they are new is the mindless, aimless pursuit of change as its own end. This is the endless appeal of liberalism. We don’t know where we’re going, or why we’re going there, but we’re making good time!
I used this before, but it bears repeating. For example:
A: Why are you rational?
B: Because I listen to God. ( or Ayn Rand )
A: How do you know that listening to God (Rand)is rational.
B: Because God (Rand)told me.
That’s circular.
Here again, that’s a great example of circular logic, but one that nobody in this discussion has employed. You are valiantly slaughtering theories which nobody has advanced, except I suppose in your own mind. At the same time, you fail to recognize that justifying your rationality by appealing to your chosen externality (variously logic and the scientific method) is equally circular.
I don’t usually deal in hypothetical questions like this because they generally present a scenario that couldn’t exist in the first place and then ask me to respond.
In other words, you don’t usually address your own argument if it is turned around on you. You demand evidence of a truth that you axiomatically state cannot be known objectively and then castigate anyone who disagrees with you for failing to prove something that you stated at the outset cannot be proven. At the same time, you define the unknowable truth by contrast with the ostensibly-knowable false (how there can be a knowable false without a knowable truth is anyone’s guess) without defining either so that you can pretend as if your political ideology is a matter of science rather than philosophy or your own conjecture. This is why this entire discussion has been so unproductive. Your argument, distilled to its most basic form, is “There is no objective truth or morality, and if you disagree with me, you’re wrong”. This is a non sequitur.
It’s becoming terribly difficult to keep up with your voluminous keyboard diarrhea, and you haven’t said anything new since your second posting to this discussion, so I’m going to go ahead and leave my comments at that.
“Faith [secular]: belief that is not based on proof – dictionary.com”
Why are you putting the word “secular” inside your definition of faith? Faith has many definitions, but the word secular doesn’t appear in them. You’re adding something that has no relation to what you’re defining.
“Take the liberal idea that truth is a cultural artifact [see polyogism].”
Polylogism is a word coined by Ayn Rand. It’s a part of her lexicon. Polylogism is the doctrine that there is not one correct logic, one correct method of reasoning necessarily binding on all men, but that there are many logics, each valid for some men and invalid for the others.I have not in any way shape or form suggested any form of polylogism. Who told you this was a “liberal idea”. Is it endorsed by Liberals? If so..who?
“Faith [secular]: belief that is not based on proof – dictionary.com.”
Why are you including the word “secular” in your definition. There are many definitions of the word faith, but secular doesn’t appear in them. And the word secualar makes no mention of faith in it’s definition. Did you just throw that in for effect?
“Take the liberal idea that truth is a cultural artifact [see polyogism].”
Who told you that this was a liberal idea? Ayn Rand? It’s a word that she coined. It’s part of her lexicon. Polylogism is the doctrine that there is not one correct logic, one correct method of reasoning necessarily binding on all men, but that there are many logics, each valid for some men and invalid for the others. Actually, polylogism is not a theory of logic—it is a denial of logic. That’s directly from and Ayn Rand website.
You’ve been arguing with a liberal that applies logic. ONE logic. Completely contradicting your claim. Are you all-in on this theory of rationality to the extent that you’ve lost your ability to use reason? Tell my what liberals endorse this idea? Have any of your people told you that liberals are cannibles as well?
” In fact, show me any liberal idea that is backed by rigorous, logical proof. There isn’t any, so that truth is a cultural artifact is a belief that is not based on proof, IOW, an article of faith ”
Where should I begin? How about the liberal concept that the earth isn’t actually flat but round and it revolves around the sun. Pretty liberal concept for the time, and met with conservative opposition that almost cost Galilleo his life. In fact you could say that every scientific advance was an excercise in liberal thought that challenged the status quo. How about the liberal idea of giving women the right to vote, opposed by conservatives. How about child labor laws, opposed by conservatives. How about the very revolution that started this country. Opposed by conservative aristocrats and a foreign monarchy. How about the space program that put a man on the moon and launched the Hubble Telescope that has taken us to the deepest parts of the universe, and advanced our understanding of the origins of the universe itself? I could go on, but it’s clear that every advancement in human history has been the result of a liberal idea whose time had come.
