What could make morality objective?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Peter Holmes
Posts: 992
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Thu Apr 09, 2020 5:54 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Apr 09, 2020 5:35 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu Apr 09, 2020 3:17 pm
Roger Scruton was a small-minded, nasty conservative drone - a self-styled 'philosopher', because no one else thought he was any more than a pundit peddling reactionary cliches devoid of one ounce of originality...
Nice, Pete. :D

The ad hominem thread is a couple down from here.
No ad hominem. I wasn't trying to refute his contemptible 'arguments'. They're unworthy of serious attention.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 7962
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Immanuel Can » Thu Apr 09, 2020 5:59 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu Apr 09, 2020 5:54 pm
No ad hominem. I wasn't trying to refute his contemptible 'arguments'. They're unworthy of serious attention.
That's pretty much the definition of ad hominem, Pete: dismiss the person, refuse to consider the arguments at all.

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 1322
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by RCSaunders » Thu Apr 09, 2020 6:03 pm

Belinda wrote:
Thu Apr 09, 2020 8:14 am
RCSaunders wrote:
Wed Apr 08, 2020 9:30 pm
Belinda wrote:
Wed Apr 08, 2020 4:28 pm

Can you explain a little more, RCS?
Certainly! I knew as soon as I saw your comment I would have to respond. As many times as I've outlined philosophy and made the point the aesthetics was the ultimate objective of all other branches, you are the first to notice the significance of that view.

It is existence and our consciousness of it that makes all experience possible, and it is our life that makes it possible for us to have that experience, and it is our ability to experience life and existence that makes all joy and meaning possible, and it is that possibility that is the sole purpose of our life. If the purpose of life is not to make it possible or us to experience life and existence and to enjoy them, there is no point to life and experience all.

Aesthetics is usually identified as the study of the nature of beauty, but beauty is never actually defined. Examples are given in attempt to say what beauty is, like things seen: natural scenes, night skies or sunsets, beautiful men, women, children, flowers or art; or things heard: the wind, rippling brooks, the roaring ocean, and music; or things read: literature and poetry. None of those things actually explain what beauty is or why we consider any of those things beautiful, however.

What makes things beautiful is our recognition of those things we are conscious of as the source of all our experience, of all that we can enjoy, and of all that those things they make possible to us to achieve, and the more we come to understand and appreciate what this glorious wondrous universe we live in makes possible to us to experience and use to achieve virtually anything we are willing to make the effort to achieve, the more beautiful that world becomes.

Mine is a very romantic view of life, which I regard as the ultimate adventure of discovery and achievement and endless possibility with one's own personal development to become all that one can be as the ultimate purpose of one's life and the source of one's ultimate enjoyment of that life. Which is why I regard aesthetics the ultimate objective of all philosophical inquiry to answer the ultimate question, how one must live in this world to fully be all one can be and to fully enjoy that life and the beauty of it.

As a romantic, I regard the highest possible human joy to be romantic love for those for whom it is possible. Please note, for a true romantic, love and lust are mutually exclusive. Love finds its joy in pleasing the one loved, lust finds it pleasure in using another.

I'm sure that is already a little more explanation than you wanted, and I'm still holding myself back.

Thanks you so much for your interest!
"None of those things actually explain what beauty is or why we consider any of those things beautiful, however." (RCS)
Maybe because beauty is the relationship between the good and the true.

"Mine is a very romantic view of life," (RCS)
"As a romantic, " (RCS)

Having noted what you wrote in those paragraphs, I question what you mean by 'romantic'. Of course 'romantic' is more often than not used to mean sexual passion towards one other, the more interesting usage refers to the Romantic movement in European culture within which sex is one interest among others. Your comparison of love with lust has in fact a much wider application than sexual passion, and the wider application is what i referred to, I fear too obliquely.
I am very aware of the very bad connotations associated with the words, "romantic," and, "romanticism." I refer neither to the 1800s years "romantic period," of European art, although that is where the concept originated, and I certainly do not refer to the disgustingly shallow view of romance which has since Freud devolved into little more than animal passion. What I refer to as romantic is one's whole view of life. It is what I referred to in my comment. It is the view that life is the ultimate adventure of discovery and achievement and endless possibility with one's own personal development to become all that one can possibly be as the ultimate purpose of one's life.

