Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Original sin

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by siam View Post
    As we both agreed---veil of ignorance may be an interesting ethico-moral tool---with reservations...
    1) However...I must admit I have some problem seeing how establishment or de-establishment is related to tolerance/intolerance. France, for example, apparently is an intolerant de-established society.....
    Intolerant compared to ...where? Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Bangladesh, Malaysia....? If any of these countries had the influx of European emigres and the number of terrorist attacks and terror cells, how would they react? Would they even have taken in that many refugees in the first place?

    Again, the crucial question is, if you are totally ignorant of your circumstances, into what kind of society would you want to be born? Restricting the choice to contemporary societies, would you choose Pakistan of France, not knowing if you were to be born a Hindu, Christian, Muslim, Atheist, woman, handicapped, gay, poor? For all of its faults, and I'm sure it has some, I would choose France.

    2) If there is an intolerant theocracy (in theory) then there must also be a tolerant theocracy? If so, is it a better option to live in a tolerant theocracy than an intolerant non-theocracy? (China for example?)
    I'm sure there are some. The Soviet union also comes to mind. I didn't mean that "intolerant" and "theocracy" are to be understood as synonymous, but I'd be willing to bet that there is usually a pretty close correlation. And there's a better chance of tolerance with dis-establishment, although no guarantee.

    3) Also, a point to consider is that Christianity has had a history of "theocracy"---Islam has not. Therefore, judgments of good/bad theocracy might be made within a "Christian" historical framework...but this does not necessarily apply to the Islamic historical framework....therefore it cannot be "irrespective of history" since this is part of our stories.
    Yeah, but Christianity had these things called the "Reformation" and "the Enlightenment." And I respectfully question whether Islamic history is as free of theocracy as you claim. Just a quick glance as Wikipedia indicates otherwise. You may be operating under a different defintion of "theocracy" than I am. And what is Iran if not a theocracy?

    And Rawls was writing about political theory, or political philosophy. We're talking about modal positions, what one would choose under ideal conditions. Although we are all necessarily informed by history, we are not necessarily constrained by it as far as thought experiments of this kind.

    4) de-establishment is an illusion because it simply replaces the "established" metaphysics for another one (secularism) that claims "universality" and superiority. Under such a metaphysic foundation, certain assumptions are laid such as definitions of justice, liberty, equality, human beings...etc upon which meta-ethics (or lack thereof) is justified.
    An "illusion" for whom relative to what? Al that matters is what would YOU choose given your self-interest? Whatever each person would ideally choose motivated by nothing other than their free self-interests for the greatest advantage of the least possible advantaged is the most just way to organize a society.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
      No, I agree with you it's about the best interests of all parties involved, but from a disinterested or third-person point of view as much as possible. But the problem comes in determining what the "best interests" are and who "all parties" include.
      I don't believe there is a disinterested or third person point of view. That's one of the great things about democracy, it's the most likely system to get the best interests of the whole of society right ,or ultimately the best interests of the whole of humanity.



      I agree that we don't need an objective lawgiver.
      I don't even believe that morals have anything to do with objectivity in the sense that they exist apart from human beings.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
        1 a)Intolerant compared to ...where? Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Bangladesh, Malaysia....? b) If any of these countries had the influx of European emigres and the number of terrorist attacks and terror cells, how would they react? Would they even have taken in that many refugees in the first place?

        2)Again, the crucial question is, if you are totally ignorant of your circumstances, into what kind of society would you want to be born? Restricting the choice to contemporary societies, would you choose Pakistan of France, not knowing if you were to be born a Hindu, Christian, Muslim, Atheist, woman, handicapped, gay, poor? For all of its faults, and I'm sure it has some, I would choose France.



        3)I'm sure there are some. The Soviet union also comes to mind. I didn't mean that "intolerant" and "theocracy" are to be understood as synonymous, but I'd be willing to bet that there is usually a pretty close correlation. And there's a better chance of tolerance with dis-establishment, although no guarantee.



        4)eah, but Christianity had these things called the "Reformation" and "the Enlightenment." And I respectfully question whether Islamic history is as free of theocracy as you claim. Just a quick glance as Wikipedia indicates otherwise. You may be operating under a different defintion of "theocracy" than I am. And what is Iran if not a theocracy?

        And Rawls was writing about political theory, or political philosophy. We're talking about modal positions, what one would choose under ideal conditions. Although we are all necessarily informed by history, we are not necessarily constrained by it as far as thought experiments of this kind.



