Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote:Well, we needn't fight. I'm just interested to see if *anyone* has a single reason why Henry is wrong. My suspicion is that from a purely secular worldview perspective, they can't. But I'm all fine with being proved wrong about that guess. It just hasn't happened so far.

The reason he is wrong, is that we needn't fight. That is the whole point. And being a part of the human race rather the apart from it is exactly the way we avoid the fight, and the exact reason he is wrong.

Whilst he might go abroad in society, a user, taking and using the benefits of society, he is living a contradiction.
One day his pretended self imposed exile from the responsibilities implied by the privileges he now enjoys might well come home to roost.
It is true to say that his sort can act like parasites, though. And generally that will always be part of the consequence of communitarian living. But were the whole world composed of his anti-human creed, there would be no society, no security, no progress and we would soon regress into chaos and despair.

Is that reason enough?

"WHy not just bugger off?"

Explained 'that' elsewhere in this place.

Don't give a flip if you agree with me...certainly 'your' validation is less than nuthin'.

I come to this place to say 'no' to your communitarianism...to remind 'you' that not every one thinks as you do...that some stand in opposition to pansy, utopian, schemes.

#

"Is that reason enough?"

Nope.

And: I'm not a parasite, for reasons stated up-thread (reasons you haven't disputed, by the way).

Also: up-thread I've given perfectly practical reasons (disputed by no one) why the fiction of 'equality' is useful to folks living together.

*shrug*

So, Hobbe, flail away...my seven year old throws a better tantrum than you.

"we needn't fight"

The whole of human history says otherwise.

henry quirk wrote:"we needn't fight"

The whole of human history says otherwise.

It also says we largely co-operate.

Arising_uk wrote:

henry quirk wrote:"we needn't fight"

The whole of human history says otherwise.

It also says we largely co-operate.

Exactly, and that's what being part of society involves.

Mr quirky doesn't want to play, so I suppose we will just have to carry him - like a tapeworm.

Sure, cooperation (voluntary alliance) goes hand in hand with competition (fundamentally, 'war').

Nuthin' novel about this observation.

#

Hobb(l)e, where I do I state I don't wanna play?

I cooperate and compete plenty...on 'my' terms.

That, I think, is what irks you.

You want I should 'do' as 'you' like and I insist on 'doing' as 'I' like.

Too bad for you...

Still waitin' for you to refute me (equality is a sometimes useful fiction).

#

"society": a placeholder in the language for a number of folks who live together and (for the most part) don't kill one another.

"society": tin god to communitarians.

To refute Henry, you would need to say more than "I observe that sometimes people cooperate." You would have to show that he has a moral *obligation* not to refuse to treat people equally. That's much more challenging, and so far no one has stepped up to that.

Your first task is very simple: just name that property that people have that indicates they are equal.

Your second task is a bit harder: to show that that property entails a moral obligation for Henry to recognize it and act according to it, rather than, say, choosing to see himself as exempt from it.

Good luck.

henry quirk wrote:Sure, cooperation (voluntary alliance) goes hand in hand with competition (fundamentally, 'war').

Nuthin' novel about this observation.

Apart from saying that we needn't fight that is.

This is a fun thread. I for one read what is in front of me. Henry did not claim he has thick skin, he said he has think skin. Is he implying he can outthink people on this forum ?

Fun aside, is anyone confusing these two?

sameness = possessing same qualities
equality = valued/treated equally

The way I see it, equality can be reasonably described by Venn diagrams, namely, that it is applicable with boundary conditions to different types of qualities and situations.

It cannot be equated with sameness because sameness would imply the end of civilization and humanity.

Also, how does one resolve this paradox, that we are all equal before God and yet God clearly knew what he was doing by not creating us to be the same?

QMan wrote:This is a fun thread. I for one read what is in front of me. Henry did not claim he has thick skin, he said he has think skin. Is he implying he can outthink people on this forum ?

Fun aside, is anyone confusing these two?

sameness = possessing same qualities
equality = valued/treated equally

I brought this up in my first response.

The way I see it, equality can be reasonably described by Venn diagrams, namely, that it is applicable with boundary conditions to different types of qualities and situations.

It cannot be equated with sameness because sameness would imply the end of civilization and humanity.

Also, how does one resolve this paradox, that we are all equal before God and yet God clearly knew what he was doing by not creating us to be the same?