You are quite right, my comparison of love with lust has a much wider application than sexual passion. I would be interested in how you understand that wider application.[/quote]

Peter Holmes
Posts: 992
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Thu Apr 09, 2020 6:07 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Apr 09, 2020 5:59 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu Apr 09, 2020 5:54 pm
No ad hominem. I wasn't trying to refute his contemptible 'arguments'. They're unworthy of serious attention.
That's pretty much the definition of ad hominem, Pete: dismiss the person, refuse to consider the arguments at all.
Nope. That's not what an ad hominem fallacy is. Look it up.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 7962
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Immanuel Can » Thu Apr 09, 2020 9:35 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu Apr 09, 2020 6:07 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Apr 09, 2020 5:59 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu Apr 09, 2020 5:54 pm
No ad hominem. I wasn't trying to refute his contemptible 'arguments'. They're unworthy of serious attention.
That's pretty much the definition of ad hominem, Pete: dismiss the person, refuse to consider the arguments at all.
Nope. That's not what an ad hominem fallacy is. Look it up.
I know all about it.

It can be done several ways. One is actually to pick an argument, and say the argument doesn't count because of some insult directed to the speaker of the argument. But another is simply to imagine that dismissing the speaker gets rid of the argument too, which is the particular species we have here.

So long as one directs criticism "to the man" and thinks this catches up the argument too, one is ad hominem.

Peter Holmes
Posts: 992
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Fri Apr 10, 2020 5:44 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Apr 09, 2020 9:35 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu Apr 09, 2020 6:07 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Apr 09, 2020 5:59 pm

That's pretty much the definition of ad hominem, Pete: dismiss the person, refuse to consider the arguments at all.
Nope. That's not what an ad hominem fallacy is. Look it up.
I know all about it.

It can be done several ways. One is actually to pick an argument, and say the argument doesn't count because of some insult directed to the speaker of the argument. But another is simply to imagine that dismissing the speaker gets rid of the argument too, which is the particular species we have here.

So long as one directs criticism "to the man" and thinks this catches up the argument too, one is ad hominem.
No, my contempt is for both the arguments, which are negligible, and the man, who was obnoxious. There's no fallacy here.

The problem may be that you like arguments that I dismiss out of hand. Nothing much to be done about that.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 3756
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Apr 10, 2020 6:32 am

Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Apr 10, 2020 5:44 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Apr 09, 2020 9:35 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu Apr 09, 2020 6:07 pm

Nope. That's not what an ad hominem fallacy is. Look it up.
I know all about it.

It can be done several ways. One is actually to pick an argument, and say the argument doesn't count because of some insult directed to the speaker of the argument. But another is simply to imagine that dismissing the speaker gets rid of the argument too, which is the particular species we have here.

So long as one directs criticism "to the man" and thinks this catches up the argument too, one is ad hominem.
No, my contempt is for both the arguments, which are negligible, and the man, who was obnoxious. There's no fallacy here.

The problem may be that you like arguments that I dismiss out of hand. Nothing much to be done about that.
I agree with you in this case especially that is directed as Scruton, it is not ad hominen in this case.

Note this;
The most common form of this [ad hominen] fallacy is
  • "A makes a claim a,
    B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and
    hence B concludes that argument a is wrong".
-wiki
An ad hominem fallacy occurs when one attacks the character of an interlocutor in an attempt to refute their argument.
Insulting someone is not necessarily an instance of an ad hominem fallacy.
  • For example, if one supplies sufficient reasons to reject an interlocutor's argument and adds a slight character attack at the end, this character attack is not necessarily fallacious.
Whether it is fallacious depends on whether or not the insult is used as a reason against the interlocutor's argument.
An ad hominem occurs when an attack on the interlocutor's character functions as a response to an interlocutor's argument or claim.
-wiki
Often I will critique a poster for not thinking intelligently, rationally or their thinking is too shallow, narrow or stupid, only after I have countered their argument directly and demonstrated why their argument is false.
Often a person's thinking and argument is constraint by some psychological impulses.
The purpose of such a critique and feedback [btw not insult] is to spur the person to read, research, think more deeply and philosophically.

Belinda
Posts: 3163
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda » Fri Apr 10, 2020 10:06 am

RCSaunders wrote:
Thu Apr 09, 2020 6:03 pm
Belinda wrote:
Thu Apr 09, 2020 8:14 am
RCSaunders wrote:
Wed Apr 08, 2020 9:30 pm

Certainly! I knew as soon as I saw your comment I would have to respond. As many times as I've outlined philosophy and made the point the aesthetics was the ultimate objective of all other branches, you are the first to notice the significance of that view.

It is existence and our consciousness of it that makes all experience possible, and it is our life that makes it possible for us to have that experience, and it is our ability to experience life and existence that makes all joy and meaning possible, and it is that possibility that is the sole purpose of our life. If the purpose of life is not to make it possible or us to experience life and existence and to enjoy them, there is no point to life and experience all.