        5)An "illusion" for whom relative to what? Al that matters is what would YOU choose given your self-interest? Whatever each person would ideally choose motivated by nothing other than their free self-interests for the greatest advantage of the least possible advantaged is the most just way to organize a society.
        1a) The countries u mentioned have often been brought up as examples---but...there are several factors that have not been taken into consideration---these are the "histories" among which is the circumstances of these countries being "post-colonial", often with major institution-building occuring post ww2, and their roles in the " (Western) capitalist" system being pre-determined.
        Colonialism established the economic winners and losers with some countries gaining enormous benefits from exploitation and others ending up as economic losers. This set the stage for the type of "democracy" that the "West" enjoyed. The West then used their wealth to further interfere with the political choices and institution-building of what they referred to as the "developing" countries ---often undermining both the state and the judicial systems and encouraging corruption.
        The U.S. interferes not only economically and politically...but also militarily, in the sovereign affairs of other nation-states. Naturally, with such active and hostile interference---one cannot expect the same historical trajectory as those who have not gone through such obstacles. Not to mention, the history of Western democracy has not necessarily been pretty if one looks at it closely. It has been born of bloody wars and revolutions, grown on the abuse and exploitation of the weakest of humanity (both domestically and internationally). One might even say---it is a hypocritical political system based on the illusion that it is "for the people" all the while it empowers and privileges those already in power.
        Its success lies not in its abilities as a political system of fairness and equality---rather that it has so successfully fooled most of those who live in it.

        1b) interesting question...will answer at the end

        2) In a veil of ignorance scenario---I would choose neither Pakistan nor France---as they are the same to me. The whole point of thinking on this subject is that ethically/morally I find modern "systems" unsatisfactory.

        3) wishful thinking?....

        4) Definition---Theocracy is a form of government in which God or a deity of some type is recognized as the supreme ruling authority, giving divine guidance to human intermediaries that manage the day to day affairs of the government.
        Christianity has the concept of the "Divine right of Kings"---which is a concept historically and theologically absent from Islam. In Islam---a "governor" (king/president or other title) gets his/her authority to lead/govern from the people. That is why the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) had a "vote" before he took up his official leadership role in Medina.
        To me it seems that both a "theocracy" and the nation-state assign an arbitrary "power" to give themselves the "authority" to rule? The nation-state (an arbitrary concept) makes the laws that everyone has to obey---(regardless of their conscience or ethico-moral leanings) as does an intolerant theocracy. Both are systems constructed under the core idea of "supremacy" not equality....?.....

        5) Liberty---the freedom to travel and live anywhere on earth---without borders. The freedom to choose the ethico-moral system of justice and laws that cohere with my conscience and ethico-moral values and world-view. a degree of freedom from systems of economic oppression (debts, taxes). Preservation of my rights and the rights of others in a fair, transparent and just manner.....and more...?....

        1b) Did u know that many countries under colonialism did not even have a choice? People were simply "imported". Take Australia---an influx of Europeans came and annihilated the local culture, language, religion and supplanted it with an alien one. Not only that---practices of displacement, discrimination, exploitation, and terror contributed to the oppression and injustice of the local inhabitants. All in the name of a "superior civilization"....an idea that seems to still permeate Western thinking?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
          ...That's one of the great things about democracy, it's the most likely system to get the best interests of the whole of society right ,or ultimately the best interests of the whole of humanity.
          John Adams might disagree with you...
          “I do not say that democracy has been more pernicious on the whole, and in the long run, than monarchy or aristocracy. Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either. … Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves. Nations and large bodies of men, never.”

          Comment


          • Originally posted by siam View Post
            John Adams might disagree with you...
            “I do not say that democracy has been more pernicious on the whole, and in the long run, than monarchy or aristocracy. Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either. … Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves. Nations and large bodies of men, never.”
            Sure, when left unchecked Democracy can be no better than Aristocracy or Monarchy which is why in the U.S. the Founding Fathers applied checks and balances. The moral fault lies in human beings, the cure in the system of governance. I don't think it's true that Adams disagrees, he helped to establish a Democracy after all.
            Last edited by JimL; 01-07-2020, 06:19 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
              I don't believe there is a disinterested or third person point of view. That's one of the great things about democracy, it's the most likely system to get the best interests of the whole of society right ,or ultimately the best interests of the whole of humanity.
              I wrote "disinterested as much as possible." Morality isn't about what I as an individual want but about what I would want ideally. It's not just self-interest or mob rule.




              I don't even believe that morals have anything to do with objectivity in the sense that they exist apart from human beings.
              I believe they do exist independently of humans as far as being norms or ideals, but not in terms of being handed down by a supernatural law giver.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by siam View Post
                1a) The countries u mentioned have often been brought up as examples---but...there are several factors that have not been taken into consideration---these are the "histories" among which is the circumstances of these countries being "post-colonial", often with major institution-building occuring post ww2, and their roles in the " (Western) capitalist" system being pre-determined.
                I just wrote a long post that got lost somehow. I don't feel like trying to reconstruct it from memory. Suffice it to say that i agree with everything you write about US and western exploitation and think that it's largely beside the point. What was the status of the least advantaged in these societies prior to colonialism?

                Colonialism established the economic winners and losers with some countries gaining enormous benefits from exploitation and others ending up as economic losers. This set the stage for the type of "democracy" that the "West" enjoyed. The West then used their wealth to further interfere with the political choices and institution-building of what they referred to as the "developing" countries ---often undermining both the state and the judicial systems and encouraging corruption.
                The U.S. interferes not only economically and politically...but also militarily, in the sovereign affairs of other nation-states. Naturally, with such active and hostile interference---one cannot expect the same historical trajectory as those who have not gone through such obstacles. Not to mention, the history of Western democracy has not necessarily been pretty if one looks at it closely. It has been born of bloody wars and revolutions, grown on the abuse and exploitation of the weakest of humanity (both domestically and internationally). One might even say---it is a hypocritical political system based on the illusion that it is "for the people" all the while it empowers and privileges those already in power.
                Its success lies not in its abilities as a political system of fairness and equality---rather that it has so successfully fooled most of those who live in it.
                I know all of this. Thanks for the history lesson. As far as the US is concerned, it hasn't fooled as many of us as you think it has. We actually have a more sophisticated grasp of dialectical history than comic book versions such as you seem to recite would afford.



                2) In a veil of ignorance scenario---I would choose neither Pakistan nor France---as they are the same to me. The whole point of thinking on this subject is that ethically/morally I find modern "systems" unsatisfactory.
                All countries sin and fall short of the glory of God. Not being able to distinguish between Pakistan and France I think speaks for itself. What place is morally untainted enough for you?

                3) wishful thinking?....
                You refer to several different ideas so it's not clear what you're referring to.

                4) Definition---Theocracy is a form of government in which God or a deity of some type is recognized as the supreme ruling authority, giving divine guidance to human intermediaries that manage the day to day affairs of the government.
                Christianity has the concept of the "Divine right of Kings"---which is a concept historically and theologically absent from Islam. In Islam---a "governor" (king/president or other title) gets his/her authority to lead/govern from the people. That is why the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) had a "vote" before he took up his official leadership role in Medina.
                To me it seems that both a "theocracy" and the nation-state assign an arbitrary "power" to give themselves the "authority" to rule? The nation-state (an arbitrary concept) makes the laws that everyone has to obey---(regardless of their conscience or ethico-moral leanings) as does an intolerant theocracy. Both are systems constructed under the core idea of "supremacy" not equality....?.....
                I was under the impression that God directly handed directions to the Prophet on how to organize society and government, no? And that these got encoded, directly or indirectly into Islamic Laws that Islamic Republics have recognized as the official laws of state. Isn't the word of God then the ultimate authority in matters of statecraft? You can see how "cultural translation" could lead to some ambiguities in translating the term "theocracy"(?) According to the World Population Review, 6 out of 7 of the countries currently recognized as theocracies are Islamic.

                The nation state according to Locke derives its legitimacy from the permission of the governed, and that this right of the governed was divinely endowed, so no, the Lockean model would not be "arbitrary," as you say. The default position lies with the governed, not with the governing, and that the latter has to earn that right through (temporary) permission. It was, and remains, a novel idea.

                5) Liberty---the freedom to travel and live anywhere on earth---without borders. The freedom to choose the ethico-moral system of justice and laws that cohere with my conscience and ethico-moral values and world-view. a degree of freedom from systems of economic oppression (debts, taxes). Preservation of my rights and the rights of others in a fair, transparent and just manner.....and more...?....
                I can't live on someone else's land. I can't choose an ethico-moral system that's inimical to the rights of others. Rights exist within a system of tension with duties. We have a duty to be intolerant of thise who are intolerant and would disrupt the system of rights for everyone.

                1b) Did u know that many countries under colonialism did not even have a choice? People were simply "imported". Take Australia---an influx of Europeans came and annihilated the local culture, language, religion and supplanted it with an alien one. Not only that---practices of displacement, discrimination, exploitation, and terror contributed to the oppression and injustice of the local inhabitants. All in the name of a "superior civilization"....an idea that seems to still permeate Western thinking?
                Yes, I did. Thanks again for History 101 :) And Arabs were deeply involved in the African slave trade. So what?
                Last edited by Jim B.; 01-07-2020, 08:23 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                  I wrote "disinterested as much as possible." Morality isn't about what I as an individual want but about what I would want ideally. It's not just self-interest or mob rule.
                  I think we're pretty much in agree agreement.




                  I believe they do exist independently of humans as far as being norms or ideals, but not in terms of being handed down by a supernatural law giver.
                  Kinda, I guess, but i'm not sure moral norms or ideals could be defined as having actual existence apart from human existence. But again I think we are basically in agreement, so thanks.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                    1) I just wrote a long post that got lost somehow. I don't feel like trying to reconstruct it from memory. Suffice it to say that i agree with everything you write about US and western exploitation and think that it's largely beside the point. What was the status of the least advantaged in these societies prior to colonialism?

                    I know all of this. Thanks for the history lesson. As far as the US is concerned, it hasn't fooled as many of us as you think it has. We actually have a more sophisticated grasp of dialectical history than comic book versions such as you seem to recite would afford.

                    All countries sin and fall short of the glory of God. Not being able to distinguish between Pakistan and France I think speaks for itself. What place is morally untainted enough for you?
                    You refer to several different ideas so it's not clear what you're referring to.



                    2) I was under the impression that God directly handed directions to the Prophet on how to organize society and government, no? And that these got encoded, directly or indirectly into Islamic Laws that Islamic Republics have recognized as the official laws of state. Isn't the word of God then the ultimate authority in matters of statecraft? You can see how "cultural translation" could lead to some ambiguities in translating the term "theocracy"(?) According to the World Population Review, 6 out of 7 of the countries currently recognized as theocracies are Islamic.

                    3) The nation state according to Locke derives its legitimacy from the permission of the governed, and that this right of the governed was divinely endowed, so no, the Lockean model would not be "arbitrary," as you say. The default position lies with the governed, not with the governing, and that the latter has to earn that right through (temporary) permission. It was, and remains, a novel idea.



                    4) I can't live on someone else's land. I can't choose an ethico-moral system that's inimical to the rights of others. Rights exist within a system of tension with duties. We have a duty to be intolerant of thise who are intolerant and would disrupt the system of rights for everyone.



                    Yes, I did. Thanks again for History 101 :) And Arabs were deeply involved in the African slave trade. So what?
                    My apologies for bringing out old/tired arguments...the point is that in many places outside of the "West" democracy is seen as a failure and the reason often used by the "West" to explain it is that the rest of the world is not "civilized" enough to use and appreciate democracy. I feel that if a country has to follow the same historical trajectory of blood and exploitation in order to achieve "successful" (whatever criteria its measured by?) democracy---then this is not an experiment worth undertaking?

                    I want to contemplate alternatives of political, economic and social systems that put metaethics at its foundation in such a way that people with different metaphysic starting points can live together in harmony. At this point, neither France nor Pakistan has a system good enough for my liking. There are stigmatized peoples in France who have been systematically oppressed for generations.
                    While French ghettos emerged in a different political context and in response to different historical stimuli than the ones in the U.S., they were similar in that they were created intentionally and they trapped their poor residents of color in
                    poverty, often for generations. “All this means is that the French government, but also the mayors and so on, they have a huge responsibility in the construction of the French model of segregation.”
                    https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/...-paris/543597/

                    So---In France if u are a human being who is stereotypically "French" you belong and if you do not--you don't belong even if you are French and have lived in France for generations. The same goes for differences in lifestyles, clothing, ethics, religion...etc. In order to "belong"/be accepted one has to conform to the major "stereotype". So yes---seeing France as "better" than Pakistan does speak volumes about bias does it not?....

                    2) The Quran does provide meta-ethical guidelines on a variety of issues---including governance. However, ethics (ethical guidelines)do not impart individual authority. According to Islamic meta-ethical principles of equality---"human rights" belong to all humanity (that is why they are called "human" rights). Therefore---in a state where all human beings are inherently equal---the "duty"/responsibility to lead the group is necessarily given by the people. With this responsibility comes (limited) authority. The nature and limits of this authority should be determined by some type of consent of the people.
                    Law--Yes--you have pointed out the major flaw of modern "Islamic" statecraft which is that the state makes the laws. Historically, the "scholars of law" made the laws and these were independent of the "state". Each religio-philosophy within the "state" had the right to make and live by their own laws and they had their own courts to adjudicate disputes. (Legal Pluralism) But today, ---without legal pluralism, there is no legal equality. The majority rules and others have to live by the rules of that majority---both in France and Pakistan.

                    3) Nation-state and its boundaries are arbitrary---for example, The (independent) Kingdom of Arrakan got colonized by the British and when they left, it got handed over to the Burmese who then stripped many of its inhabitants of citizenship and other oppressions leading to the genocide of today. So no---these are often not boundaries of choice. They are arbritrary and often invisible lines drawn on a map....sometimes by foreign idiots who don't know any better....
                    Rights/Responsibilities---I agree that human societies that organize themselves into large groups have the right to choose a leader/governor. Today, because of the concept of "nation-state"---this right is conditional on a "property"/territory that a particular group claims as its own. But there are other alternatives---for example, the Catholic Church has meta-ethical principles that they encourage their group to adhere to even though jurisdiction is not related to ownership of "territory".
                    So..voluntary allegiance to a metaphysic position that leads to metaethical values does not necessarily require ownership/claim of a territory.....right?

                    4) If we consider that all land (and water) belongs to God and we are tenants who manage the property for a period of time---then perhaps we would be in a better position to share what God has given to humanity? In the case of Arrakan and Burma for example---had the Burmese adhered to the Buddhist metaethical principles of equality rather than falling prey to a mythic idea of nationalism---perhaps a genocide could have been avoided and different peoples could have lived and shared together in harmony?

                    intolerance---I understand what you mean---certainly, ideas such as that of Wahabism or ISIS pose problems....particularly if such ideas encourage criminal acts. Do you believe reason and law can manage such ideas or do you think such ideas require force (ex--suppression through use of state tools of force?) Are such ideas the result of experienced or perceived injustice and would this play into any solutions for a better society---in your opinion?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by siam View Post
                      My apologies for bringing out old/tired arguments...the point is that in many places outside of the "West" democracy is seen as a failure and the reason often used by the "West" to explain it is that the rest of the world is not "civilized" enough to use and appreciate democracy. I feel that if a country has to follow the same historical trajectory of blood and exploitation in order to achieve "successful" (whatever criteria its measured by?) democracy---then this is not an experiment worth undertaking?