“You ask what is a liberal? Then you go on some rant that conservatives define liberalism. The real climax of it is when you state,”
Glad you liked it. All of it is verifiable, including the concept of complete deception as illustrated by our very own Mr.Duke regarding the words of James Madison. Deception exposed. You don’t seem to have an issue with that. Do you not place a value on Truth?
“As far as a reference is concerned, see “Academia …and the Truth”, particularly Section IV, by John Kekes”
I did.What you’re doing here is applying what’s called the Appeal to Biased Authority. In this sort of appeal, the authority is one who acutally is knowledgeable on the matter, but one who may have professional or personal motivations that render his professional judfment suspect. For instance, “To determine whether fraternities are beneficial to this campus, we interviewed all the frat presidents.” Indeed, it is importan to get “both viewpoints” on an argument, but basing a substantial part of your argument on a source that has personal, professional, or financial interests at stake may lead to biased arguments. A good example of this is the debate that occurred over the healthcare reform bill in congress. Republicans cited studies by The Lewin Group who wer experts on healthcare. The catch is that The Lewin Group is a wholly owned subsidiary of United Health Group. One of the largest health insurance companies in the country who had a vested interest in the outcome. The Republicans made the Appeal to Biased Authority. And so have you. Mr. Kekes is a conservative, with decided conservative views that he promotes. He clearly has a biased view and if he is your source, then you are expecting me to take the words of a conservative in describing the motivations of liberals. Why would I accept that viewpoint?
For example you quoted Kekes with this: “One of the ways this is done is through indoctrination with the view that truth is a cultural artifact that has no relation to objective facts, and merely reflects beliefs individuals have been conditioned to hold. Truth is said to be a product of how the world is seen, not how it is. This is relativism, which is virtually the official doctrine in departments of sociology, anthropology, psychology, history, and, under the name of deconstruction, in many departments of literature and languages as well.”
Kekes is making a universal statement on the state of academia. I would ask him to demonstrate the truth of what he’s saying. Is this the official doctrine at universities throughout the United States. I very much doubt it, and I would challenge him to prove his claim.
His statement: “Truth is said to be a product of how the world is seen, not how it is.”
Said by whom? So far I only see it said by Kekes himself. He’s constructing his own reality here.
and this: “This is relativism, which is virtually the official doctrine in departments of sociology, anthropology, psychology, history, and, under the name of deconstruction, in many departments of literature and languages as well.”
This isn’t the “official doctrine” at Yale which I’m familar with. So where did he get this information? Has he investigated the “official doctrines” of postmodern deconstructionism that he concludes premeate the university environment in America? I’ll bet the answer is no. But since it’s his claim the burden of proof of this is on him. So Mr.Kekes appears to be promoting his subjective view of what is occuring on campuses in this country and supported by virtually nothing. I ask him what I ask everyone making such universal claims…demonstrate the truth of your statement. In his paper, he doesn’t do that.
“This is an irrelevant question based on pure speculation.”
You made it relevent when you made the distinction between “classical liberalism of the 18th century and the “social or modern liberalism” of today.You can’t make that distinction without expecting a response.
“eventually abandoned every facet of their 18th century philosophy and embraced the polar opposite moral foundation of social liberalism and Marxism, it wouldn’t make their 18th century philosophy any more or less important or correct.”
That’s called Begging the Question”. Your statement assumes that today’s liberal is the polar opposite of the liberal of the 18th century which it isn’t. And you throw in Marxism for spice which is ludicrous. It’s a rather feeble attempt to discredit liberalism even to the extent of attempting to redefine 18th century liberals as the equivalent of todays’conservatives. Why do conservatives need liberalism to define themselves?
