Divided We Fall
Chapters 1 - 5
Please use this thread to discuss the above referenced chapters.Chapters 1 - 5
In total there are 8 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 8 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 851 on Thu Apr 18, 2024 2:30 am
Seems like we have had this discussion before, but I don't think the dichotomy applies to moral values. Most moral values are, in some sense, held by everyone. But because we put different emphasis on the various values, we can come out very differently in our evaluation of, say, the legality of abortion, the desirability of a strong social safety net, and the importance of acting strongly to stop global warming.Robert Tulip wrote: ↑Sun Apr 17, 2022 9:05 pmThis question points to a major paradox of moral logic. A founding axiom of logic is that a statement cannot be true and false. If a society is divided by incompatible propositions, it follows that there is something illogical or unreasonable in the doctrines, that they cannot be reasonable, comprehensive and incompatible. The moral relativism that insists something can be true for me and false for you is not logical, as the truth of a proposition is independent of our sentiments about it.
Well, yes, that's a major problem. Currently U.S. politics, and that of many other places, is dominated by "grievance politics." In this paradigm, nearly everything is interpreted in terms of its effect on the prerogatives and self-image of groups, ethnic, sexual or geographic. The interpretation of, say, removing Confederate statues, is interpreted primarily in terms of whether it insults Whites or Blacks. Options for responding to "#MeToo" and toxic masculinity (both candidates in the last election had been credibly accused of assaulting women, for example) are interpreted as oppressing either women or men, depending on your interpretation.Robert Tulip wrote: ↑Sun Apr 17, 2022 9:05 pmThe problem here is that life is too complex for thought to be systematic. Doctrines are not based mainly on evidence, important as that is. Rather, our views are based on our values, whose basis includes unconscious as well as conscious factors. The unconscious influences are by definition invisible to our immediate conscious awareness, but may be visible to others, or visible as a result of analysing the implications of our values.
I don’t think logic strictly applies to John Rawls. Political philosophy is concerned with government, its public agents and institutions and the relationships between them. Human affairs are by definition very messy, emotional, not logical.Robert Tulip wrote: ↑Sun Apr 17, 2022 9:05 pm The existence of seemingly incompatible rational beliefs illustrates a failure in philosophy, the inability to construct a coherent and systematic logic able to assess the truth of all claims.
Hopefully enough of us will want to try to get along for the greater good. Indeed, it reassures me that David French, a conservative Christian, argues for pluralism and liberalism. That definitely runs counter to the current Trump party populism. I’d like to think that members of both parties can get behind French’s appeal to remain faithful to the intent of the Constitution.Harry Marks wrote: ↑Sun Apr 17, 2022 10:35 pmGiving offense is more important than making sense or appealing to actual interest, because it pushes down the esteem status of the other side, and this automatically means a boost to those whose self-esteem (for political purposes) is anchored in their superiority over those with the "opposite" point of view.
I didn’t realize the U.S. president “functionally possesses executive, legislative, and judicial power to a degree that would shock the drafters of the U.S. Constitution.” French will argue that this increased power, relevant to the other two branches of government, is not good for the American people.“David French” wrote:]I believe both tribes can and must rediscover a sense of shared community and shared citizenship. But I don’t think it’s inevitable that they will. Simply put, we now face a renewed threat to our national unity. We’re stumbling into the very state of being that James Madison addressed in Federalist No. 10: the “violence of faction.”
Only up to a point. No one can ever announce "I believe false claims". That is a step too far into illogic. Instead, people need to rationalise their false views by claiming that in fact they are true. That need for logic provides the entry point to assess the legitimacy of political claims against objective evidence. Rawls asks how a society can be "stable and just" while also "profoundly divided". The reality is that these attributes are not compatible, even while it may take time for the fissure to become apparent. Division creates injustice and instability.