On 12/15/2012 2:18 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
All of these points are instances of taking a particular
evaluational frame, making it absolute, and issuing judgements
I think that they are instances of real world examples. I don't issue
any judgments from it - I just ask -
'Was slavery good before Progressive activism changed it'?
'Were the practices of industry toward its workers good or bad before
Progressive activism changed it?
Was colonialism and Apartheid in India, South Africa, the American
South, etc good or bad before Progressive activism changed it?
Each of those questions has as a premise the idea that we can sit
in our current world with its conventions and judge the actions that
occurred in circumstances that dis not have our knowledge, as if the
people of that time should have known better that slavery was not good,
I don't intend to prove to anyone that these things were bad or that
they were improved - unlike with Conservative approaches - I leave
that up to you. Maybe you say they were better off slaves and second
class citizens, or that the wars and changes that followed weren't
worth it? Or maybe you say these weren't movements of Progressive
activism? Maybe you have a list of your own? That's cool, I'm open to
hearing about any of that. I don't see that these examples are somehow
disqualified though. That just makes me think that there is no
counterargument because their truth is self evident, and therefore
'unfair' to the other side.
My argument is that the entire idea of making lists and checking
them off is wrong! It is a form of prejudice, IMHO, to use knowledge one
has from experience to rationalize the actions of others into
pigeonholes of "good" and "bad". This kind of ethics drives me batshit
crazy as it assumes that the universe has a set of predefined
configurations that, if they occur, everything will be fair and justice
Sorry, "the poor will always be among us". It is simply not
possible to maximize more than one variable and thus fairness and
justice for all is impossible. Let me give you an example. What would
happen if everyone won the Lotto? Would they all be rich? NO! Why?
It is what is known, to some, as chronocentrism. It is simply
I know you're not saying that I should make up examples from the
future instead or talk from theory right? Examples from the past are
wrongheaded? How so?
We have to evaluate situations using the knowledge that is
available under the circumstances of the situation (and not usign
knowledge that would be unavailable), otherwise we are like the aliens
that can read your mind and demand that you play the Monty Hall game
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem> with them. Your
discussions on the nature of Free Will should clue you in to what I mean
Unless you put yourself into the context with you are evaluating
and then considering the facts as they stand with a set of
universal ethical principles, then those judgements and
implications cannot be seen as anything more than rationalizations
to behave in one way or another.
We can rationalize any action to be good or bad.
Rationalization, pushed too far, allows anything.
If we rule out examples from the past - and rule out present day
comparisons like the success of Progressive policies in places like
Scandinavia and Western Europe versus the failure of Regressive
policies everywhere else, then all we have is propaganda made up by
Think tanks and our own speculation.
Not at all. My point is that it is treachery to change the context
of a situation to use it as a reason to do X or to not do Y. It is like
assuming one is omniscient when one is not.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at