Aesthetics is usually identified as the study of the nature of beauty, but beauty is never actually defined. Examples are given in attempt to say what beauty is, like things seen: natural scenes, night skies or sunsets, beautiful men, women, children, flowers or art; or things heard: the wind, rippling brooks, the roaring ocean, and music; or things read: literature and poetry. None of those things actually explain what beauty is or why we consider any of those things beautiful, however.

What makes things beautiful is our recognition of those things we are conscious of as the source of all our experience, of all that we can enjoy, and of all that those things they make possible to us to achieve, and the more we come to understand and appreciate what this glorious wondrous universe we live in makes possible to us to experience and use to achieve virtually anything we are willing to make the effort to achieve, the more beautiful that world becomes.

Mine is a very romantic view of life, which I regard as the ultimate adventure of discovery and achievement and endless possibility with one's own personal development to become all that one can be as the ultimate purpose of one's life and the source of one's ultimate enjoyment of that life. Which is why I regard aesthetics the ultimate objective of all philosophical inquiry to answer the ultimate question, how one must live in this world to fully be all one can be and to fully enjoy that life and the beauty of it.

As a romantic, I regard the highest possible human joy to be romantic love for those for whom it is possible. Please note, for a true romantic, love and lust are mutually exclusive. Love finds its joy in pleasing the one loved, lust finds it pleasure in using another.

I'm sure that is already a little more explanation than you wanted, and I'm still holding myself back.

Thanks you so much for your interest!
"None of those things actually explain what beauty is or why we consider any of those things beautiful, however." (RCS)
Maybe because beauty is the relationship between the good and the true.

"Mine is a very romantic view of life," (RCS)
"As a romantic, " (RCS)

Having noted what you wrote in those paragraphs, I question what you mean by 'romantic'. Of course 'romantic' is more often than not used to mean sexual passion towards one other, the more interesting usage refers to the Romantic movement in European culture within which sex is one interest among others. Your comparison of love with lust has in fact a much wider application than sexual passion, and the wider application is what i referred to, I fear too obliquely.
I am very aware of the very bad connotations associated with the words, "romantic," and, "romanticism." I refer neither to the 1800s years "romantic period," of European art, although that is where the concept originated, and I certainly do not refer to the disgustingly shallow view of romance which has since Freud devolved into little more than animal passion. What I refer to as romantic is one's whole view of life. It is what I referred to in my comment. It is the view that life is the ultimate adventure of discovery and achievement and endless possibility with one's own personal development to become all that one can possibly be as the ultimate purpose of one's life.

You are quite right, my comparison of love with lust has a much wider application than sexual passion. I would be interested in how you understand that wider application.
[/quote]
I am not saying lust is bad, it's not basically immoral it's merely an emotional reaction to stimulus. Love by contrast is not only emotional reaction. Love is compounded of lust, curiosity, courage, stoicism, imagination in the broad sense of imagination, and sympathy. The human is capable of refining and enlarging upon lust.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 7962
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri Apr 10, 2020 2:31 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Apr 10, 2020 5:44 am
The problem may be that you like arguments that I dismiss out of hand. Nothing much to be done about that.
Or the problem may be that you "dismiss arguments out of hand." But there's always something that can be done about that.

Peter Holmes
Posts: 992
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Fri Apr 10, 2020 3:20 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Apr 10, 2020 2:31 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Apr 10, 2020 5:44 am
The problem may be that you like arguments that I dismiss out of hand. Nothing much to be done about that.
Or the problem may be that you "dismiss arguments out of hand." But there's always something that can be done about that.
I've no interest in, for example, the claim that same-sex marriage isn't really marriage; and I dismiss the argument that's supposed to jusify the claim; and I dismiss the bigot who makes the claim. (No skin off his nose, of course.) I just have better things to do - more useful and interesting arguments to have. And I'd guess you feel the same about some other claims and arguments.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 7962
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri Apr 10, 2020 3:40 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Apr 10, 2020 3:20 pm
I've no interest in, for example, the claim that same-sex marriage isn't really marriage.
"I've no interest" doesn't amount to a refutation, however. Just what you call a "dismissal."
I dismiss the bigot who makes the claim.
Well, that's a bit facile, since whether or not a man actually is a "bigot" depends entirely on the basis upon which he makes the claim. If it's gratuitous, then by definition, he's a bigot. But if he has a rationale, then it is information, not prejudice, that is making his case compelling to him; and it's counter-reasoning, not dismissal, which is the appropriate response.
And I'd guess you feel the same about some other claims and arguments.
I believe that in the case of those opinions to which no reasons or evidence have been attached, such a "claim and argument" are not capable of refutation; so it's not so much a matter of my "feeling," or even of my choice to "dismiss," but rather, of the fact that no substance capable of discussion has been offered. In such cases, it's the fault of the style of discourse chosen by the claimant, not a "feeling-based" reception on my part. It's not "dismissal," then; it's having no place to go with the conversation, by dint of the way it's been presented.