Thanks QMan, Henry's obviously a genius, for casually enjoying the freedoms that communitarian action brought about. Freedoms so easily lost by people with his selfish attitude. Freedoms that have to be defended and fought for with each new generation, ,as each. like Henry has a tendency to take these freedoms for granted.

Immanuel Can wrote:To refute Henry, you would need to say more than "I observe that sometimes people cooperate." You would have to show that he has a moral *obligation* not to refuse to treat people equally. That's much more challenging, and so far no one has stepped up to that.

Your first task is very simple: just name that property that people have that indicates they are equal.

Your second task is a bit harder: to show that that property entails a moral obligation for Henry to recognize it and act according to it, rather than, say, choosing to see himself as exempt from it.

Good luck.

Moral claims are not true or false. They do not submit to "refutation".
Henry is wrong because people have managed to achieve freedoms, that were his philosophy to be dominant they would loose over night.
It's just a choice.
Henry chooses to take his freedoms for granted, whilst resenting them in others. He chooses to parasite upon the society that gave him his freedom.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Moral claims are not true or false. They do not submit to "refutation".

certainly not true of many moral claims

e.g.

homosexuality is wrong

why

the usual reasons - it spreads aids, god forbids it, it leads to drug fueled orgies - are empirical claims

most moral claims are of this sort

"Is he implying he can outthink people on this forum ?"

Nope. To have 'thick skin' means one is not bothered so much by insult (especially the picayune kind foisted up in this thread).

##

I'd like to see the evidence for this claim: "Henry chooses to take his freedoms for granted, whilst resenting them in others."

#

It might be good for any and all involved to read over the thread from the start...I'm thinkin' some folks are losin' sight of the topic.

Just sayin'...

sameness = possessing same qualities
equality = valued/treated equally

Well, I can't speak for others, but I'm not assuming this category error, Qman. I'm just pointing out that *in the case of those who think value-equality is naturalistically discernable,* they would have to be able to name the natural property to which that "equality" attaches. And so far, no one has any plausible suggestions on that.

Henry's obviously a genius, for casually enjoying the freedoms that communitarian action brought about. Freedoms so easily lost by people with his selfish attitude. Freedoms that have to be defended and fought for with each new generation, ,as each. like Henry has a tendency to take these freedoms for granted.

I confess that I find that this is unnecessarily sarcastic, and more than a little ad hominem (read "illogical"). We don't know that Henry is selfish or a parasite on others achievements, or that he takes anything for granted. His position is rational, and deserves rational refutation.

As for its historical claim that "freedoms" were brought about by "communitarian action," there's nothing to them. That's not how basic freedoms or the concept of value-equality of persons appeared. They weren't some sort of benign consensus achieved by the natural evolution of communities. That's mythology, pure and simple.

Moral claims are not true or false. They do not submit to "refutation".

This is only true if moral claims cannot be objective. That is a disputed matter, not clear sailing for your ensuing claim. And you should ask yourself this: if moral claims are "not true or false," and "do not submit to refutation," then how can they be either rational or binding, and how then how justified can you be in being perturbed that Henry doesn't regard them as binding him?

Henry is wrong because people have managed to achieve freedoms, that were his philosophy to be dominant they would loose over night.

I predict Henry will say something like, "So?" but I'll let him speak for himself. So long as he has the freedoms he values, what reasons would compel him to worry? You need to prove to him he has a duty to care about the loss of other people's freedoms. So far you haven't given him any reason to think so.

It's just a choice.

If it's just a choice, then why are you annoyed at Henry? He made a "choice." Don't you like "choice"?

I'm still waiting for that answer to how we get the value-equality of persons.

henry quirk wrote:"Is he implying he can outthink people on this forum ?"

Nope. To have 'thick skin' means one is not bothered so much by insult (especially the picayune kind foisted up in this thread).

##

I'd like to see the evidence for this claim: "Henry chooses to take his freedoms for granted, whilst resenting them in others."

#

It might be good for any and all involved to read over the thread from the start...I'm thinkin' some folks are losin' sight of the topic.

Just sayin'...

Good on you, I'm glad you are posting here, now I can just read what I would have posted, if I weren't so lazy.

I especially like the part about 'thick skin' in all it's varied permutations. It reminds me of one of the reasons I quit teaching. I got to the point where I just didn't care if the students learned or not, And even when I did fail a student for a class, guidance or the admin would change the grade to passing. It was like "why should I care if they don't?"