02-Nov-2010, 02:51 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-Nov-2010, 05:09 PM by Ajita Kamal.)
Madhav,
By that I presume you mean all cultures evolve. This is a trivial observation. The idea of a cultural meme requires this as one of the premises.
These things that are subjective need not be about morals or cognitive values such as logic, but can also be about percepts that are experienced in a common inter-subjective way. The colour blue is a subjective idea, but the wavelength of light that corresponds to what the majority of humans perceive of as blue is objectively true. We cannot deny that 'blue' is something. All we can say is that it is not an objective fact proposition, but a subjective sensory perception.
And I have to disagree with you if you believe in gremlins.
So do I. Have you read what I have written about consciousness?
http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentri...-universe/ (read section 8 and the comments)
http://www.culturalnaturalism.org/search/label/dualism
I am a strict materialist when it comes to objective facts about the natural world.
But materialism applies only to objective reality. As I have been taking pains to point out, human living involves both subjective as well as objective reality. This is a demarcation introduced by philosophers of science. The object is to disallow our subjective biases from affecting our conclusions about objective reality (but we must use objective reality to inform our subjectivity).
I highly recommend that you read some basic epistemology.
I guess it could, but it would be a digression.
Ethical philosophers and scientists have been debating this problem for centuries. There is a lot of literature on the subject. There is no need to speculate, but there is certainly a need for thoughtful engagement.
That is the exact point I have been making. There is no objective morality.
So, why are you avoiding the argument? You clearly think that socio-political equality is a real thing in the other thread. I am pointing out that socio-political equality is as subjective an idea as "free-speech". You are simply refusing to lend reason to it. Analyze your own logical inconsistencies.
Madhav, I am not missing that. I have been writing about that for the past decade. It is a fundamental idea in philosophy that value propositions are not absolute, even if people like Sam Harris have recently been trying to prove that they are. Value-propositions are definitely constructs.
I know I must sound like a broken record too, BUT YOU ARE SAYING NOTHING NEW. This feels like you have not been paying attention to anything I have said. BY DEFINITION, VALUE-PROPOSITIONS ARE SUBJECTIVE. You have simply been repeating the most fundamental premise of this conversation.
Who is doing this? Did you not read that I said that change is a constant and that it must be taken into consideration when discussing such ideas? Do you think that if something has not always been in existence it is not a valid concept to discuss? Did you not read my point about how even science is not just about things that have "always been in existence"? Culturally held ideas are definitely constantly changing, as culture evolves. Again, this is a trivial fact, and I am puzzled that you would think I am suggesting otherwise.
What fallacy? You seem to think you've made some important argument, but this is not the case. I am well aware of what your concerns are, and I even know the reasons for your troubles. So, let me explain.
Your basic mistake in reasoning is something that many positivists do. This mistake is actually a form of the naturalistic fallacy (which is not really a formal logical fallacy but a mistaken form of inference).
Essentially, you are ignoring the fact that there are always value-propositions involved in any human endeavor. Even in the practice of science, there are value propositions involved before any actual science can begin, after which the science itself can be about objective truth free from subjective bias.
One type of value-premise is about "ought" questions, as opposed to "is" questions. Science is concerned with the "is". Science can influence the "ought" by telling us about the "is". But there will always be value-premises that go into determining the "ought".
A main reason why people make these errors in thinking is because they desire objective answers to all questions, including moral ones. The problem is that there is no objective reason for why we ought to do anything, unless you involve value-premises. The concept of "ought" is necessitated by our intelligent perception of human existential reality. If you are analyzing fact-propositions using science, you have already asked yourself a bunch of questions that deal with value-propositions in order to reach the determination to use the methods of science in such a way. Value-propositions precede fact-propositions, and fact-propositions create and inform new value-propositions.
There is no such thing as objective morality. All moral ideas are value-propositions that have ideally been discussed using reason and compassion. Science must be used to make determinations about objective reality, but the practice of science is also always subject to subjective moral conditions to be determined by compassion and reason.
Second post
The point is to involve in a process of reason-based discussion, in order to achieve inter-subjective agreement. This process involves presenting and discussing value propositions. I never said that Mill's ideas are the absolute truth about freedom of speech. That would be stupid. What I am saying is that we must be able to discuss and come to agreement about these ideas, and that process involves reason and science. Simply refusing to discuss these ideas is what leads to hiding the moral premises under the false impression that do not exist and therefore are not relevant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism
But there's more. John Stuart Mill, by the standards of his day, was extremely progressive. He fought for women's rights and argued for a much more benign form of imperialism than his peers did during his time. Of course, today we can look at things in black and white, completely ignoring the actual arguments made by Mill and those like him, which, even if were racist in part, set the stage for a conversation on free-speech. We can say he was racist, so there. But a more reasonable approach is to see what he was saying in relation to free-speech. The tradition that Mill was part of, utilitarianism, is a major ethical philosophy even today. My favorite ethicist, Peter Singer, is a utilitarian philosopher. Just like science, utilitarian philosophy today has made its way from those racist times to the modern era. Through it all, people have discussed ideas of free-speech in great detail. This tradition still continues, and it still continues to provide avenues for inter-subjective agreement on a vast many social and ethical issues. It will continue to do so into the future, when issues of politics, bioethics, gender-relations, cultural rights and race-relations become more and more complicated by human migration and the exponential growth in communication technology.
But pause for a second and see what you are saying. Did Mill's ideas start the "development of" or the "rise of" imperialism or colonial racism? In any case, this is just a pointless exercise. We need to discuss ideas for their merit, not slander them for how they have been evoked towards immoral ends.
Actually, yes it was.
I am saying that freedom of speech can and does and always will exist as a concept only. In practice it is messy and involves inter-subjective agreement, but it exists as a concept. If you think that I'm saying there must be some objective thing called freedom of speech that is perfect and unchanging, that is a flawed understanding of what value-propositions (subjective propositions) are about.
The concept of free-speech existed during Mill's time. At this level of discourse, we are always referring to subjective ideas of free speech when we talk about it as a reality and not as a concept. MY subjective idea of free-speech would agree with you that there was no free-speech during Mill's time, but the ideas that he wrote did exist objectively. That is what we are concerned about, and that is what is relevant to the discussion.
The point is not that Mill's ideas on freedom of speech defined what freedom of speech is objectively. If you think that, then you are thinking simplistically. Mill is part of a long tradition of discussion of these ideas. Today we have even Indian philosophers who are part of that discussion. This is the key thing to remember. The concept of freedom-of-speech has evolved over time, just has science itself.
I have said many times that although the founding fathers of America were the inventors of modern democracy, and they wrote elegantly about equality, there was no equality in America because they did not extend to the Black slaves and the women that declaration of rights. But since then society has progressed because of evidence-based and compassionate discussion of value-premises.
Secondly, you are wrong about the second part where you say "as opposed to fact propositions which exist objectively independent of any society's historical circumstances". What you mean is "as opposed to facts which exist objectively independent of any society's historical circumstances". Fact-propositions are simply claims about factual reality. Propositions are simply declarative statements. "God" is a fact-proposition. Of course, it is a false proposition, but it is a fact proposition nevertheless. All fact propositions also do not exist independently of the societies that created them. Facts, however, do.
One basic problem you are having is in thinking that materialist science does not involve any value propositions. This is not true. The other basic problem is in thinking that simply because value-propositions involve subjective values, they are beyond scientific and rational analysis. This is also not true.
Navigating value-propositions are an inherent part of the human condition. When moral issues are involved, it is essential that we not ignore them, and that we seek consensus, including from the oppressed parts of society, in order to give full validity to them. When factual claims are is involved, it is important that the tools of science itself, evidence and reason, are used to judge the value-propositions.
Many thinkers have tried to seek objective answers to the problem of value-propositions, and this has always involved hiding the moral premises involved and presenting the arguments as grounded on facts alone. This has resulted in much damage to society. The Nazis and Eugenicists did this based on their ideas about social Darwinism. The Stalinists did this based on misunderstanding historical materialism. The objectivists did this based on their misunderstanding of evolution, competition and altruism. Today, people who spread neo-liberal positivist economics, such as Alan Greenspan and Milton Friedman, resort to hiding their own moral premises under the guise of presenting values-free economic policies based on science. These are highly immoral applications of applied science, in my opinion, and the reason for this is that the moral premises are being hidden and the economic theory being presented as values-free.
It is important to have the discussion about moral premises and value-propositions when dealing with issues that are inter-subjective. It is important that we question, at every step, the moral reasons for all our actions, and the theories that our actions are based on. Failing this, we will indeed fall into the trap that Zinn warned us about, ending in a society where we hold ideas about moral values very different from what is actually practiced.
There are objective facts, and there are subjective values. Human existence necessarily involves both. Subjective values are subject to reason, and they in turn influence reason. It is vital that we discuss value-propositions using reason and science considering that they the provide moral basis for all our actions. There are no objective morals. Let's get over it. If you insist that propositions about subjective morals cannot be discussed, debated and agreed upon using science, reason and compassion because it is a faith-based concept, then that is an argument that takes scientific materialism to incoherent ends.
Quote:However, all such cultures are the products of historical evolution.
By that I presume you mean all cultures evolve. This is a trivial observation. The idea of a cultural meme requires this as one of the premises.
Quote:The culture of the enlightenment in the West is a product of the historical circumstances surrounding it.Of course!
Quote:The notion of "free speech" is a development from that culture.Partly. All cultures contribute to such ideas over time, and the West has no monopoly over the marketplace of ideas today, even if it still has unduly large influence. The point of view that you are espousing comes form postcolonial theory which I am somewhat aware of. But the application of post-colonial theory here is wrong. This is why I saw a bit of post-modernist flavor in your arguments (but I agree that you are not a postmodernist).
Quote:In other words, you are saying certain things can have their existence just because we choose to give it meaning?I am saying that there is such a thing as subjectivity that is an integral part of who we are. This is a fundamental idea in science and philosophy. There are things that exist in subjective terms, not in objective terms, although they can be studied objectively using science. There are many things that you are constantly giving meaning to, and many of those things could be studied and analyzed using science and reason.
These things that are subjective need not be about morals or cognitive values such as logic, but can also be about percepts that are experienced in a common inter-subjective way. The colour blue is a subjective idea, but the wavelength of light that corresponds to what the majority of humans perceive of as blue is objectively true. We cannot deny that 'blue' is something. All we can say is that it is not an objective fact proposition, but a subjective sensory perception.
Quote:This is a fundamental flaw of putting consciousness as having a primacy over reality.There is a fundamental flaw in your leap in logic. Consciousness has no primacy over reality. Stop making things up.
Quote:I have to disagree with you if you believe in consciousness-primacy.
And I have to disagree with you if you believe in gremlins.
Quote:As a materialist, I believe that it is reality that has primacy over our consciousness and material reality gives rise to our consciousness.
So do I. Have you read what I have written about consciousness?
http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentri...-universe/ (read section 8 and the comments)
http://www.culturalnaturalism.org/search/label/dualism
I am a strict materialist when it comes to objective facts about the natural world.
But materialism applies only to objective reality. As I have been taking pains to point out, human living involves both subjective as well as objective reality. This is a demarcation introduced by philosophers of science. The object is to disallow our subjective biases from affecting our conclusions about objective reality (but we must use objective reality to inform our subjectivity).
I highly recommend that you read some basic epistemology.
Quote:This basically can lead down to the nurture-vs-nature debate.
I guess it could, but it would be a digression.
Quote:Actually, when it comes to morals, I am again a bit iffy as I do not go by any "morals" as defined by society.
Ethical philosophers and scientists have been debating this problem for centuries. There is a lot of literature on the subject. There is no need to speculate, but there is certainly a need for thoughtful engagement.
Quote:The notion of morality is itself a totally socially constructed notion and cannot be held to have any "absolute" existence apart from socially agreed upon norms.
That is the exact point I have been making. There is no objective morality.
Quote:Your confusion between fact vs value propositions arises from the fact that most of your value propositions are mainly propositions that are agreed upon socially as such can be said to be based on the subjective consciousness of a society as a whole.There is no confusion on my part. I am talking about 400 year old idea that has its foundation in scientific philosophy, started by the Humean tradition. I used the word "inter-subjective" before. It is pretty much what you mean by "the subjective consciousness of a society as a whole". You are not informing me about my "confusion". You are reiterating in different terms what I have already said in more concrete terms.
Quote:On the other hand, scientific facts have an objective existence and stands apart from the socially acceptable or agreeable propositions.I have been writing and arguing about this for a few years now. You are not informing me of anything. What you are saying is the most basic understanding in philosophy. An undergraduate philosophy 101 student will tell you this. There is a difference between objective and subjective reality, and understanding this difference is key to the success of science.
Quote:So both fact and value propositions are propositions. However, facts have objective existence and values have only subjective existence and come about due to social agreement and acceptance.That is exactly what I have been saying. Subjective ideas require reason-based analysis and intersubjective agreement. You are simply repeating what I have already said. More importantly, you are ignorant that this is a basic understanding in philosophy.
Quote:See above. Also, BTW, you are committing the fallacy of tu qoque by appealing to my posts in another thread.No, a tu qoque argument only becomes a fallacy when one makes a personal attack that does not inform the argument being made. That is, if it is about inconsistency in behavior of the person. If the reason for pointing out the inconsistency is to show that one is being logically inconsistent, it is a valid argument. The positions presented by you in this thread are inconsistent with what you said in the other thread. This is a direct criticism of your arguments, not an attack on your person.
So, why are you avoiding the argument? You clearly think that socio-political equality is a real thing in the other thread. I am pointing out that socio-political equality is as subjective an idea as "free-speech". You are simply refusing to lend reason to it. Analyze your own logical inconsistencies.
Quote:Not so. As you have said yourself, value propositions are different from fact propositions. What you are missing is that value propositions do not have any kind of "absolute" or independent existence of their own.
Madhav, I am not missing that. I have been writing about that for the past decade. It is a fundamental idea in philosophy that value propositions are not absolute, even if people like Sam Harris have recently been trying to prove that they are. Value-propositions are definitely constructs.
Quote:They come about as socially constructed propositions that are accepted by a society as a whole.They are accepted, but my values dictate that they be subject to reason, science and compassion.
Quote:See above again. Value propositions are socially constructed propositions that are the product of the historical evolution of a society. They do not have independent existence of their own.
I know I must sound like a broken record too, BUT YOU ARE SAYING NOTHING NEW. This feels like you have not been paying attention to anything I have said. BY DEFINITION, VALUE-PROPOSITIONS ARE SUBJECTIVE. You have simply been repeating the most fundamental premise of this conversation.
Quote:In that case, why should anyone accept the currently held set of value propositions as something that has always been in existence?
Who is doing this? Did you not read that I said that change is a constant and that it must be taken into consideration when discussing such ideas? Do you think that if something has not always been in existence it is not a valid concept to discuss? Did you not read my point about how even science is not just about things that have "always been in existence"? Culturally held ideas are definitely constantly changing, as culture evolves. Again, this is a trivial fact, and I am puzzled that you would think I am suggesting otherwise.
Quote:I am not accusing you of directly committing this fallacy, but your posts seem to indicate a general trend towards such a tendency.
What fallacy? You seem to think you've made some important argument, but this is not the case. I am well aware of what your concerns are, and I even know the reasons for your troubles. So, let me explain.
Your basic mistake in reasoning is something that many positivists do. This mistake is actually a form of the naturalistic fallacy (which is not really a formal logical fallacy but a mistaken form of inference).
Essentially, you are ignoring the fact that there are always value-propositions involved in any human endeavor. Even in the practice of science, there are value propositions involved before any actual science can begin, after which the science itself can be about objective truth free from subjective bias.
One type of value-premise is about "ought" questions, as opposed to "is" questions. Science is concerned with the "is". Science can influence the "ought" by telling us about the "is". But there will always be value-premises that go into determining the "ought".
A main reason why people make these errors in thinking is because they desire objective answers to all questions, including moral ones. The problem is that there is no objective reason for why we ought to do anything, unless you involve value-premises. The concept of "ought" is necessitated by our intelligent perception of human existential reality. If you are analyzing fact-propositions using science, you have already asked yourself a bunch of questions that deal with value-propositions in order to reach the determination to use the methods of science in such a way. Value-propositions precede fact-propositions, and fact-propositions create and inform new value-propositions.
There is no such thing as objective morality. All moral ideas are value-propositions that have ideally been discussed using reason and compassion. Science must be used to make determinations about objective reality, but the practice of science is also always subject to subjective moral conditions to be determined by compassion and reason.
Second post
Quote:Of course they were racist. However we can easily separate the racist things they said from the scientific discoveries they made.You can do the same thing about ideas such as freedom and equality as well. As stated before, your argument is a fallacy called argument by association. I am not the one who said that we cannot separate the the racist things they said from the science. You were the one who made the slander by association attack, not actually addressing the ideas that were under discussion.
Quote:As a corollary of their having been racist, we need to view any of their political positions with the utmost suspicion as politics is not science and is based on the subjective beliefs held by those individuals.You are still not understanding what value-propositions mean. All politics always involves subjective value-propositions. Your observation is not profound, but elementary, and the premise of this entire discussion!!
The point is to involve in a process of reason-based discussion, in order to achieve inter-subjective agreement. This process involves presenting and discussing value propositions. I never said that Mill's ideas are the absolute truth about freedom of speech. That would be stupid. What I am saying is that we must be able to discuss and come to agreement about these ideas, and that process involves reason and science. Simply refusing to discuss these ideas is what leads to hiding the moral premises under the false impression that do not exist and therefore are not relevant.
Quote:What is your evidence for natural selection specifically being used for these things?I said all of evolution by natural selection, not just the process of natural selection. I'm surprised that you're unaware of the commonly known idea that evolution by natural selection, and indeed much of biological science including the entire field of anthropology, was at one point thought by westerners to be in full support of the most racist and vile ideas of the colonialists. Instead of going over specific instances with you, I'll just point you to wiki on scientific racism in general:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism
But there's more. John Stuart Mill, by the standards of his day, was extremely progressive. He fought for women's rights and argued for a much more benign form of imperialism than his peers did during his time. Of course, today we can look at things in black and white, completely ignoring the actual arguments made by Mill and those like him, which, even if were racist in part, set the stage for a conversation on free-speech. We can say he was racist, so there. But a more reasonable approach is to see what he was saying in relation to free-speech. The tradition that Mill was part of, utilitarianism, is a major ethical philosophy even today. My favorite ethicist, Peter Singer, is a utilitarian philosopher. Just like science, utilitarian philosophy today has made its way from those racist times to the modern era. Through it all, people have discussed ideas of free-speech in great detail. This tradition still continues, and it still continues to provide avenues for inter-subjective agreement on a vast many social and ethical issues. It will continue to do so into the future, when issues of politics, bioethics, gender-relations, cultural rights and race-relations become more and more complicated by human migration and the exponential growth in communication technology.
Quote:Here you are taking the development of Nazism in an casual idealistic offhand manner. The rise of Nazism has to be seen in its historical context.I was not talking about the "development of Nazism". I was talking about how the Nazis used evolutionary theory and based their supposedly objective interpretations on regressive value-premises to provide support for their racist genocide.
But pause for a second and see what you are saying. Did Mill's ideas start the "development of" or the "rise of" imperialism or colonial racism? In any case, this is just a pointless exercise. We need to discuss ideas for their merit, not slander them for how they have been evoked towards immoral ends.
Quote:Nazis appealed to all kinds of stupid notions ranging from Catholicism, Aryan paganism to Social Darwinism.Colonialism had a great range of factors that were involved (have you read Guns Germs and Steel?), and in any case, Mill was born over a century after colonialism began. The point is that I brought up the comparison only because you did. Of course I do not say that Darwinism gave rise to Nazism. That would be ludicrous, so please stop implying that I am. But neither can you say that freedom of speech gave rise to colonialism. The ideas are what must stand up to scrutiny to estimate their validity. If someone used the idea of freedom of speech in a way that we today recognize as hypocritical, the fact of this recognition is a success that can be attributed to reason, not faith. Only a discussion of value-propositions, together with a better objective understanding of the facts, can help us reach such a place of moral and scientific inter-subjective understanding of value-propositions.
Quote:Firstly, modern democracy was not "invented" by slave-owners.
Actually, yes it was.
Quote:Democracy, as we know it today including universal suffrage, women's rights, civil rights and so on, came about as a result of a long historical struggle by the poor and working classes.I am well aware of the struggles for human rights, including suffrage and civil rights, but you are making a false equivocation. These people did not invent democracy. They helped realize the concepts idealized by those who invented the ideas of democracy. By extending the rights enshrined in the constitutions of the democracies of the world to all citizens, the value-propositions inherent in the idea of democracy have been developed to their modern form. Modern democracy was indeed invented by slave owners. But we are the stewards of this boat. A future generation will look at our ideas and find them lacking, but they will be able to do that because they keep trying to develop value-propositions that are more consistent with science, reason and compassion, not because they prevent discussion of the value-premises by suggesting that they are faith-based and inconsequential.
Quote:See 'A People's History of the United States' by Howard Zinn for more details.I read A People's History when I was an undergrad. I have met and shaken hands with Howard Zinn. Zinn was a major ethical thinker, and has himself lent to the discussion on value-propositions. In fact, the entire idea that history must be studied from the perspective of the common person involves a highly politicized discussion on value-propositions. You are actually engaged in such a discussion.
Quote:If the modern concepts and experiences of democracy are vastly different from those envisioned by the so-called "founders", why should we not question their spurious visions of "democracy" or "freedom"?Who says we should "we not question their spurious visions of "democracy" or "freedom"?" This is a straw-man. I have been taking pains to say the exact opposite. We must question these ideas and constantly submit them to reason and evidence. Value propositions are always evolving. Attempts to seek unchanging set-in-stone answers to value-propositions are flawed because they ignore the inter-subjective nature of value-propositions and the fact that they are dependent on fact-propositions that are also often changing as our scientific understanding of the world changes.
Quote:I do not believe that freedom of speech exists today. I am not saying it should not exist, but it does not exist.
I am saying that freedom of speech can and does and always will exist as a concept only. In practice it is messy and involves inter-subjective agreement, but it exists as a concept. If you think that I'm saying there must be some objective thing called freedom of speech that is perfect and unchanging, that is a flawed understanding of what value-propositions (subjective propositions) are about.
Quote:As my example of JS Mill's proves, there was such a thing as colonialism during his day which automatically negates anyone who comes about claiming that free speech existed during JS Mill's time.
The concept of free-speech existed during Mill's time. At this level of discourse, we are always referring to subjective ideas of free speech when we talk about it as a reality and not as a concept. MY subjective idea of free-speech would agree with you that there was no free-speech during Mill's time, but the ideas that he wrote did exist objectively. That is what we are concerned about, and that is what is relevant to the discussion.
The point is not that Mill's ideas on freedom of speech defined what freedom of speech is objectively. If you think that, then you are thinking simplistically. Mill is part of a long tradition of discussion of these ideas. Today we have even Indian philosophers who are part of that discussion. This is the key thing to remember. The concept of freedom-of-speech has evolved over time, just has science itself.
I have said many times that although the founding fathers of America were the inventors of modern democracy, and they wrote elegantly about equality, there was no equality in America because they did not extend to the Black slaves and the women that declaration of rights. But since then society has progressed because of evidence-based and compassionate discussion of value-premises.
Quote:My stance that historically evolved notions of contemporary societies cannot be applied retroactively to societies that were formed to entirely different circumstances is something that most historians would agree with.But this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. You are talking about facts about historically evolved notions of contemporary societies in general, not discussing value-propositions, which are concepts in and off themselves that can and must be discussed using reason. The importance of historical/scientific evidence is primary, as I have already been factored into my argument, because I clearly stated that scientific facts must inform and be informed by value-propositions. You are simply ignoring this in order to push for a sort of scientific objectivism that is ill-informed when it comes to basic philosophy.
Quote:I do not accept that value propositions exist independently of the societies that created them as opposed to fact propositions which exist objectively independent of any society's historical circumstances.Of course value propositions do not exist independently of the societies that created them. This is basic philosophy. No one is arguing that they do. That was the entire point that I was making when I wrote about inter-subjective agreement. Please read what I have written and stop making me repeat myself.
Secondly, you are wrong about the second part where you say "as opposed to fact propositions which exist objectively independent of any society's historical circumstances". What you mean is "as opposed to facts which exist objectively independent of any society's historical circumstances". Fact-propositions are simply claims about factual reality. Propositions are simply declarative statements. "God" is a fact-proposition. Of course, it is a false proposition, but it is a fact proposition nevertheless. All fact propositions also do not exist independently of the societies that created them. Facts, however, do.
One basic problem you are having is in thinking that materialist science does not involve any value propositions. This is not true. The other basic problem is in thinking that simply because value-propositions involve subjective values, they are beyond scientific and rational analysis. This is also not true.
Navigating value-propositions are an inherent part of the human condition. When moral issues are involved, it is essential that we not ignore them, and that we seek consensus, including from the oppressed parts of society, in order to give full validity to them. When factual claims are is involved, it is important that the tools of science itself, evidence and reason, are used to judge the value-propositions.
Many thinkers have tried to seek objective answers to the problem of value-propositions, and this has always involved hiding the moral premises involved and presenting the arguments as grounded on facts alone. This has resulted in much damage to society. The Nazis and Eugenicists did this based on their ideas about social Darwinism. The Stalinists did this based on misunderstanding historical materialism. The objectivists did this based on their misunderstanding of evolution, competition and altruism. Today, people who spread neo-liberal positivist economics, such as Alan Greenspan and Milton Friedman, resort to hiding their own moral premises under the guise of presenting values-free economic policies based on science. These are highly immoral applications of applied science, in my opinion, and the reason for this is that the moral premises are being hidden and the economic theory being presented as values-free.
It is important to have the discussion about moral premises and value-propositions when dealing with issues that are inter-subjective. It is important that we question, at every step, the moral reasons for all our actions, and the theories that our actions are based on. Failing this, we will indeed fall into the trap that Zinn warned us about, ending in a society where we hold ideas about moral values very different from what is actually practiced.
Quote:“In the United States today, the Declaration of Independence hangs on schoolroom walls, but foreign policy follows Machiavelli.”Lastly, I was wrong to call your arguments postmodernist. You are actually the exact opposite. Post modernists subscribe to the idea that there are no values-free facts. Not just values-free fact-propositions, but no values-free facts! I'm sure we can both agree that is absurd. But on the other extreme, it is wrong to suggest that because values are subjective, they are faith-based and not worth talking about.
~Howard-Zinn
There are objective facts, and there are subjective values. Human existence necessarily involves both. Subjective values are subject to reason, and they in turn influence reason. It is vital that we discuss value-propositions using reason and science considering that they the provide moral basis for all our actions. There are no objective morals. Let's get over it. If you insist that propositions about subjective morals cannot be discussed, debated and agreed upon using science, reason and compassion because it is a faith-based concept, then that is an argument that takes scientific materialism to incoherent ends.
"Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian"
~ J.B.S.Haldane, on being asked to falsify evolution.
~ J.B.S.Haldane, on being asked to falsify evolution.