                      I want to contemplate alternatives of political, economic and social systems that put metaethics at its foundation in such a way that people with different metaphysic starting points can live together in harmony. At this point, neither France nor Pakistan has a system good enough for my liking. There are stigmatized peoples in France who have been systematically oppressed for generations.
                      While French ghettos emerged in a different political context and in response to different historical stimuli than the ones in the U.S., they were similar in that they were created intentionally and they trapped their poor residents of color in
                      poverty, often for generations. “All this means is that the French government, but also the mayors and so on, they have a huge responsibility in the construction of the French model of segregation.”
                      https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/...-paris/543597/

                      So---In France if u are a human being who is stereotypically "French" you belong and if you do not--you don't belong even if you are French and have lived in France for generations. The same goes for differences in lifestyles, clothing, ethics, religion...etc. In order to "belong"/be accepted one has to conform to the major "stereotype". So yes---seeing France as "better" than Pakistan does speak volumes about bias does it not?....

                      2) The Quran does provide meta-ethical guidelines on a variety of issues---including governance. However, ethics (ethical guidelines)do not impart individual authority. According to Islamic meta-ethical principles of equality---"human rights" belong to all humanity (that is why they are called "human" rights). Therefore---in a state where all human beings are inherently equal---the "duty"/responsibility to lead the group is necessarily given by the people. With this responsibility comes (limited) authority. The nature and limits of this authority should be determined by some type of consent of the people.
                      Law--Yes--you have pointed out the major flaw of modern "Islamic" statecraft which is that the state makes the laws. Historically, the "scholars of law" made the laws and these were independent of the "state". Each religio-philosophy within the "state" had the right to make and live by their own laws and they had their own courts to adjudicate disputes. (Legal Pluralism) But today, ---without legal pluralism, there is no legal equality. The majority rules and others have to live by the rules of that majority---both in France and Pakistan.

                      3) Nation-state and its boundaries are arbitrary---for example, The (independent) Kingdom of Arrakan got colonized by the British and when they left, it got handed over to the Burmese who then stripped many of its inhabitants of citizenship and other oppressions leading to the genocide of today. So no---these are often not boundaries of choice. They are arbritrary and often invisible lines drawn on a map....sometimes by foreign idiots who don't know any better....
                      Rights/Responsibilities---I agree that human societies that organize themselves into large groups have the right to choose a leader/governor. Today, because of the concept of "nation-state"---this right is conditional on a "property"/territory that a particular group claims as its own. But there are other alternatives---for example, the Catholic Church has meta-ethical principles that they encourage their group to adhere to even though jurisdiction is not related to ownership of "territory".
                      So..voluntary allegiance to a metaphysic position that leads to metaethical values does not necessarily require ownership/claim of a territory.....right?

                      4) If we consider that all land (and water) belongs to God and we are tenants who manage the property for a period of time---then perhaps we would be in a better position to share what God has given to humanity? In the case of Arrakan and Burma for example---had the Burmese adhered to the Buddhist metaethical principles of equality rather than falling prey to a mythic idea of nationalism---perhaps a genocide could have been avoided and different peoples could have lived and shared together in harmony?

                      intolerance---I understand what you mean---certainly, ideas such as that of Wahabism or ISIS pose problems....particularly if such ideas encourage criminal acts. Do you believe reason and law can manage such ideas or do you think such ideas require force (ex--suppression through use of state tools of force?) Are such ideas the result of experienced or perceived injustice and would this play into any solutions for a better society---in your opinion?
                      It seems then that Rawlsianism would be the solution to the problems you refer to. I get the impression that you keep trying to saddle it with a "meta-ethic" and a "metaphysic" that taint it with the sins of Western imperialism and colonialism. All I ask is that you reserve judgment on this. Because you associate it with "western democracy," I believe you are indicting it with guilt by association. When I refer to a "neutral space," I mean a virtual neutral space. When everyone in a society is equally able to choose from a position of the least advantaged, then no one person or authority has overriding authority. It's 'neutral' by default, not through metaphysical design. Although every philosophy/philosopher has a metaphysical lineage, you can't legitimately reduce that philosophy to that lineage. You have to evaluate it on its own terms. Again, I believe it's procedural, not substantive in its neutrality, although you're free to disagree. And again, I ask you, whatever your complaints or grievances about France or any given society, and they are legitimate, as the least empowered person, wouldn't your choices make for a more just arrangement?

