[Peace-discuss] Limits of allowable debate
LAURIE SOLOMON
LS_64 at LIVE.COM
Thu Nov 26 01:19:51 CST 2009
Without getting caught up in the specifics of your concrete hypothetical
illustrations, what I am saying is that you predicate all your responses on
the assumption of given analytic and/or theoretical contextual grounding
which you leave unquestioned and unproblematic. I am calling that context
into question and treating it as problematic so as to reveal that both the
concepts and the instances of "rightness" and "wrongness" are contextually
bound and dependent in that they depend on the premises of the underlying
and taken for granted theoretical, conceptual, and analytic system that
gives them meaning and significance. That anyone can say that someone else
is making a mistake requires that the party making the attribution has in
mind a given standard, criteria, or rule by which to make that assessment
which they take for granted as being a truth, which they assume that the
other party knows and also takes for granted as being a truth, and which
they presume is not only unquestionable but is being unquestionably applied
properly to the referent case.
> You seem to think that saying "It was wrong of Hitler to kill the Jews" is
> a matter of stating a preference: "I don't (like chocolate or) that
> Hitler killed the Jews (but other people may have other preferences)."
And if I am saying that; what proof do you have of the opposite without
resorting to stipulating that some system of ethics that you prefer is the
real true system of ethics; what theoretical or empirical evidence do you
have to support or prove that the statement that "It was wrong of Hitler to
kill the Jews" is a factual statement and not a value statement without
resorting to referring to legal, cultural or ethical normative system
historically at the time in existence as the commonly accepted one held by
the society under which it might be defined as being wrong, unacceptable,
illegal, culturally prohibited to kill anyone or to kill some specific group
of named people as a class.
I do find it annoying that you have engaged in playing with the ambiguity
of words and word use in the discussion to give your argument spin. The
term, "preference" can deal with such things as likes and dislikes; but
these are typically the substantive contents of choices and not the
phenomenon of choice itself as opposed to the phenomenon of "no choice."
However, it can also be used to signify the character of being optional
indicating that something is not a necessary essential or requirement (as
opposed to being constitutive, essential, necessary or required) regardless
of whether or not it is liked or disliked. In most instances during this
discussion, I have used it to refer to "being optional" or "a matter of
choice" and not as referring to substantive utilitarian values which may or
may not be involved in those choices.
Whether Australia is an island or a continent or something else depends on
(1) having a theory in which the notions of "island" and "continent" are
meaningful concepts - let alone analytically separate and distinct concepts,
(2) the theoretical definition and meaning of those concepts, (3) the
operational rules of interpretation of those conceptualizations with respect
to how they are to be applied to any given concrete empirical instance, and
(4) assuming concepts of "preference" versus "mistake" and their relevance
to the issue at hand. In some conversations, it may be a preference to call
Australia an island rather than a continent[ while in other conversations,
it may be preferred to call it a continent and not an island. There may be
some conversations, in which a common set of theoretical assumptions and
concepts are presupposed by all the parties, where the use of those terms is
constitutive and not preferential. Alternatively, there may be some
theories (existing, future, or merely logically possible) in which the
notions of "island" and "continent" do not exist as concepts buy some other
analytic theoretical is stipulated, deduced, or inferred from the context of
the theory in use which conceives of Australia as a altogether different
type of phenomenon or entity or does not even allow for he conception of
Australia as a distinguishable and identifiable entity. The same can be
said for your geometry illustration. It depends on the acceptance and use
of a specific assumed analytical context of a given theory of geometry to
even exist as a meaningful illustration and for the assertion to be right,
wrong, or a mistake; the theory of geometry that one selects to use in the
conversation or the analysis, on the other hand, may very well be a
preference that ultimately will determine if the statement is right, wrong,
or a mistake.
--------------------------------------------------
From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 9:29 PM
To: "LAURIE SOLOMON" <LS_64 at live.com>
Cc: "Peace Discuss" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>; "Stuart Levy"
<slevy at ncsa.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Limits of allowable debate
> You seem to think that saying "It was wrong of Hitler to kill the Jews" is
> a matter of stating a preference: "I don't (like chocolate or) that
> Hitler killed the Jews (but other people may have other preferences)."
>
> It seems to me that saying "It was wrong of Hitler to kill the Jews" is
> instead like saying "Australia is an island," or "In right triangles the
> square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on the other
> two sides." People who disagree with those statements are not just
> expressing preferences but making mistakes.
>
>
> LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>> Yes you can be wrong about all those things; but neither you nor anyone
>> else would know it or be able to prove it unless one first accepted and
>> presupposed a position, a specific logical system, ethical system,
>> epistemology, ontology, and cosmology as well as view of the world from
>> which to make one's interpretations and assessments. I realize that you
>> assume and assert that there are absolutes and universals; and I do not.