” Despite your protestations to the contrary, classical liberalism and social liberalism share little or no underlying moral philosophy despite being couched in similar language.”
Despite your insistance to the contrary, you’re wrong. Perhaps you should re-read The Rights of Man by Paine for starters. Then you could look into the fundamental premise of the Enlightement which is carried forward to today. That being that the real power of reason lay not in the possession, but in the acquisition of truth. The ideal for knowledge was a further development of 17th century logic and science with an emphasis on:
The particular rather then the general
Observable Facts rather then principles
Experience rather than rational speculation.
Contrast that with the 6 Canons of conservatism laid out by Russell Kirk in the Conservative Mind
1. A divine intent, as well as personal conscience, rules society
2.Traditional lfe is filled with variety and mystery while most radical systems are characterized by a narrowing uniformaty
3.Civilized society requires orders and classes.
4.Property and freedom are inseperably connected.
5.Man must control his will and his appetitie knowing that he is governed more by emotion than by reason,and
6. Society must alter slowly
In this you can see that the liberal views adopted in the Enlightement period were rather simple juxtapositions of how we prioritize our thinking. Kirk issues a set of Canons which he later expended into his 10 Principles which can and should be critiqued. They amount to a religious cult. I’ve done it. They amount to one justification after another for Plato’s authoritarianism in the Republic, a justification for prejudice in his third principle, a justification for a heirarchal aristocracy in his 5th principle and so on.
“This is a simplistic generalization that could just as easily, if not more so, be applied to social liberals, and is essentially what your entire “argument” boils down to.”
I’m on a conservative blog. I’ve found conservatives have no interest in the Truth. I think that if they did, they wouldn’t be conservatives. Mr.Duke, is simply one more example of that conservative methodology that is willing to float a lie to make a point. If you can find a case of a liberal deliberately lieing in this way, then show me and I’ll be glad to condemn for it, which appears to be more then you’re willing to do. For a person that thinks truth matters this doesn’t seem to bother you.
In an AP story, I found this: Iowa GOP Rep: Obama “favors the black person”. It seems that Iowa Republican Congresman Steve King says President Obama favors blacks over whites and a GOP candidate fro Colorado has cancelled a fundraiser theIowan was to keynote.
Rep.Steve King, known for his sometimes incendiary remarks about immigration, Abu Ghraib and other issues, criticized President Obama and AG Eric Holder who also is black, in an interview Monday on G.Gordon Liddy’s syndicated radio talk show.
“I’m offended byEric Holder and the president also for their posture” said King.”It looks like Eric Holder said that white people in America are cowards when it comes to race”
In a 2009 speech, Holder did NOT suggest that whites are more cowardly than blacks when discussing race as King indicated in the radio interview.
This is what Holder said:
“…though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot. In things racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.”
Christopher Reed, an Iowa conservatie activist, defended King. “He is one ofthose few politicians who actually says what he thinks,” Reed said. “One mans controversy is another mans truth” ?????
Thats quite a statement from a conservative activist. What he’s saying here is that Truth is relative. So it’s clear that Mr.Reed is a Relativist who doesn’t believe in Truth at all. I wonder how Iowa conservatives that think that the Bible is the Truth felt about that. But then..does a conservative really concern himself with the Truth??
“Right. So if no one owns it, and every perspective on it is different, how is it that you can judge another’s perspective of it? There’s no wrong answer.”
Of course there is. Through criticism and falsification. It’s done in science everyday. Didn’t you know that? You can offer up any wild idea that you choose, but that idea must also bear up to criticism. If the idea is falsified it’s dismissed. You can’t prove something is true through induction but you can prove something is false through Modus Tollens which is the cornerstone of scientific proof through falsification. You can apply this in everyday life as shown by William Warren Bartley.