This is clearly not the situation of people like Scruton, who frames his claims and arguments in rational terms, providing reasons and evidence he regards as compelling. (Now, you may disagree with his reasons and evidence, but that's a different thing from suggesting he doesn't even attempt to adduce any, as in the former case.) And rational arguments, whether one instinctively agrees with them or not (and especially, when one doesn't) call for rational refutation. For one could be wrong; but if not, one is still benefitted by the rigous of the process of rationally rebutting the rational claims of another. And that's a healthy process.From knee-jerk dismissal, one gets nothing at all.

I think that's one reason our political process is so polarized right now. Dismissal is being substituted for rational refutation. Neither side is learning, because neither is engaging with the critiques the opposite side has figured out. So the discussion turns into nothing deeper than name-calling: "Nazi." "Commie." "Trumpist." "Dumbocrat." And so on. Offhand dismissal, not rational debate.

Such an exchange gets neither side anywhere, and merely induces intellectual sclerosis in both.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 1552
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Sculptor » Fri Apr 10, 2020 3:47 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Apr 10, 2020 3:40 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Apr 10, 2020 3:20 pm
I've no interest in, for example, the claim that same-sex marriage isn't really marriage.
"I've no interest" doesn't amount to a refutation, however. Just what you call a "dismissal."
.
"Marriage" is a legal contract. It does not matter how much interest anyone has, nor if they think they can dismiss it.
The fact is that marriage is defined, not by objective moral standards, but by the culture that writes the law.
The simple fact that same sex marriage is denied by some, whilst embraced by others is exactly why morals shall never be objective.
These laws are "SUBJECT" to the whims of history, and society.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 7962
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri Apr 10, 2020 4:04 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Fri Apr 10, 2020 3:47 pm
The fact is that marriage is defined, not by objective moral standards, but by the culture that writes the law.
Well, that's your perspective, no doubt. Some people agree, and some people think other things. The rational debate involves giving the evidence for one's case, in either case, not in gratuitously claiming it's "just a fact."

Peter Holmes
Posts: 992
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Fri Apr 10, 2020 4:17 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Apr 10, 2020 3:40 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Apr 10, 2020 3:20 pm
I've no interest in, for example, the claim that same-sex marriage isn't really marriage.
"I've no interest" doesn't amount to a refutation, however. Just what you call a "dismissal."
I dismiss the bigot who makes the claim.
Well, that's a bit facile, since whether or not a man actually is a "bigot" depends entirely on the basis upon which he makes the claim. If it's gratuitous, then by definition, he's a bigot. But if he has a rationale, then it is information, not prejudice, that is making his case compelling to him; and it's counter-reasoning, not dismissal, which is the appropriate response.
And I'd guess you feel the same about some other claims and arguments.
I believe that in the case of those opinions to which no reasons or evidence have been attached, such a "claim and argument" are not capable of refutation; so it's not so much a matter of my "feeling," or even of my choice to "dismiss," but rather, of the fact that no substance capable of discussion has been offered. In such cases, it's the fault of the style of discourse chosen by the claimant, not a "feeling-based" reception on my part. It's not "dismissal," then; it's having no place to go with the conversation, by dint of the way it's been presented.

This is clearly not the situation of people like Scruton, who frames his claims and arguments in rational terms, providing reasons and evidence he regards as compelling. (Now, you may disagree with his reasons and evidence, but that's a different thing from suggesting he doesn't even attempt to adduce any, as in the former case.) And rational arguments, whether one instinctively agrees with them or not (and especially, when one doesn't) call for rational refutation. For one could be wrong; but if not, one is still benefitted by the rigous of the process of rationally rebutting the rational claims of another. And that's a healthy process.From knee-jerk dismissal, one gets nothing at all.

I think that's one reason our political process is so polarized right now. Dismissal is being substituted for rational refutation. Neither side is learning, because neither is engaging with the critiques the opposite side has figured out. So the discussion turns into nothing deeper than name-calling: "Nazi." "Commie." "Trumpist." "Dumbocrat." And so on. Offhand dismissal, not rational debate.