                      4) Yes, ultimately all land and all things do belong to God, but in the West and perhaps in Islam there is the long-standing concept of stewardship and tenancy, and the idea that we own our bodies through divine designation, and because of this, we own the fruits of our labors (the labors of our bodies). The idea of private ownership, for better or worse, is pretty deeply ingrained in the West, and from what I can gather from the oil producing states, in the Islamic world as well.

                      Nation-state boundaries are arbitrary to a large degree. They have traditionally been drawn up either through ethnicity, war, geography, historical accident, etc... The US may be unique in that it is based on a set of ideas and principles that, as you point out, we are still trying, not always very successfully, to realize.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                        1)It seems then that Rawlsianism would be the solution to the problems you refer to. I get the impression that you keep trying to saddle it with a "meta-ethic" and a "metaphysic" that taint it with the sins of Western imperialism and colonialism. All I ask is that you reserve judgment on this. Because you associate it with "western democracy," I believe you are indicting it with guilt by association. When I refer to a "neutral space," I mean a virtual neutral space. When everyone in a society is equally able to choose from a position of the least advantaged, then no one person or authority has overriding authority. It's 'neutral' by default, not through metaphysical design. Although every philosophy/philosopher has a metaphysical lineage, you can't legitimately reduce that philosophy to that lineage. You have to evaluate it on its own terms. Again, I believe it's procedural, not substantive in its neutrality, although you're free to disagree. And again, I ask you, whatever your complaints or grievances about France or any given society, and they are legitimate, as the least empowered person, wouldn't your choices make for a more just arrangement?

                        2) Yes, ultimately all land and all things do belong to God, but in the West and perhaps in Islam there is the long-standing concept of stewardship and tenancy, and the idea that we own our bodies through divine designation, and because of this, we own the fruits of our labors (the labors of our bodies). The idea of private ownership, for better or worse, is pretty deeply ingrained in the West, and from what I can gather from the oil producing states, in the Islamic world as well.

                        3)Nation-state boundaries are arbitrary to a large degree. They have traditionally been drawn up either through ethnicity, war, geography, historical accident, etc... The US may be unique in that it is based on a set of ideas and principles that, as you point out, we are still trying, not always very successfully, to realize.
                        1) interesting summation of my comments--perhaps a degree of scapegoating and/or projection may have taken place on my part?...or not?....in any case, systemic wrongs do not happen in a vacuum...they need a degree of compliance or at least apathy from the general community/society to occur....so humanity (both east and west) shares in the blame to varying degrees.....
                        Perhaps some of my reservation regarding "veil of ignorance" comes from the concept of racial color-blindness. In which conversations take place in an assumption of post-racism---when actually systemic rascism exists.
                        https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...uctive/405037/
                        "...many Americans purport not to see color. However, their colorblindness comes at a cost. By claiming that they do not see race, they also can avert their eyes from the ways in which well-meaning people engage in practices that reproduce neighborhood and school segregation, rely on “soft skills” in ways that disadvantage racial minorities in the job market, and hoard opportunities in ways that reserve access to better jobs for white peers."

                        "...Everyone wants to be treated as an individual and recognized for their personal traits and characteristics. But the colorblindness that sociologists critique doesnÂ’t allow for this. Instead, it encourages those who endorse this perspective to ignore the ongoing processes that maintain racial stratification in schools, neighborhoods, health care, and other social institutions. Can color consciousness draw attention to these issues? The research demonstrates that it can lead to more understanding of our racially stratified society and can give rise to a willingness to work for change. So from that perspective, it doesnÂ’t seem worth abandoning just yet."

                        Since a neutral space is a thought experiment---will it really be able to deal with real world problems?...particularly problems that are diverse....

                        **Using veil of ignorance thought experiment---considered from pov of homeless---what kind of society would we envision?
                        That would depend on conceptions of rights and responsibilities---or more specifically---who has rights and who has responsibilities....?....
                        ...supposing our world view/starting point was based on individual rights and state responsibility...then it would follow that a homeless person has the right to property and the state has the responsibility to provide it....which is often a political policy in a democracy---especially if voting requires an address---then housing for the homeless automatically increases voting base....
                        But what if our starting point were different?---what would a Christian metaphysic position do with the "veil of ignorance" tool? (based on Christian ethico-moral principles and conceptions of rights and responsibilities)
                        Would this fit into a Christian worldview/metaphysic? (six factors of well-being/Eudamonia)
                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-fa...cal_Well-being

                        2) Interesting idea about body and labor---I have not heard of it in an Islamic context yet---might require more research. However, principles of ethical economics are mentioned in the Quran....Just as property belongs to God and is "leased" to humanity (for its care and management), wealth belongs to God and is "loaned" to humanity. The expenditure of physical labor requires commensurate compensation---the use of intellectual labor---such as writing, teaching, research---etc also requires commensurate compensation with tools such as salaries, royalties, patents...etc, as does the expenditures of monetary investments---such as business partnerships, shareholdings, trusts, etc.
                        Thus, the right to wealth (from physical, intellectual, monetary or inherited, means) comes with the responsibility/duty of charity....because wealth is a loan from God.
                        If our world-view was that of "might is right"/winner takes it---then one might arrive at a conclusion that "ownership" gives full authority of use/disposal of property/wealth? somewhat like our current economic system---but if "ownership" comes with both rights and responsibilities---it could create the foundation of a different system? If "ownership" is limited---the authority (rights) for its use/disposal would also be limited/constrained (by duty/responsibility) leading to more balance that could lend itself better towards a more ethico-moral construction of a socio-political-economic system...perhaps?.....

