laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (11/08/83)
This article is the "left over bits" of the argument that had parts A and B in net.politics. To my mind this is the most crucial bit as well, though Paul may differ with this conclusion. At any rate, here are the bits of conversation: My conclusions are tacked onto the end. <Paul> Next issue: teaching morals. I think I can anwer the next two questions together. <Paul> Teaching morality in school is nothing to be ashamed of either, as long as the right guidelines are taught. <Laura> And who is to say what is the "right guidelines"? <Paul> With political philosophy as with morals, we just have to fight (with legislation, not fists) to ensure that the right ones are taught and the wrong ones aren't. <Laura> Same problem. Who picks the right ones? <Paul> I will! (How does that grab you?) Actually, other viewpoints will have more say than mine will, but as long as the compromise package isn't too far off, I'm game. <Laura> To my mind, anyone that tries to teach 'the right guidelines' is in the same boat... <Paul> Ah, but there's a totally crucial difference. Some guidelines are RIGHT, and others are WRONG ... And if that doesn't irritate you sufficiently, let me save you the trouble of asking the standard question: "If you have the right to impose your beliefs, why doesn't [some viewpoint I find particularly obnoxious] have the right to impose theirs on you?" Because: I'm RIGHT, and they're WRONG! <Paul> SUPERNOVA FLAMES! I'll be engulfed in flames, I'll be reading disks full of hate mail, and ... and ... AND: LOVING IT! Look, Paul, you make a common mistake here. You assume that because I disagree with you I will be irritated, or I will send you hate mail. If you examined what I have been saying you will find that that is not in the cards at all. Anger is a very useless emotion. It accomplishes little. Why should I bother with it? Irritation is a little harder to get rid of, but I would hardly call that a resonable response. It may, of course, be your response to this, though! Since I do not claim to have a piece of "the absolute truth", I do not feel threatened when you question it. You may feel that you ARE RIGHT and I AM WRONG and that you have the need to enforce your will upon me, but I don't have that problem, remember! You have said things like "because I am right and they are wrong!". This, indeed is a justification for your force. If, indeed, you are right, then there is no question that you should go about enforcing your will on others. My attitude, in that case, would not be one of irritation, but of awe. Your whole basis of argument assumes: There is truth (or right and wrong) That it is not merely a personal truth, but that it holds for larger groups of individuals That it is perceivable (presumably with the intellectual faculties since you have not mentioned any other, but this need not follow) And, most crucially, that YOU PERSONALLY can perceive it. This does not irritate me. Indeed, I think that it is about time I donned my robe and sandals and went to see the master. for what you have done is something that I truly thought was undoable! Except...that I honestly haven't seen allt that much evidence for the mechanics (the HOW) that you come to these conclusions. Maryland is a long walk away from here -- I would really like to see more evidence that you really do have this sort of wisdom before I make the long trek. if it turns out that instead, you only WANT to have such wisdom and that you base this belief on the hope that it exists out there, I can save myself the walk, and just keep reading Husserl, who has the same sort of idea, but outlines a whole philosophy of *how* to do the same. Can you outline a either a methodology for making ethical decisions or for attaining the wisdom to do the same? It would make life a lot easier for all of us... Laura Creighton utcsstat!laura