>> As a result you can make your claims, denials, and evaluations and
>> stipulate that they are THE TRUTH; I, on the other hand, reject such
>> assumptions, assertions, and conclusions. However, that is not to say
>> for purposes of living in a society and surviving, I may abide by many of
>> them and use them as practical working premises but not as absolutes or
>> as universal truths. I would interpret Wittgenstein as saying that "logic
>> or ethics being a condition of the world and not external to it means
>> that logic and ethics are existential phenomena and not universals; and
>> as such, can or cannot exist to varying degrees, can or cannot be
>> recognized and/or known by actors in the world, and can or cannot take
>> varying manifestations and forms which can vary as to their nature,
>> quality, and type.
>>
>> As for your statement or assertion, "Someone who thought (2 + 2 = 5)
>> would be wrong," one would have to ask in the context of what arithmetic
>> or mathematical system since that would only be the case in the context
>> of some arithmetic or mathematical systems and not so in all. I remind
>> you that 2+2= 4 (just as the notion of parallel lines not meeting) is an
>> abstract product of analytic thought and not an empirical condition of
>> any concrete historical world (even as we commonsensically perceive and
>> accept it as a taken-for-granted given); hence its validity and truth is
>> dependent upon the theoretical system or context in which is is being
>> asserted and does not stand alone in isolation from said context.
>>
>>> So would someone who thought the Shoah was acceptable behavior.
>>
>> Of course , here you are technically playing word games since the
>> original statement was not about whether or not the Shoah was acceptable
>> behavior; it was whether or not it was "a vast objective evil." The
>> former pertains to the acceptability of behavior while the second refers
>> to the character of an object or event; they are not identical or even
>> equivalent subjects. Even if one asserted that the Shoah was or was
>> not a "vast objective evil", one could on a whole variety of non-ethical
>> grounds find the Shoah to be unacceptable and the behavior that it
>> involved as being unacceptable behavior on purely practical, political,
>> social, or economic grounds. This would be true even if one asserted
>> that the Shoah was a "vast objective good." Analytically, "good" or
>> "evil" as moral characteristics or as objects are not necessarily
>> relevant to evaluations of "acceptability" of behaviors and practices;
>> they are quite distinct and different things.
>>
>> If one were to not make the assumption that "life is valuable" and that
>> "people have some inherent value and intrinsic worth different from other
>> species, from a head of lettuce or from a rock," then the destruction of
>> them as individuals, as groups, or as a species would not be either "a
>> vast objective evil" or an unacceptable behavior. Under those
>> conditions, someone who did not accept or make those assumptions and
>> asserted that the Shoah was acceptable behavior would not be wrong in the
>> moralistic sense that your assertion implies. I do not think that it
>> would make them necessarily right either since I do not think that
>> "right" or "wrong" are appropriate characterizations to use with respect
>> to things that may be adimensional (e.g., without dimensionality) such as
>> to be in this case neither right nor wrong but neutral.
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 11:25 PM
>> To: "LAURIE SOLOMON" <LS_64 at live.com>
>> Cc: "Peace Discuss" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>; "Stuart Levy"
>> <slevy at ncsa.uiuc.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Limits of allowable debate
>>
>>> Logic is a condition of the world; that is, you can be wrong about it.
>>>
>>> The same is true of ethics.
>>>
>>> Someone who thought (2 + 2 = 5) would be wrong.
>>>
>>> So would someone who thought the Shoah was acceptable behavior.
>>>
>>>
>>> LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>>>> Thanks for telling me what "The Shoah" is; but it still does not
>>>> change anything that I said. If I were to condemn it, it would not be
>>>> from a moral point of view but from a practical point of view (I.e., it
>>>> would have been directed toward me and my family should we have been
>>>> there at that time - it would be possibly not in my self-interest not
>>>> to oppose it. Personally, I think it is discriminatory in that it
>>>> singles out specific groups of humans; I might not view it as see it as
>>>> a "vast objective evil" it was directed at all human beings since I
>>>> view the development of the species as vast objective evil of sorts and
>>>> think the world would be better off without people.