I find Identity philsophers to be the most dangerous.Identity philosophers, may say that ‘truth’ is meaningful and that it means correspondence to the facts. They may even acknowledge the existence of foolproof criteria by which to determine whether or not a statement is true. But they believe, and this is what makes them identity philosophers, that they owe their primary allegiance to some group to which they belong, be it Libertarain or conservative. The thrust of their attack against truth is not that we cannot know what is true. It is that truth is but one value amongst many, and not the one that counts most for building a just society. They believe that when it comes to a choice between truth and solidarity, it is solidarity that counts so that we are not merely justified in misrepresenting the truth, but that it may actually be our duty to do so if the solidarity of our community hangs in the balance. Witness the handiwork of Mr.Duke.
But no one, I hope, would accuse identity philosophers of tolerating or respecting the views of others.
As I pointed out to you in our last exchange, you are only interested in those things that correspond to your theory of rationality. That’s why you lose the very autonomy that you seek. You are a Libertarian. That’s your identity. You subscribe to that Theory of Rationality. I don’t belong to any group. I subscribe to no theories of rationality, and maintain my autonomy as a result. I abide by no doctine or dogma. And I am willing to put my own ideas out there for criticism unconditionally. You my friend, are not. And that’s the truth.
“Right. So if no one owns it, and every perspective on it is different, how is it that you can judge another’s perspective of it? There’s no wrong answer.”
Of course there is. Through criticism and falsification. It’s done in science everyday. Didn’t you know that? You can offer up any wild idea that you choose, but that idea must also bear up to criticism. If the idea is falsified it’s dismissed. You can’t prove something is true through induction but you can prove something is false through Modus Tollens which is the cornerstone of scientific proof through falsification. You can apply this in everyday life as shown by William Warren Bartley.
I find Identity philsophers to be the most dangerous.Identity philosophers, may say that ‘truth’ is meaningful and that it means correspondence to the facts. They may even acknowledge the existence of foolproof criteria by which to determine whether or not a statement is true. But they believe, and this is what makes them identity philosophers, that they owe their primary allegiance to some group to which they belong, be it Libertarain or conservative. The thrust of their attack against truth is not that we cannot know what is true. It is that truth is but one value amongst many, and not the one that counts most for building a just society. They believe that when it comes to a choice between truth and solidarity, it is solidarity that counts so that we are not merely justified in misrepresenting the truth, but that it may actually be our duty to do so if the solidarity of our community hangs in the balance. Witness the handiwork of Mr.Duke.
But no one, I hope, would accuse identity philosophers of tolerating or respecting the views of others.
As I pointed out to you in our last exchange, you are only interested in those things that correspond to your theory of rationality. That’s why you lose the very autonomy that you seek. You are a Libertarian. That’s your identity. You subscribe to that Theory of Rationality. I don’t belong to any group. I subscribe to no theories of rationality, and maintain my autonomy as a result. I abide by no doctine or dogma. And I am willing to put my own ideas out there for criticism unconditionally. You my friend, are not. And that’s the truth.
“Right. So if no one owns it, and every perspective on it is different, how is it that you can judge another’s perspective of it? There’s no wrong answer.”
Of course there is. Through criticism and falsification. It’s done in science everyday. Didn’t you know that? You can offer up any wild idea that you choose, but that idea must also bear up to criticism. If the idea is falsified it’s dismissed. You can’t prove something is true through induction but you can prove something is false through Modus Tollens which is the cornerstone of scientific proof through falsification. You can apply this in everyday life as shown by William Warren Bartley.
I find Identity philsophers to be the most dangerous.Identity philosophers, may say that ‘truth’ is meaningful and that it means correspondence to the facts. They may even acknowledge the existence of foolproof criteria by which to determine whether or not a statement is true. But they believe, and this is what makes them identity philosophers, that they owe their primary allegiance to some group to which they belong, be it Libertarain or conservative. The thrust of their attack against truth is not that we cannot know what is true. It is that truth is but one value amongst many, and not the one that counts most for building a just society. They believe that when it comes to a choice between truth and solidarity, it is solidarity that counts so that we are not merely justified in misrepresenting the truth, but that it may actually be our duty to do so if the solidarity of our community hangs in the balance. Witness the handiwork of Mr.Duke.
But no one, I hope, would accuse identity philosophers of tolerating or respecting the views of others.
As I pointed out to you in our last exchange, you are only interested in those things that correspond to your theory of rationality. That’s why you lose the very autonomy that you seek. You are a Libertarian. That’s your identity. You subscribe to that Theory of Rationality. I don’t belong to any group. I subscribe to no theories of rationality, and maintain my autonomy as a result. I abide by no doctine or dogma. And I am willing to put my own ideas out there for criticism unconditionally. You my friend, are not. And that’s the truth.
“We cannot demonstrate the truth of our values by your standard because no objective truth can exist.”
Who said no objective truth can exist? Not me. You seem intent on ascribing to me things that have nothing to do with me.
If we could with certainty discern the truth in all of its objectivity, then the only excuse for tolerating false ideas would be our disrespect for the people who hold them to be true. But we cannot discern the truth with certainty. And we think that an objective truth may nonetheless exist. We think that we have an obligation to try to discover what it is, even if we cannot know for sure, and an obligation to consider views that seem false for the simple reason that they might actually be true. And if we are really serious about this, if we are not merely sham¬ming our fallibility but really think that views that differ from our own might actually be true, then we will not merely tolerate these views. We will respect them.
We will, in other words, respect them enough to try to determine whether or not they are really true. And we will do this the only way we can: by deriving consequences from them, and by checking to see whether and to what extent those consequences conflict with what we think is true.
“At best, we could “prove” what the truth looks like from our particular perspective, which may be different than the truth from a different perspective.”
How would you do that. What methodology would you use?
” So in the absence of any objective truth, or even of any moral “common denominator”, what right have we to create any laws at all?”
You reject objective truth? And you’re asking me what right we have to create any laws at all? Why are you asking me? It’s you that seem to be rejecting objective truth. You’re really beginning to sound like a broken record here. You seem to be implying that I reject an objective truth. Is that where you’re going. If it is..then there’s no purpose to pursuing this any further. I’ve told you at least 4 or 5 times my position on that. So if you are implying that I have a different position than what I’ve stated, I’d have to conclude that you’re simply being obtuse for some reason of simply intellectually dishonest and I have no time for that.
“Philosophy requires foundations, and foundations are nothing more or less than self-created axioms”
Actually foundationalism has been rejected. It requires a justification of the basis which leads to Infinite regress. The basis cannot be it’s own basis.
“How is it that you can demand, with the force of law, one person to forfeit his money to provide health care accommodations to another if you value the individual more highly than the collective? You cannot.”
Because although I live as an individual and the freedom of choices that this country offers, I also recognize that I’m part of a society. And that in order for that society to function at it’s best I recognize that living in this society is a privilege for which I’m willing to make small sacrifices of income to enjoy the benefits that this country has to offer compared to others. I’m also willing to be taxed for the maintenance of our roads, our parks, our schools, our transportation systems, our libraries, our police and fire departments. And when it comes to the healthcare of our citizens I deem it a matter of national interest just as I do education. I want to see this country prosper, and be healthy in order to compete globally. We can’t do that effectively with an under educated population with health issues. I see it our national interest to insure that these things are a priority. I enjoy being a citizen of the United States. Don’t you? My son is a Green Beret. He puts his country first. It’s quite an example. Your concerns I deem petty. There is room withing my approach to life that allows for my individuality and my participation in the overall society that I live in. For you it’s either/or. I see that as a false dichotomy.
“Your irrational obsession with Ayn Rand notwithstanding, the moral values of social liberals are concerned with groups, not individuals.”
It isn’t me with the obsession with Ayn Rand. Your the Rand Libertarian not I. That’s your theory of rationality. Not mine. I find her a joke.
“Your irrational obsession with Ayn Rand notwithstanding, the moral values of social liberals are concerned with groups, not individuals.”
Although I’m not a Christian, I’d agree with Jefferson when he said that the moral philosophy of Jesus was the greatest he’d ever seen. And Jesus was hardly the self indulgent. self-centered person that you seem to find virtue in. So those being the views of one of our founders and a liberal, it seems that the liberals that you would claim have no connection to the 18th century liberals is baseless. Of course that’s only one example, but it’s significant in this discussion.
“And I’d much rather be a slave to my dogma than to the dogma that you practice but dare not identify.”
Then you can’t very well lay claim to any autonomy can you? It’s best that you recognize that this theory of rationality you hold denies you that very thing that you want. BTW..I don’t have any dogmatic beliefs, despite your suggestions to the contrary. I carry no theories of rationality. I don’t identify myself with poltical party’s, religions, or clubs. And unlike you, I’m not one to cut off an arguement by resorting to faith, or irrational commitment to justify some belief that has been under servere critical fire. In fact, I’m not committed, attached, or addicted to any position. That would be you. If you consider yourself as a fallible human being then you must conclude that the person that provided your theory of rationality for you is also fallible. So tell me how a fallible person can create an infallible philosophy that is not prone to error? Your commitment to Libertarianism, a philosophy that claims to be rational, leads you to and irrational commitment to the very thing that is supposed to provide a rational way of thinking. Ironic isn’t it?
“Well, yes and no. I lay claim to “autonomy”, meant to be understood as the supremacy of the individual, as the highest moral goal. I couldn’t very well lay claim to individualism as my moral standard while being willing to embrace collectivism, now could I? That would be a contradiction. Just like advocating collectivism while claiming to embrace individualism.”
That is your moral dilemma. Not mine. I don’t take stands that force me into irrationalism via circular reasoning. And I don’t sign up for doctrines that lead me into a black hole of infinite regress in some vain attempt to justify it. Maybe what you have created for yourself is simply a false dichotomy. All views are open to criticism. If the objective is to arrive at the truth, then it would seem that clinging to a theory of rationality won’t get you there. Since you know that your ideology was created by a fallible human being and itself must be fallible, you must ask yourself, what happens when my belief system collides with the truth? Which is more important to you? If you hold onto your belief in spite of the truth, then you are living a lie and hypocrisy and you will know it. If you abandon your belief and embrace the truth, then you are admitting that your beliefs and principles can in fact, be compromised. Good luck with that.
“As has happened throughout history, once the new (“liberal”) ideology became the accepted norm, those who desired to preserve it became “conservative” and those who desired to change it became the new “liberals”.”
As has happened throughout history, conservatives have always walked in the shaddow of radicalism. What was once thought of as radical, became the norm, until once again the radical idea had to drag the conservative into the new normal. And on and on. The problem for the conservative as Hayek pointed out is that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving. It may succeed by its resistance to current tendencies in slowing down undesirable developments, but, since it does not indicate another direction, it cannot prevent their continuance. It has for this reason, invariabley been the fate of conservatism to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing. The tug of war between conservatives and progressives or liberals can only affect the speed, not the direction of contemporary developments. A good example is Gay marriage. It will happen and althought conservatives will fight to stop it, it will inevitably happen and become accepted and we will look back and wonder what the fuss was about.
“A person such as yourself needs to cling to the idea that his decision-making process transcends the confines of standard human reasoning and concepts of truth so that you can justify whatever disparate whims happen to strike your fancy on a particular day, week, month or year as the product of some esoteric analysis rather than knee-jerk emotionalism.”