                        3) There are areas of the world that are war-torn or failing "states"...and if they are to re-build, are concepts for nation-state boundaries, political organization as republics, legal monism, capitalism....etc the basic starting points or can we re-think our societies more creatively? I don't have answers...but I do think there is no harm in thinking about it....
                        Last edited by siam; 01-10-2020, 12:48 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by siam View Post
                          1) interesting summation of my comments--perhaps a degree of scapegoating and/or projection may have taken place on my part?...or not?....in any case, systemic wrongs do not happen in a vacuum...they need a degree of compliance or at least apathy from the general community/society to occur....so humanity (both east and west) shares in the blame to varying degrees.....
                          Perhaps some of my reservation regarding "veil of ignorance" comes from the concept of racial color-blindness. In which conversations take place in an assumption of post-racism---when actually systemic rascism exists.
                          https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...uctive/405037/
                          "...many Americans purport not to see color. However, their colorblindness comes at a cost. By claiming that they do not see race, they also can avert their eyes from the ways in which well-meaning people engage in practices that reproduce neighborhood and school segregation, rely on “soft skills” in ways that disadvantage racial minorities in the job market, and hoard opportunities in ways that reserve access to better jobs for white peers."

                          "...Everyone wants to be treated as an individual and recognized for their personal traits and characteristics. But the colorblindness that sociologists critique doesnÂ’t allow for this. Instead, it encourages those who endorse this perspective to ignore the ongoing processes that maintain racial stratification in schools, neighborhoods, health care, and other social institutions. Can color consciousness draw attention to these issues? The research demonstrates that it can lead to more understanding of our racially stratified society and can give rise to a willingness to work for change. So from that perspective, it doesnÂ’t seem worth abandoning just yet."

                          Since a neutral space is a thought experiment---will it really be able to deal with real world problems?...particularly problems that are diverse....

                          **Using veil of ignorance thought experiment---considered from pov of homeless---what kind of society would we envision?
                          That would depend on conceptions of rights and responsibilities---or more specifically---who has rights and who has responsibilities....?....
                          ...supposing our world view/starting point was based on individual rights and state responsibility...then it would follow that a homeless person has the right to property and the state has the responsibility to provide it....which is often a political policy in a democracy---especially if voting requires an address---then housing for the homeless automatically increases voting base....
                          But what if our starting point were different?---what would a Christian metaphysic position do with the "veil of ignorance" tool? (based on Christian ethico-moral principles and conceptions of rights and responsibilities)
                          Would this fit into a Christian worldview/metaphysic? (six factors of well-being/Eudamonia)
                          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-fa...cal_Well-being

                          2) Interesting idea about body and labor---I have not heard of it in an Islamic context yet---might require more research. However, principles of ethical economics are mentioned in the Quran....Just as property belongs to God and is "leased" to humanity (for its care and management), wealth belongs to God and is "loaned" to humanity. The expenditure of physical labor requires commensurate compensation---the use of intellectual labor---such as writing, teaching, research---etc also requires commensurate compensation with tools such as salaries, royalties, patents...etc, as does the expenditures of monetary investments---such as business partnerships, shareholdings, trusts, etc.
                          Thus, the right to wealth (from physical, intellectual, monetary or inherited, means) comes with the responsibility/duty of charity....because wealth is a loan from God.
                          If our world-view was that of "might is right"/winner takes it---then one might arrive at a conclusion that "ownership" gives full authority of use/disposal of property/wealth? somewhat like our current economic system---but if "ownership" comes with both rights and responsibilities---it could create the foundation of a different system? If "ownership" is limited---the authority (rights) for its use/disposal would also be limited/constrained (by duty/responsibility) leading to more balance that could lend itself better towards a more ethico-moral construction of a socio-political-economic system...perhaps?.....

                          3) There are areas of the world that are war-torn or failing "states"...and if they are to re-build, are concepts for nation-state boundaries, political organization as republics, legal monism, capitalism....etc the basic starting points or can we re-think our societies more creatively? I don't have answers...but I do think there is no harm in thinking about it....
                          Again, I agree with everything you write but I question its relevance to Rawls. I also think color-blindness is probably counter-productive and doesn't address the root evils of systemic racism. But how does that have anything to do with Rawls? It seems like you keep trying to collectivize this topic into large ethico-politico-historical abstractions when i question whether it really applies. I think you misunderstand the use of the term "neutral space." It's probably my fault. Why don't we set that term aside for right now since it's led to so much confusion?

                          What, in your opinion, is a "Christian metaphysic," aside from the strictly theological beliefs about Christ, about loving God and your neighbor, etc? Beyond that, politically Christians range from the far right to Maoism and further left. Christians are anything but monolithic in any way, including theologically.

                          What would a homeless person want if he or she could choose? What would YOU choose if you could not know what circumstances you would be born into? That's all the veil requires. If you could not know how the "lottery of birth" will come out for you, how would you set up the society you'd be born into? Period. End of story. Of course we cannot wipe out our pasts and really step behind the veil, but that is to miss the point. The point is to act as a historical agent with real self-interest to shape society as one is right now, with the history one has and the life one has lived. Your self-interest procedurally sets aside your metaphysic in order to get the best possible deal for yourself as the (very possibly) least advantaged. So in a society with Sikhs, Jains, Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, women, children, humanists, agnostics, atheists, gays, handicapped, ethnic minorities, etc, the most just arrangement (one would hope!) would be secured.
                          Last edited by Jim B.; 01-10-2020, 08:44 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seer View Post
                            Original sin: The tendency to evil supposedly innate in all human beings, held to be inherited from Adam in consequence of the Fall.

                            Here I'm not focusing on the why of original sin, how we got here, but the fact of original sin (or evil). That we all do evil. And it's not that we merely do evil by mistake, but that we do wrong even when we agree with ourselves that the act is wrong. We, as humans, have all experienced this: I know A is wrong, I agree that A is wrong, yet I do it anyway. The morally rational is superseded or rejected - and we choose the wrong. But why, what is driving these bad choices, if we agree and know A is wrong, what compels us to go against our best moral sense? If we say selfishness or lust then the question becomes - how/why do these so often rise to ascendancy? What makes us forgo the rational in these moral situations?
                            Well one thing is for sure, the biblical A+E couldn't have inherited those qualities, so where could they have come from?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Original sin: The tendency to evil supposedly innate in all human beings, held to be inherited from Adam in consequence of the Fall.

                              Here I'm not focusing on the why of original sin, how we got here, but the fact of original sin (or evil). That we all do evil. And it's not that we merely do evil by mistake, but that we do wrong even when we agree with ourselves that the act is wrong. We, as humans, have all experienced this: I know A is wrong, I agree that A is wrong, yet I do it anyway. The morally rational is superseded or rejected - and we choose the wrong. But why, what is driving these bad choices, if we agree and know A is wrong, what compels us to go against our best moral sense? If we say selfishness or lust then the question becomes - how/why do these so often rise to ascendancy? What makes us forgo the rational in these moral situations?
                              I read through about half this thread this morning and feel it might provide food for thought to mention what I believe to be the interesting approach my "mechanism of value" takes to the question of original sin.

                              First, the notion of inheriting "original sin" is incoherent or at least seriously flawed because terms like "sin", "good" and "evil" are effects while the pursuit of knowledge of man's natural fallenness seeks causes. Value mechanics is more coherent because it posits value itself as a cause sufficient to produce the aforementioned effects. I reject shunyadragon's position that if man is fallen, God is responsible for that fallenness. To create a being with free will, it seems intuitively an inescapable responsibility on the part of the creator to provide at least one test of that freedom else "free will" would just be a meaningless phrase. What kind of freedom could there be if it was never challenged, if the only choices available to it lie in wholly true choices of within wholly true states of affairs? [I defend the position that goods and evils are byproducts of truth and falsity; a thing is good insofar as it's comprised of sufficiently true components to choose truly (or choose well; choose good over evil). It then follows that the degree to which a thing is falsified is the extent to which it possesses 'badness'.]

                              From the position that truth is an ontological part of the essence of all things and only the human soul can be actually falsified (though things can be falsified [from the perspective of an observer] by rearrangement of their truthbearing components--it follows that what Adam and Eve contributed, by what I take to be the only truly "free" choice ever made in human history, was the falsification of human essence (soul), which was passed causally down through history. This view effectively posits truth and falsity as ontological qualities [value] whose natural byproducts are good and evil, respectively. Falsity fragmentally distributed throughout the soul, is the cause of sin and evil. Just as consciousness isn't found in an atom, but can be thought to emerge from within a complex collection of them, so evil, badness and sin are not components of falsity per se but emerge as effects of it in the complexity of the human soul.

                              If God is responsible for this, as by having foreknowledge of the choice, then there is solid reasoning behind His decision to create the world in way He did. One possible reason I've heard someone state is that falsity in this case acts as a pathogen which, having been injected into humanity necessarily runs its course, producing 'spiritual antibodies' by which human souls are made ready in time to endure eternity with knowledge of good and evil, but without propensity to indulge in the latter.

                              Choices for badness or evil resulting in sin, while having rational elements to them (as any choice will have), is (or can be depending on degree of falsification) in a 'mechanism of value' context, more value-driven than reason-driven.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                                Well one thing is for sure, the biblical A+E couldn't have inherited those qualities, so where could they have come from?
                                Traditions and mythology
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                508 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X