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>>> From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 10:52 PM
>>>> To: "LAURIE SOLOMON" <LS_64 at live.com>
>>>> Cc: "Peace Discuss" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>; "Stuart Levy"
>>>> <slevy at ncsa.uiuc.edu>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Limits of allowable debate
>>>>
>>>>> "The Shoah" is an englishing of the Hebrew word for the Judeocide or
>>>>> Holocaust, the murder of Jews in Europe by the Nazis.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>>>>>>> A "value judgment" can be a recognition of a moral fact, not merely
>>>>>>> an expression of opinion
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A "judgment" none the less, regardless if it is about a "historical
>>>>>> fact" or a "moral fact." Moreover, one can legitimately hold -
>>>>>> unless it is excluded from the realm of allowable discourse - that
>>>>>> all facts are merely expressions of believed opinion in one fashion
>>>>>> or another that are ultimately based on a set of presumed assumptions
>>>>>> and presuppositions of one sort or another and typically that even
>>>>>> the methods by which one argues , acquires evidence, supports or
>>>>>> proves the factual status of a "fact" is grounded on the assumption
>>>>>> of certain taken-for-granted suppositions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To condemn the Shoah is to recognize it as a vast objective evil, a
>>>>>>> crime, not just to express a taste, like preferring chocolate to
>>>>>>> vanilla.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am afraid that I do not know what the Shoah is; nor do I care. So
>>>>>> I do not think it or recognize it as a vast objective evil. But even
>>>>>> if I did know what it was, that does not mean that I would recognize
>>>>>> or accept it as a "vast evil" nor that you could empirically or
>>>>>> logically prove to me that it was objectively so and capable of
>>>>>> existing as such apart from or independent of any presumptions or
>>>>>> theoretical framework of interpretation. However, I would guess that
>>>>>> that would probably only mean that I would then be classified as
>>>>>> being ignorant, blind, from Neptune, or some other dismissive name or
>>>>>> description.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As Wittgenstein said, "Ethics does not treat of the world. Ethics
>>>>>>> must be a condition of the world, like logic."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is easy to quote philosophers or other so-called authorities from
>>>>>> within an accepted collection permitted by the definitions of
>>>>>> allowable debate as the proponent sees it (you do it frequently and
>>>>>> very well); but a part from my not really seeing the relevance of the
>>>>>> quote, you and I among others know very well that for every
>>>>>> supporting quotation or person of authority being quoted one can find
>>>>>> an opposite existing and available that could have been tossed into
>>>>>> the mix. However, just to play your game; what theory of ethics are
>>>>>> we talking about as being a condition of the world like logic - and
>>>>>> for that matter what theory of logic are we holding to be a condition
>>>>>> of the world. There are a number of different logics in use in the
>>>>>> world - each based on different sets of assumptions - just as there
>>>>>> are different sets of ethics. Moreover, in the cited quote, the use
>>>>>> of the notion of "must" suggests to be some sort of "imperative" in
>>>>>> the sense of "ought" which stands as some sport of preferred
>>>>>> alternative and not a necessary and sufficient constitutive
>>>>>> requirement of the world. Nevertheless, even if ethics were a
>>>>>> constitutive requirement, the type and content of that ethics is
>>>>>> still open to question and a matter of preference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 10:49 PM
>>>>>> To: "LAURIE SOLOMON" <LS_64 at live.com>
>>>>>> Cc: "Peace Discuss" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>; "Stuart Levy"
>>>>>> <slevy at ncsa.uiuc.edu>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Limits of allowable debate
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A "value judgment" can be a recognition of a moral fact, not merely
>>>>>>> an expression of opinion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To condemn the Shoah is to recognize it as a vast objective evil, a
>>>>>>> crime, not just to express a taste, like preferring chocolate to
>>>>>>> vanilla.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As Wittgenstein said, "Ethics does not treat of the world. Ethics
>>>>>>> must be a condition of the world, like logic."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>>>>>>>> It is true enough that if you control the scope and range of
>>>>>>>> questions asked, you circumscribe the scope and range of allowable
>>>>>>>> responses that will be regarded as legitimate meaningful answers.
>>>>>>>> It does not necessarily limit the scope and range of responses
>>>>>>>> which may be larger than that of legitimate meaningful answers that
>>>>>>>> are allowed by the questions. However, that is true for all
>>>>>>>> ides - yours, theirs, mine, etc. Moreover, this is the case for
>>>>>>>> everyone and a tacit unintended or explicit intended strategy that
>>>>>>>> all sides engage in via the mere framing of questions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What is a right or a wrong question is a value judgment and a
>>>>>>>> matter of perspective - not an empirical "objective" value neutral
>>>>>>>> fact.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 3:36 PM
>>>>>>>> To: "LAURIE SOLOMON" <LS_64 at LIVE.COM>
>>>>>>>> Cc: "Peace Discuss" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>; "Stuart Levy"
>>>>>>>> <slevy at ncsa.uiuc.edu>
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Limits of allowable debate
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "If they can get you asking the wrong questions,
>>>>>>>>> they don't have to worry about answers."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Not that any of these are actual (allowable, productive, or
>>>>>>>>>> informative) debates between parties sharing a common set of
>>>>>>>>>> definitions and rules of debate as much as sets of parallel
>>>>>>>>>> one-way articulations. assertions, presentations of each parties
>>>>>>>>>> point of view and interpretation of history and the way the world
>>>>>>>>>> works, the policies, decisions, and actions that are taken in the
>>>>>>>>>> world as they see it. What I find most interesting and peculiar
>>>>>>>>>> is that all debate or discussions imply boundaries and rules of
>>>>>>>>>> allowable or legitimate interpretations, rules of interaction and
>>>>>>>>>> argumentation, and conceptions of rationality and reasoning. In
>>>>>>>>>> a real debate, the parties share these elements; in parallel
>>>>>>>>>> conversations, discussions and talks, they do not share such
>>>>>>>>>> elements in common, although they may assume or pretend that they
>>>>>>>>>> do. Hence, they are talking past each other and more focused on
>>>>>>>>>> asserting one's claims than on reaching any sort of shared
>>>>>>>>>> agreement or common conclusions. Intellectually, in these
>>>>>>>>>> parallel articulations, each party according to its own
>>>>>>>>>> definition of legitimate and allowable rationality (i.e., rules
>>>>>>>>>> of reasoning and logic), interpretations of activities and
>>>>>>>>>> events, and acceptable definitions of the "facts" denies the
>>>>>>>>>> other legitimacy and disallows what they have to say - often by
>>>>>>>>>> personal attacks, ad homenem arguments, and/or declaring the
>>>>>>>>>> logic of the argumentation to be fuzzy or irrational according to
>>>>>>>>>> one's own definitions of the rules of rationality and logic,
>>>>>>>>>> which they assert are the true, objective, and universal ones.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> While the notion of whether or not this is a debate or what the
>>>>>>>>>> rules of what is or is not allowed in the discussion are
>>>>>>>>>> questionable, what is not is that you obviously disagree with
>>>>>>>>>> those who you derisively cite and with the arguments that they
>>>>>>>>>> make. However, this disagreement has little to do with the limits
>>>>>>>>>> of allowable debate (except that you seem to want to exclude
>>>>>>>>>> those you disagree with from the conversation and would
>>>>>>>>>> presumably do so if you had the power to do so); what it has to
>>>>>>>>>> do with is differing points of view. It is more than likely that
>>>>>>>>>> others who subscribe to the establishments limits of allowable
>>>>>>>>>> debate might very well disagree with the assertions and
>>>>>>>>>> conclusions of Wilentz (and even some others who you also
>>>>>>>>>> disagree with) on either the same or other grounds as you.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 12:57 PM
>>>>>>>>>> To: "Stuart Levy" <slevy at ncsa.uiuc.edu>
>>>>>>>>>> Cc: "Peace Discuss" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Limits of allowable debate
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's a positive review of a new book on James K. Polk and the
>>>>>>>>>>> theft of half of Mexico (which even A. Lincoln knew was wrong).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Wilentz thinks the Mexicans had it coming (cf. S. Hussein) on
>>>>>>>>>>> the grounds that they were really Spaniards and Catholics.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And it didn't have anything to do with slavery. Nothing. No
>>>>>>>>>>> way.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Stuart Levy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 12:31:58PM -0600, C. G. Estabrook
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The same edition of the NYT (I really won't miss it when it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> goes) includes a review by the awful Clintonoid pop-off Sean
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wilentz, justifying particularly speciously 19th c. US
>>>>>>>>>>>>> imperialism, with obvious present-day implications...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Justifying as in US national interest? White Man's Burden?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Societal Darwinism, as in, If we did it, it must have been
>>>>>>>>>>>> because we were Better?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> David Green wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/opinion/22wright.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The NYT brings in Robert Wright, a liberal heavy thinker
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> known among other things for his contributions to the dubious
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field of evolutionary psychology, to define the LOAD for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hasan/Ft. Hood:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Conservatives backed war in Iraq, and they’re now backing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an escalation of the war in Afghanistan. Liberals (at least,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dovish liberals) have warned in both cases that killing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terrorists is counterproductive if in the process you create
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even more terrorists; the object of the game isn’t to wipe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out every last Islamist radical but rather to contain the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> virus of Islamist radicalism."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as we discuss various perspectives on "terrorism,"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we can't consider that this was not terrorism as commonly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined as attacks against civilians. Whatever the pathology
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Hasan, we might compare him to a black soldier from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> segregated American asked to kill Asians (and perhaps return
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> home to enforce martial law in Newark or Detroit) in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1960s. What the LOAD will not allow us to do is to think of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this event in terms of rebellion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DG
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>>>>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list