What could make morality objective?

[RCSaunders]

Hi IC,

I wanted to make these comments to our political points separately because the ideas are scattered all around. I'd like to put them in some order:

1. a) My original point concerned the failure of philosophy to address the correct question of politics: "What are the principles of correct relationships between human beings, that is, how should human beings relate to one another in society?"

b) The point I was making is that all of political philosophy begins in the wrong place. It begins by assuming its purpose is to discover or design some method by which human beings can, in some way, be induced to have right relationships, before those right relationships have been identified, and further assumes the objective of those right relationships is something other then the benefit of the individuals that are a society, like, "society itself," or, "mankind," or some meaningless floating abstraction like, "the common good." [See 5.]

c) My primary argument is, that whatever the correct principles of relationships between human beings are, they can only pertain to individual human beings, because principles can only be used to make right choices, and the faculty of choice only exists in individual human beings.

2. a) Your initial response to that position was: "individual human beings do not do well outside of 'society.' They die quickly, and in very nasty ways. That is why certain practices have been developed by them in order to negotiate the sticky business of working together. So we have things like ethics, politics, social philosophy, and even culture itself. These are arrangements designed to make life together work."

b) Where in anything I said is there any suggestion individuals would or should or might even want to, be "outside of society." My only point was that if individuals are going to be in a society and have successful relationships with others, they need principles to know how to do that, and philosophy has miserably failed to provide them.

c) Your point says exactly what I said philosophy is doing wrong, attempting to discover or design some method (or methods) (politics? social philosophy? culture?) by which human beings can in some way be induced to have right relationships. Arrangements, which you said, were designed to make life together work. Which is why I responded:

3. a) "Except it hasn't worked and cannot work, because there is no philosophical foundation for individuals to make the right decisions about how they will relate to others, and until there are, they will continue to make the wrong choices and social chaos will continue."

b) Your response to that is bewildering: "There's no alternative. We can't separate into a bunch of scattered individuals, and face nature alone. We won't survive the encounter."

How in the world does the suggesting that the problem of social relationships is the consequence of individual wrong choices translate into individuals scattering to face nature alone. Only those who know the value of social relations which are to everyone's benefit are capable of the kind of relations that will succeed in facing nature or any other objective.

c) You continued, "So we do need each other, but we've got to figure out terms on which we can a) live and work together, but b) not destroy or submerge the individual in the process. If political philosophy were focusing on what it should focus on, that would be it."

Who is "we?" Just anybody that happens to be in the same geographic location? And how does that, "we," figure it out how to, "live and work together," when everything they've been taught does not provide then with principles individual's must have to live and work together for their individual mutual benefit?

4. a) Your earlier comments to that same paragraph where I pointed out none of your suggested schemes, arrangements, or designs for making society the way you think it ought to be could work, was even more interesting. I had added: "If every individual made the right choices, there would be no social problems to solve," which you questioned: ""Right"? The "right" choices? Which are those?" Which I answered as follows [slightly edited]:

b) The ones that cannot possibly lead to social problems. Socially, right choices are any individually chosen relationship with any other individuals in which all parties to that relationship have individually chosen to participate, in contrast to "wrong" choices which are any individually chosen relationship with any other individuals in which all parties to that relationship have not individually chosen to participate.

c) If you ask your usual question, "what makes those the right choices," the answer is, because those are the only choices that cannot result in social problems, and all other kinds of choice always result in some form of oppression.

d) Referring to 4. b) your comment to that statement in your current post is: "Well, that valourizes the individual, alright. But the problem with it is that some individuals are not particularly nice people, and won't, of their own volition, treat others with the same respect they give themselves. They''ll look for an edge, an advantage, instead. And something must be done with those folks. Moreover, sometimes living together means putting someone else's agenda before mine; and the every-man-for-himself view doesn't recognize any idea of self-offering for others, or for the common good. That's one of its weaknesses."

e) Good, bad, or indifferent, what every individual is or does is by their own individual choice. If some individuals choose to have coercive or threatening relationship with others, those others are not obliged to participate in those relationships, and since choosing to participate in such a relationship is wrong, and it would be socially wrong to do so. [4. c)]

f) As for something needing to "be done with those folks," if it is true, those who are not such individuals (those who know how and do make right social choices) may use any methods they choose to prevent any relationship with, "those folks." If, "those folks," decide to use coercive force, those who know how to have right social relations may choose to, individually, or in free participation with others, to isolate themselves from, "those folks," to avoid any social relationships with them. There is no reason to do anything else with or to, "those folks."