Such an exchange gets neither side anywhere, and merely induces intellectual sclerosis in both.
My dismissal of some claims and arguments is not 'knee-jerk', because that would be irrational. If a claim is false, or an argument invalid and/or unsound, then I dismiss it. What do you do? Pretend the claim may be true, or the argument valid or sound?

Some claims are worth falsifying, and some arguments are worth refuting. But many of them don't deserve even a moment's attention. Scruton's case for Burke's 'heritable principle', justifying social and economic inequality, is one example. But I think any defence of political and economic conservatism - any defence of injustice - intellectually and morally disgusting.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 7962
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri Apr 10, 2020 4:35 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Apr 10, 2020 4:17 pm
My dismissal of some claims and arguments is not 'knee-jerk', because that would be irrational. If a claim is false, or an argument invalid and/or unsound, then I dismiss it. What do you do? Pretend the claim may be true, or the argument valid or sound?
What do I do? I would argue we should prove that it's "false...invalid and/or unsound" by providing the contrary evidence and reasons.
Some claims are worth falsifying, and some arguments are worth refuting. But many of them don't deserve even a moment's attention.
And how does one even know, if one already admits one hasn't "given them a moment's attention"? :shock:
Scruton's case for Burke's 'heritable principle', justifying social and economic inequality, is one example.
So it seems you have "given him a moment's attention." But what's missing is your reasoning why the "heritable principle" you describe is wrong...the claim that it "justifies social and economic inequality" is one that a) needs proof, and b) even if proven, would need a showing that "inequality" is evidence of injustice, rather than, say, inevitable hierarchies of competence or achievement.

Then there's a further problem: the ad hominem problem. For let us suppose you to have proved Roger Scruton's particular "heritable principle" a thoroughly loathsome and unrealistic axiom. Had you done so, it would not tell us whether the very next utterance out of Scruton's mouth was true or false, if it wasn't about "the heritable principle." It would only have refuted that one thing that Scruton said.
But I think any defence of political and economic conservatism - any defence of injustice - intellectually and morally disgusting.
"Disgusting" is merely a visceral descriptor, not an intellectual one. And the identity of "conservatism' and "injustice," as if everybody simply already knows they're the same thing, is specious and merely propagandistic. Not only do many have rational disagreements with that reaction and that alleged identification, but they provide reasons for thinking they're right.

And as long as their underlying reasons go unaddressed, what rationale do they have for coming to an agreement with you? Again, you're stuck with polarized camps hissing "Nazi," "Commie," "Oppressor," "naive fool," and now, "Conservative," "SJW." And where does all that get us? Just irremediable animosity...winners and losers, with no understanding of each other, nor even good understanding of their own values.

Dialogue, not dismissal, is what rational positions call for. It's also the way forward to something better than we've now got.

And for the information of anyone following, I offer the ensuing clip from Roger Scruton's own description of "the heredity principle," so we all know what it really is:

"The final argument that impressed me was Burke’s response to the theory of the social contract. Although society can be seen as a contract, he argued, we must recognize that most parties to the contract are either dead or not yet born. The effect of the contemporary Rousseauist ideas of social contract was to place the present members of society in a position of dictatorial dominance over those who went before and those who came after them. Hence these ideas led directly to the massive squandering of inherited resources at the Revolution, and to the cultural and ecological vandalism that Burke was perhaps the first to recognize as the principal danger of modern politics. In Burke’s eyes the self-righteous contempt for ancestors which characterized the Revolutionaries was also a disinheriting of the unborn. Rightly understood, he argued, society is a partnership among the dead, the living, and the unborn, and without what he called the “hereditary principle,” according to which rights could be inherited as well as acquired, both the dead and the unborn would be disenfranchized. Indeed, respect for the dead was, in Burke’s view, the only real safeguard that the unborn could obtain, in a world that gave all its privileges to the living. His preferred vision of society was not as a contract, in fact, but as a trust, with the living members as trustees of an inheritance that they must strive to enhance and pass on."

Thus understood, Scruton's call is not for a "defence of injustice" at all...but a remedy to a great injustice: that of the treating of the dead and yet-to-come partners in the social contract as worthless. And his fears have been born out with abundant evidence in our day. We now treat not just the dead but even our elders as less valuable or worthless partners in the social contract, and the unborn as a resource for us to exploit today.

What was "heritable" in all this was not ancestral privileges, but the right to be recognized as a human partner with a justified interest in the state of social and political arrangements. How is that an "injustice," Pete? Do you think that the past generations are really worthless, and the pre-born are devoid of any significance in our framing of a social contract? Do you take any thought at all for your forebears or your children, in other words?

Hardly an odious principle. What might turn out to be odious is having no view but that the present generation is the only one that ever counts.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests