3 ms·

Any statement that contains the word "should" is inherently a normative claim, which exists outside the scope of empirical data. When people articulate their o

by Gormo 13y ago

Any statement that contains the word "should" is inherently a normative claim, which exists outside the scope of empirical data. When people articulate their own interests - of which they are the most credible experts - and then say "the current policy framework is damaging to my interests/rights", they're articulating a far more valid position than someone who is trying to abstract their own hypothetical understanding of the world into some set of universal principles. "General principles" don't actually exist - principles only exist in the minds of people, and there are many people, each with his or her own own worldview. Attempting to treat politics as a means of perfecting the world in accordance with putatively universal principles can lead to only one outcome: an escalating cycle of ideological conflict. The relevant "domain knowledge" here would apply to the proper domain of politics: reconciling the disparate interests of actual people. > Socrates took the hemlock not because he thought it would be good for him personally, but because he thought it was a good thing for citizens to obey the law. Then Socrates was as much a victim of his own defective ideals as he was a victim of the Athenian establishment. Law is a tool we use to mitigate and restrain conflicts among actual human beings. If the law is perverted into something that harms the rights and interests of actual human beings, then it shouldn't be called law at all; it becomes merely a weapon, and remains so, no matter what grandiose ideals are appealed to as justification for its excess.

leephillips 13y ago
Say we are in the US before the Civil War. Since we can't, according to your methodology, insist on the general principle that slavery is wrong (because general principles don't exist) then the proper role of politics, in your view, is to reconcile the interests of the slaveholder and the slaves. The non-slaveholders who want to eliminate slavery don't count, because they don't have a direct interest, in your analysis. They only have an interest in decency, but that is just another general principle. So how to we reconcile these opposing interests? Abolishing slavery would seem to be off the table, because that just benefits one side. Limit the number and severity of beatings?
- Gormo 13y ago
  > Since we can't, according to your methodology, insist on the general principle that slavery is wrong (because general principles don't exist) No - we can insist on anything we want. There's just nothing general about it. Our principles are ours, not the universe's. You've actually picked out a great example: that one generated some absolutely immense conflict. Maybe most of us share an opinion that we feel so strongly about that we're willing to accept and to engage in that level of conflict in order to ensure that our position dominates. When matters of life and death, freedom and slavery are made into political questions, then the possibility that the political process will succumb to violent conflict certainly increases. Perhaps you feel that the cost is worth it to eliminate slavery or to destroy tyranny, and I'd agree with you. But how many questions is it really worth it for? Can you name a single modern political issue that you'd think was worth a civil war? I'm merely pointing out that principles aren't general: they belong to people in particular, and when people with conflicting principles attempt to universalize their values in the same space, the result is escalating conflict. For the vast majority of modern political controversies, I prefer the "agree to disagree" approach, finding viable ways for people with incompatible values to live by their own values within their own space, enabling them to peacefully coexist with each other, and to enjoy the benefits of interacting with each other to the extent where and when their values don't conflict. NB: the example of slavery is actually even more interesting here, because in a famous ruling in 1772 (in a dispute known as Somersett's Case), slavery was determined to have always been illegal under the common law. It took positive law enacted by colonial and, later, state legislatures to legalize it where it historically existed.

by Gormo 13y ago

leephillips 13y ago

Say we are in the US before the Civil War. Since we can't, according to your methodology, insist on the general principle that slavery is wrong (because general principles don't exist) then the proper role of politics, in your view, is to reconcile the interests of the slaveholder and the slaves. The non-slaveholders who want to eliminate slavery don't count, because they don't have a direct interest, in your analysis. They only have an interest in decency, but that is just another general principle. So how to we reconcile these opposing interests? Abolishing slavery would seem to be off the table, because that just benefits one side. Limit the number and severity of beatings?

Gormo 13y ago
> Since we can't, according to your methodology, insist on the general principle that slavery is wrong (because general principles don't exist) No - we can insist on anything we want. There's just nothing general about it. Our principles are ours, not the universe's. You've actually picked out a great example: that one generated some absolutely immense conflict. Maybe most of us share an opinion that we feel so strongly about that we're willing to accept and to engage in that level of conflict in order to ensure that our position dominates. When matters of life and death, freedom and slavery are made into political questions, then the possibility that the political process will succumb to violent conflict certainly increases. Perhaps you feel that the cost is worth it to eliminate slavery or to destroy tyranny, and I'd agree with you. But how many questions is it really worth it for? Can you name a single modern political issue that you'd think was worth a civil war? I'm merely pointing out that principles aren't general: they belong to people in particular, and when people with conflicting principles attempt to universalize their values in the same space, the result is escalating conflict. For the vast majority of modern political controversies, I prefer the "agree to disagree" approach, finding viable ways for people with incompatible values to live by their own values within their own space, enabling them to peacefully coexist with each other, and to enjoy the benefits of interacting with each other to the extent where and when their values don't conflict. NB: the example of slavery is actually even more interesting here, because in a famous ruling in 1772 (in a dispute known as Somersett's Case), slavery was determined to have always been illegal under the common law. It took positive law enacted by colonial and, later, state legislatures to legalize it where it historically existed.