g) Your last statement emphasized the essential flaw in all social/collective views of political principles. "... sometimes living together means putting someone else's agenda before mine," like one of, "those folks," you just described that are only harmful to others in there relationships? Who else's interests would anyone need to put above their own? Since all right social choices are made by those who only seek what is mutually benevolent to all participants by there own choice, what one does with or for another can never require a loss to one's self. One would only have to put the interest's of another above their own, when that other seeks relationships in which he gains at another's loss or expense, that is, one of, "those folks," you are warning about.

h) You try to make it sound like, "every-man-for-himself," means, "at someone else's expense." It should be, "every-man-for-himself," means every man must first tend to his life and achievement if he is to be of any value to himself or anyone else in society. Any man who cannot even provide for his own life is certainly not going to be able to contribute anything of value to any other individual, and certainly not society. Any such individual is one of, "those folks," we need to avoid; not sacrifice to.

i) "Every-man-for-himself," also means every man is responsible for himself and must make his own choices of what kind of relations he will have, and with whom, and if his social principles are right he will only choose those relationships that are to the benefit of all participants at no one else's cost or sacrifice. Only those who are, "first-for-themselves," are capable of having relationships and social interactions that benefit all participants.

5. a) In your earlier response to my statement, "So long as most individuals do not know how to make right choices, or why they should, there are no social solutions." you wrote:

b) Well, that's also partly true. The collective solutions are not defined by being "right," but by being "functional." When they work for the best net result for all, they do their job, and are functional. When they end up destroying the freedom of the individual, they're a problem. But social arrangements always do BOTH. [Emphasis mine.]

c) It is that premise at the base of all political philosophy that is why it is always wrong. The correct name for what you call, "collective solutions," or, "arrangements," is, "Social Engineering." It is the attempt to make society into someone's view of what a society ought to be.

d) It is, "what a society ought to be," that philosophy cannot possibly answer. It is wrong for philosophy to even attempt to provide such an answer, for two reasons:

i) First, because a society is not a thing. Society is just a concept of a collection of individual human beings, and it is what those individual human beings choose to be and do that are what a society is. The nature of any society is only the sum of all the individuals in a society think, choose, and do. Any change in a society can only be a result of how the individuals in that society behave and nothing in heaven or earth can (or should) make volitional human beings behave in any way except as they individually choose to behave. Society cannot be engineered.

ii) Second, there is no principle for determining what a society, "ought to be." What anything, "ought to be," is determined by its purpose, or end, or goal. Society cannot have a purpose, end, or goal, only individual human beings have purposes, ends, and goals. It is because there is no possible objective of society that vacuous, meaningless, abstractions must be substituted for such objectives, like, "the common good, " "the good of all mankind," "the best net result for all," or, "the greatest good for the greatest number?"

e) How is, "the common good," or, "the best net result for all," determined? How is what, "the greatest good for the greatest number," calculated? How do you average one individual's benefit and gain with another individual's loss and suffering to determine this obscene idea of a, "net result?" If six people are made imminently happy and successful at the cost of only one other person's suffering and loss, is that, "the best net result for all?" Who decides, and by what criteria, which desires of which people are the most important to which the desires of others must be subordinated, for the, "good of all?" There is no criteria for such a decision.

f) Which is why I pointed out any attempt to implement that wrong-headed view of politics can only be established by an agency of force. Since there is no way to determine what is, "in the best interest of all," such agencies of force must resort to one of two schemes to be put over: democracy, which pretends to determine what is in the best interest by averaging up the predominant opinion in a society (consensus) or authority, which pretends someone has the wisdom and power to determine what is good for everyone else. Most governments use a mixture of these, with predictable and historic consequences.

===========================================

It occurred to me when I was about to submit this, the question of, "well what is your solution to the political question, RC?" might occur to you. If it does, you have not understood my point at all.

The only solutions to any questions of choice pertain only to individuals, the only beings capable of making choices. How every individual relates to others socially must, and can only, be determined by the choice of each individual. There is no solution to, "the social problem," because there is no such thing as a, "social problem." There are only individual problems and only individuals can solve them, but to do that, they need the kinds of principles that describe right social relationships, and philosophy has completely failed to provide them.

[Peter Holmes]

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"?

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.