Well you’re wrong on several counts. First of all I don’t cling to any ideas. For one thing I’m not a conservative. I’m always open to new ideas, which is why I’m a liberal. Your projecting your own issues onto me and I reject them for the reasons stated. Secondly I’m afraid in order to support your claim you’ll need to define or illustrate just exactly what you mean by “standard human reasoning”, as well as concepts of truth. Who’s standard? Think you can provide that for me? When you do, then I’ll consider it. Until then, this is a soufle’ of rhetorical goulash. Provide something substantial.I’m open to real ideas, not justificationism for some theory of rationality. You’re a libertarian. Some people are vegitarian. It is what it is.
“Using one’s moral standard to reach consistent conclusions about the world is not an indication of poor reasoning, low intellect, or dependence on authority.”
It is if it’s a result of somebody elses theory of rationality that provides you with the answers. How original is that? How autonomous is it. How individualistic is it. You subscribe to a fixed dogma. Has it ever occured to you that it could be flawed. That it could be wrong? That it, like it’s founder could be mistaken? Do you even question your own belief system to prod it and poke it for errors? Do you put it tests for it’s soundness? Can you demonstrate for yourself how your moral standard is true? Isn’t that the most important criteria? What justifies it? It can’t justify itself. Does it not bother you that resorting to circular reasoning to justify your morality is in itself hypocritical and immoral? You must know that it’s irrational? I don’t understand why a person would knowingly submit to irrational thinking.
Thats it for tonight. I was up until dawn yesterday, and I have some important stuff tomorrow night to do. It been fun.
What a laugh. What … a … laugh. Why do you vote for Candidate A instead of Candidate B? So that your preferences, put forth by Candidate A [as perceived by you], can be forced on society.
Face it. No matter who is in charge, he will try to force his preferences on the rest of us; otherwise, he need not even bother to run, or show up for work if elected.
Liberals like you say you don’t want to have conservative ideas “forced” on them, but are quite content to force their liberal beliefs on others … all the while denying that they are forcing anything on anyone because “it’s for our own good”. Such hubris. You are just unhappy that conservative preferences win sometimes, and in fact win every time they are put to a vote of the people … giving birth to, “Conservatives go to the polls on Tuesday; liberals go to court on Wednesday.” CA’s Prop 13, which limited property taxes, won 2/3 of the vote, and liberals went to court to get the will of the people overturned. Then there was CA’s Prop 209 that prohibited discrimination in state hiring and contracting and that won by a handy margin. Liberals again went to court to get it overturned. The irony here is that the wording of the Proposition was exactly the wording of the Civil Rights Act, passed by liberals, except the part that limited 209’s jurisdiction to state government. The wording was intentional to show how duplicitous liberals can be, and they fell for it. On Nov. 2, the state of AZ passed a similar proposition by a margin of 70%, and liberals have taken it to court. The AZ legislature passed, and the governor signed, SB-1070, and liberals once again went ballistic and resorted to their usual tactic – with the addition of the øbama administration’s reporting AZ to the UN’s Orwellian human rights commission. And lest I forget the most Orwellian Newspeak of all, the “Democratic” Party.
You mentioned aristocracy. We have our own aristocracy, manifested in the divine right of kings of the professoriate of liberal arts schools who have in essence declared human knowledge complete because if a conservative student or teacher utters an idea different from the established liberal orthodoxy of what is goodness, niceness, and politically correct, he will be sent to thought reform and made to repent. Prop 209 survived court challenge, but that didn’t stop the University of California from defying the democratically established law. Using that divine right of kings in an act that can also be described as only Orwellian, they turned the law on its head and claimed the Proposition actually mandated affirmative action, something the law specifically prohibits. A side-bar point worth mentioning here is that the academy has jettisoned the pursuit of truth as a goal and replaced it with political advocacy.
So as a liberal, you don’t have a lot of room to talk democracy or conservatives “forcing” their beliefs on others.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Rachel Alexander, IC Politics. IC Politics said: Yes, Folks, We All Would Legislate Morality (Psst, Even You Libertarians): Laws are just only when government im… http://bit.ly/bHsv3s [...]