Put it this way. I have no interest in persuading you or anyone else that the conservation of social injustice, which is what Burke and Scruton advocate - and what conservatism in an unjust society amounts to - is intellectually or morally defensible. Perhaps someone else here will be interested in the argument.

[Immanuel Can]

Put it this way. I have no interest in persuading you or anyone else that the conservation of social injustice, which is what Burke and Scruton advocate - and what conservatism in an unjust society amounts to - is intellectually or morally defensible. Perhaps someone else here will be interested in the argument.

My, my...you're blatantly misrepresenting Scruton's argument. That's what the quotation proves. What you claim is completely unfair to the truth about his view to label him as a proponent of "injustice," when what he was actually advocating was justice for the older generations, and justice for the unborn!

No wonder, then, that his opponents prefer to label and dismiss him. Otherwise, they would have to deal with the truth of his argument...that this generation of so-called "liberals" is actually advocating only for their own narrow interests, and care nothing for generations of the past or their responsibility to the future. Just for themselves.

But we were all babies once. And sooner or later, we will all be the old, then the past generations. And when our time comes, will this generation of so-called "liberals" care one fig for us, or for their poor, unfortunate children? Nope, not a bit.

No wonder they don't want to resort to reasons and evidence -- or even morality. And no wonder they abhor honest discussion. For it is obvious that they would lose, every time, on any of those grounds. So pejoratives and dismissal is all they have left.

[Peter Holmes]

Put it this way. I have no interest in persuading you or anyone else that the conservation of social injustice, which is what Burke and Scruton advocate - and what conservatism in an unjust society amounts to - is intellectually or morally defensible. Perhaps someone else here will be interested in the argument.

My, my...you're blatantly misrepresenting Scruton's argument. That's what the quotation proves. What you claim is completely unfair to the truth about his view to label him as a proponent of "injustice," when what he was actually advocating was justice for the older generations, and justice for the unborn!

No wonder, then, that his opponents prefer to label and dismiss him. Otherwise, they would have to deal with the truth of his argument...that this generation of so-called "liberals" is actually advocating only for their own narrow interests, and care nothing for generations of the past or their responsibility to the future. Just for themselves.

But we were all babies once. And sooner or later, we will all be the old, then the past generations. And when our time comes, will this generation of so-called "liberals" care one fig for us, or for their poor, unfortunate children? Nope, not a bit.

No wonder they don't want to resort to reasons and evidence -- or even morality. And no wonder they abhor honest discussion. For it is obvious that they would lose, every time, on any of those grounds. So pejoratives and dismissal is all they have left.

Thus do conservatives try to justify - or at least disguise from themselves - their shallow immorality.

[Immanuel Can]

Hey ho, RC:

Let's go back to it, I guess. One more time around.

My original point concerned the failure of philosophy to address the correct question of politics: "What are the principles of correct relationships between human beings, that is, how should human beings relate to one another in society?"

Yep. So you're taking for granted there a thing called "society." You're already saying it's got to exist, because if it did not, "individuals" would have no need of trying to figure "how [they] should relate to one another" IN it.

c) My primary argument is, that whatever the correct principles of relationships between human beings are, they can only pertain to individual human beings, because principles can only be used to make right choices, and the faculty of choice only exists in individual human beings.

Well, we agree that only individuals are capable of moral choices. It seems to me where we struggle is that it still looks to me like you're both assuming "society" is going to exist, but that the "individuals" are not going to owe to it anything. But if they don't, then all you have is a bunch of scattered "individuals," with no social contract, moral rules or terms of engagement among them. Every "deal" is privately and individually negotiated between two "individuals," which means that no legitimate social rules are allowed to exist.

It's devoid of a constitution, a bill of rights, the rule of law, and even of a set of agreed-upon procedures.

"...individual human beings do not do well outside of 'society.' They die quickly, and in very nasty ways. That is why certain practices have been developed by them in order to negotiate the sticky business of working together. So we have things like ethics, politics, social philosophy, and even culture itself. These are arrangements designed to make life together work."

Where in anything I said is there any suggestion individuals would or should or might even want to, be "outside of society." My only point was that if individuals are going to be in a society and have successful relationships with others, they need principles to know how to do that, and philosophy has miserably failed to provide them.

Then I fear you're construing the word "philosophy" far too narrowly. Because the rule of law is always predicated on a philosophy, even when for some participants the rationale for it is merely unconscious. There is always a "why" that any set of rules was put into place...and only by recognizing and judging that "why" can be know why the rule of law in our society is a good one, a bad one, or a flawed one that could be better.

How in the world does the suggesting that the problem of social relationships is the consequence of individual wrong choices translate into individuals scattering to face nature alone?

Because then they have no rule of law, no common moral codes, and no general procedural regularities or even social conventions. Nobody in the group knows what any other is supposed to do at any given time, so nothing can be coordinated. And, since they only involved themselves in exchanges in which their personal benefit is evident to them, they all compete with one another ceaselessly, each trying to get more out of the exchange than he has to give. It's a group of untrusting individuals, with no commitment to the welfare of the others.

c) You continued, "So we do need each other, but we've got to figure out terms on which we can a) live and work together, but b) not destroy or submerge the individual in the process. If political philosophy were focusing on what it should focus on, that would be it."

Who is "we?"

People who are debating the relative merits of political philosophy, like you and me, and the people who implement those political philosophies as a result.

...you questioned: ""Right"? The "right" choices? Which are those?" Which I answered as follows [slightly edited]:

b) The ones that cannot possibly lead to social problems.

There are no such things. Name one political arrangement that "cannot possibly lead to social problems." I'll bet I can point out a problem you're overlooking.

d) Referring to 4. b) your comment to that statement in your current post is: "Well, that valourizes the individual, alright. But the problem with it is that some individuals are not particularly nice people, and won't, of their own volition, treat others with the same respect they give themselves. They''ll look for an edge, an advantage, instead. And something must be done with those folks. Moreover, sometimes living together means putting someone else's agenda before mine; and the every-man-for-himself view doesn't recognize any idea of self-offering for others, or for the common good. That's one of its weaknesses."

e) Good, bad, or indifferent, what every individual is or does is by their own individual choice.

Here's a problem: Imagine that your neighbour is very strong...maybe a member of a motorcycle club...and also a raging pedophile. He's stronger than you, has more friends than you, and has some "individual choices" he wants to make about your children...

What do you do?

g) Your last statement emphasized the essential flaw in all social/collective views of political principles. "... sometimes living together means putting someone else's agenda before mine," like one of, "those folks," you just described that are only harmful to others in there relationships?

Not at all. For I have the rule of law, and also social conventions for enforcement of right conduct. So I'm fine. But where is your "individual" in all that? That's my question.

h) You try to make it sound like, "every-man-for-himself," means, "at someone else's expense."

It does often come down to that. In any situation of finite resources and large demand, my win is your loss. How will justice between us be arbitrated?

Any man who cannot even provide for his own life is certainly not going to be able to contribute anything of value to any other individual, and certainly not society. Any such individual is one of, "those folks," we need to avoid; not sacrifice to.

I completely agree. But that's just step one. Once we've got the individual sorted out, and eliminated the bad "folks," we've got to decide how we're all going to relate to one another, establish rules and regular practices (so we don't have to rethink and renegotiate every single thing we do every day all the time, which would be inefficient, frustrating and limiting to the individual as well as dysfunctional for society), and move on from there. You've given lots of print to the importance of the individual; but my question keeps being, "What are you going to do with this 'society' thing you admit needs to exist?"

5. a) In your earlier response to my statement, "So long as most individuals do not know how to make right choices, or why they should, there are no social solutions." you wrote:

b) Well, that's also partly true. The collective solutions are not defined by being "right," but by being "functional." When they work for the best net result for all, they do their job, and are functional. When they end up destroying the freedom of the individual, they're a problem. But social arrangements always do BOTH. [Emphasis mine.]

c) It is that premise at the base of all political philosophy that is why it is always wrong. The correct name for what you call, "collective solutions," or, "arrangements," is, "Social Engineering."

That's like claiming "the proper name for politics is Communism." It's not. The proper name is "social contract," perhaps, or "rule of law," or "public morality," or even "social conventions." There is no sinister implication there, unless you make one.

It is the attempt to make society into someone's view of what a society ought to be.

That's one dark version of how the story can go. The other is that society-forming is a negotiation among free individuals, in which all private individuals trade off certain advantages to obtain much greater advantages and to coordinate lives together. The eventual balance struck gets encoded formally as society's practices or "constitution," and is passed on as a legacy to future generations, who are also free to renegotiate the social contract as it develops. There's nothing autocratic required.

First, because a society is not a thing.

Go back and read your opening statement, RC. Were you talking about no-thing?

Society cannot have a purpose, end, or goal, only individual human beings have purposes, ends, and goals.

The particular construction of a society always serves some particular set of "purposes, ends and goals." One only has two choices about that: to know what those are, and make rational decisions about one's participation or objection to them, or to refuse to know what they are, and be incapable of that. But those "purposes, ends and goals" are always there -- understood, or not.

e) How is, "the common good," or, "the best net result for all," determined?

By negotiation, and the production of a constitution, which then describes and codifies the terms of union.

===========================================

It occurred to me when I was about to submit this, the question of, "well what is your solution to the political question, RC?" might occur to you. If it does, you have not understood my point at all.

Good thing I had no mind to ask it, then.

Quite frankly, RC, I don't believe, so far, that I have seen even the glimmer of such a solution...not even a recognition of the fundamental problem in what you're saying. So why would I ask for what I can see is not available, namely an answer to how society should run, from someone who is insisting that society is no more than a pile of individuals?

[Immanuel Can]

Put it this way. I have no interest in persuading you or anyone else that the conservation of social injustice, which is what Burke and Scruton advocate - and what conservatism in an unjust society amounts to - is intellectually or morally defensible. Perhaps someone else here will be interested in the argument.

My, my...you're blatantly misrepresenting Scruton's argument. That's what the quotation proves. What you claim is completely unfair to the truth about his view to label him as a proponent of "injustice," when what he was actually advocating was justice for the older generations, and justice for the unborn!

No wonder, then, that his opponents prefer to label and dismiss him. Otherwise, they would have to deal with the truth of his argument...that this generation of so-called "liberals" is actually advocating only for their own narrow interests, and care nothing for generations of the past or their responsibility to the future. Just for themselves.

But we were all babies once. And sooner or later, we will all be the old, then the past generations. And when our time comes, will this generation of so-called "liberals" care one fig for us, or for their poor, unfortunate children? Nope, not a bit.

No wonder they don't want to resort to reasons and evidence -- or even morality. And no wonder they abhor honest discussion. For it is obvious that they would lose, every time, on any of those grounds. So pejoratives and dismissal is all they have left.

Thus do conservatives try to justify - or at least disguise from themselves - their shallow immorality.

AAAaaaand...we're back to the pure ad hominem: "You're a conservative, therefore you are shallow and immoral." Lovely. I knew we were going there soon.

Well done, Pete.

[henry quirk]

society is no more than a pile of individuals?

That's exactly what any society is: individuals competing against, cooperating with, individuals.

There's exploitation and cruelty, and mercy and kindness; grand agendas and profane ones, and always it's individuals competing and cooperating against and with individuals.

What the hell else can a society be?

[Immanuel Can]

society is no more than a pile of individuals?

That's exactly what any society is: individuals competing against, cooperating with, individuals.

There's a basic truth to that, but also there's more to say.

It's like saying, "A football team is a bunch of individuals." Yes, they are -- but they are not JUST that. They are a coordinated group of people striving according to definite rules and strategies, working together in separate roles, to achieve a common purpose to which they are all consenting. They are not just "a bunch of guys"; they are a "team."

And when the coach gets them in the dressing room, he has to explain to them why being an individual is not enough. If they don't get that, they lose. If they understand what they're all doing, and agree to pass, run and kick in the strategic order, given their various strengths and abilities, then they win together. Their recognition of the plan larger than the individual is the key element to their success.

Nobody says they have to play. They can warm the bench, or go somewhere else if they want to. But if they want to join the coordinated effort, then they're going to have to suppress some of their personal ambitions, emotions and values in order to see the team triumph. Nobody wins alone.

So it may suit the short-sighted purposes of individual to have the ball every play, and grab maximal personal glory, or to flip out at an opponent and punch him in front of the ref. It doesn't suit the team. And it doesn't win games.

[Peter Holmes]

My, my...you're blatantly misrepresenting Scruton's argument. That's what the quotation proves. What you claim is completely unfair to the truth about his view to label him as a proponent of "injustice," when what he was actually advocating was justice for the older generations, and justice for the unborn!

No wonder, then, that his opponents prefer to label and dismiss him. Otherwise, they would have to deal with the truth of his argument...that this generation of so-called "liberals" is actually advocating only for their own narrow interests, and care nothing for generations of the past or their responsibility to the future. Just for themselves.

But we were all babies once. And sooner or later, we will all be the old, then the past generations. And when our time comes, will this generation of so-called "liberals" care one fig for us, or for their poor, unfortunate children? Nope, not a bit.

No wonder they don't want to resort to reasons and evidence -- or even morality. And no wonder they abhor honest discussion. For it is obvious that they would lose, every time, on any of those grounds. So pejoratives and dismissal is all they have left.

Thus do conservatives try to justify - or at least disguise from themselves - their shallow immorality.

AAAaaaand...we're back to the pure ad hominem: "You're a conservative, therefore you are shallow and immoral." Lovely. I knew we were going there soon.

Well done, Pete.

No, I'm not trying to refute an argument by attacking character. I'm just saying conservatives are (because conservatism is) immoral. People who subscribe to an immoral political or economic philosophy are themselves immoral. That's not an ad hominem.

[henry quirk]

society is no more than a pile of individuals?

That's exactly what any society is: individuals competing against, cooperating with, individuals.

There's a basic truth to that, but also there's more to say.

It's like saying, "A football team is a bunch of individuals." Yes, they are -- but they are not JUST that. They are a coordinated group of people striving according to definite rules and strategies, working together in separate roles, to achieve a common purpose to which they are all consenting. They are not just "a bunch of guys"; they are a "team."

And when the coach gets them in the dressing room, he has to explain to them why being an individual is not enough. If they don't get that, they lose. If they understand what they're all doing, and agree to pass, run and kick in the strategic order, given their various strengths and abilities, then they win together. Their recognition of the plan larger than the individual is the key element to their success.

Nobody says they have to play. They can warm the bench, or go somewhere else if they want to. But if they want to join the coordinated effort, then they're going to have to suppress some of their personal ambitions, emotions and values in order to see the team triumph. Nobody wins alone.

So it may suit the short-sighted purposes of individual to have the ball every play, and grab maximal personal glory, or to flip out at an opponent and punch him in front of the ref. It doesn't suit the team. And it doesn't win games.

yeah, like I say: individuals competing against, cooperating with, individuals

you philo-types jibber-jabber too much...

[Immanuel Can]

AAAaaaand...we're back to the pure ad hominem: "You're a conservative, therefore you are shallow and immoral." Lovely. I knew we were going there soon.

Well done, Pete.

No, I'm not trying to refute an argument by attacking character. I'm just saying conservatives are (because conservatism is) immoral. People who subscribe to an immoral political or economic philosophy are themselves immoral. That's not an ad hominem.

It is, because you didn't provide evidence or reasons, but just gratuitously attached the terms "shallow and immoral" to anyone who is "conservative." By any fair assessment, that's an overly-broad, prejudiced and unsubstantiated claim. It's a character assassination, not a refutation.

Now, back to Roger Scruton. You accused him of being an "oppressor" and as such, worthy of being "dismissed" without so much as a look at what he said. I provided for you exactly what he said on the matter of "the heredity principle," and it did not at all justify your claim.

If I'm wrong about that, here it is again: show what's so immoral and oppressive about what he actually said:

"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."

Well? He wants us to consider the older generations and the generations to come, in our applications of the social contract. Show me the "oppression." Show me the "immorality."

[Immanuel Can]

yeah, like I say: individuals competing against, cooperating with, individuals

Well, RC doesn't like rules of competition or cooperation. He just wants the individuals to negotiate every play, every pass, every strategy and every goal with some other "individual," instead of figuring out how to play the team's game.

you philo-types jibber-jabber too much...

We do. That's so.

[Sculptor]

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.

NO.
It is an objective FACT that marriage is defined by the culture that writes the laws on marriage, and that marriage is legal contract
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."

Live with it.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

NO.
It is an objective FACT that marriage is defined by the culture that writes the laws on marriage, and that marriage is legal contract
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."

Live with it.

News for you: repetition doesn't make truth. I'll say that again. Repetition doesn't make truth.

And neither does CAPITALIZATION.

Darn it, you're so funny.

[Sculptor]

Well, that's your perspective, no doubt.

NO.
It is an objective FACT that marriage is defined by the culture that writes the laws on marriage, and that marriage is legal contract
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."

Live with it.

News for you: repetition doesn't make truth. I'll say that again. Repetition doesn't make truth.

And neither does CAPITALIZATION.

Darn it, you're so funny.

Ignoring facts does not make you right. It just makes you look stupid.