Conservative principle(s) of Justice. Are there any?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran, as far as I can see, all you are doing is providing a reason for understanding the basis of a given action, instead of either working out who is responsible, or the manner of revenge to be exacted. I don't disagree, I'd much rather knee-jerk reactions are replaced by understanding... I just don't think it's answering the question here.

Perhaps so, but I'm not even sure what the question here is . We are in the Poly OT, so we may be on our 4th or 5th question .

[Whaleboy]

Touché

[Agathon]

But you really don't. Even though you emphathize and think you are discounting your own perspective and interests, you really are not. They are always part of the background and are always influencing your views and outlooks. You cannot get rid of them, even when you believe you are.

That is unproven.

It doesn't matter anyway. As long as we can empathize with people in the ordinary way we do, that is enough. I can certainly understand enough to oppose religious persecution even though I am not religious. That is sufficient.

Not at all. Seeing as most mental activity is in the unconscious, they are anything but irrelevent. Unconscious thought guides conscious thought and can never be discounted.

Um... Freud was discredited a long time ago. Besides, even he would tell you that unconscious desires tend to be similar for everyone. So they don't really matter.

And the application is the problem! Or have you not been reading?

Sure, hence my saying it. That is not what the original question was about. It doesn't matter anyway. If you want to argue for a general moral skepticism (which is pretty much required by such an extreme position), then fine. But that goes for all moral principles, so anything goes and force is the rule. That's avoiding the debate rather than contributing to it.

It so happens that ordinary people have absolutely no trouble putting themselves in others shoes. This is the basis of moral behaviour. You can quibble about the extent to which we are able to do this, but the evidence suggests that it is quite a lot. In any case it is obviously enough to solve the questions that Rawls wants to ask.

Example, my gay neighbour says, "Bush is going to outlaw homosexuality, that is unjust". I think about what it would be like if Bush outlawed my sexual preference (which also does not harm others) and I realize that Bush sucks. I don't even have to imagine I'm gay to realize this.

Similarly, I imagine what it would be like to be a persecuted religious minority. I simply imagine that atheists are the persecuted minority.

If a Nazi complains, then I imagine what it would be like to be persecuted as a Nazi. But wait, I must universalize this and imagine what it would be like for other people, like Jews, if Nazism was tolerated.

It's not hard. We think like this every day.

[Whaleboy]

Um... Freud was discredited a long time ago. Besides, even he would tell you that unconscious desires tend to be similar for everyone. So they don't really matter.

He wasn't accurate either... Freud said most mental activity occurs in the Id with relatively less in superego and ego.

[Agathon]

More tomorrow. The missus will be home in a minute and it's her turn on the computer.

I wish I had some of what Ben was smoking (Ben E, not Ben K). :regret:

[Imran Siddiqui]

As long as we can empathize with people in the ordinary way we do, that is enough.

I don't think it is... not for Rawls' original position. We have to forget ourselves entirely. That is what the veil of ignorance is.

m... Freud was discredited a long time ago. Besides, even he would tell you that unconscious desires tend to be similar for everyone. So they don't really matter.

A. Freud was not 'discredited'. He may have been incorrect on some things, but his views still form the foundation of psychological theory. It's like saying Newton was discredited by Einstein so his contributions to science are bunk.

B. We all have similar desires; however, the interplay of these desires put us in different places. We, certainly, all don't have a similar interplay. Some people have stronger Id's. Others have overdeveloped Superegos. So it doesn't end in the same place.

Example, my gay neighbour says, "Bush is going to outlaw homosexuality, that is unjust". I think about what it would be like if Bush outlawed my sexual preference (which also does not harm others) and I realize that Bush sucks. I don't even have to imagine I'm gay to realize this.

Similarly, I imagine what it would be like to be a persecuted religious minority. I simply imagine that atheists are the persecuted minority.

If a Nazi complains, then I imagine what it would be like to be persecuted as a Nazi. But wait, I must universalize this and imagine what it would be like for other people, like Jews, if Nazism was tolerated.

I notice how your background influenced that .

When you talked about Nazis, quickly you said you had to universalize and Jews would be impacted. Yet, in homosexuality, you didn't count the view of the Christian, who would not say homosexuality is a harmless thing and would claim that it harms the moral foundations of society. If you are universalizing, then being the Christian would lead you to a contrary result.

However, your background and views have told you that the view of the Christian is less important than the views of the gay person in this event.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Agathon
Ned, Rawls is not a socialist. He allows for private enterprise.

Ugh. You define socialism too narrowly in my view. The primary goal of socialism is economic parity. Always has been.

[MrFun]

Would it be fair to claim that conservatives more so than liberals historically, have opposed extension of civil rights to different minority groups??

[Japher]

Would it be fair to claim that conservatives more so than liberals historically, have opposed extension of civil rights to different minority groups??

Lincoln was a republican.

Let me see what Sen. Byrd has to say about.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Japher


Lincoln was a republican.

Let me see what Sen. Byrd has to say about.

And the Republican Party in the mid-nineteenth century was a liberal party, favoring an expanded federal government, and with the more liberal Republicans within the party, extending civil rights.

[Ben Kenobi]

No they do not. The argument from design has been widely considered a failure since Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion was published.

How so?

A supernatural explanation for conscience requires us to multiply explanatory entities beyond need. Evolutionary psychologists can explain it more economically.

Again, what does conscience have to do with our physical state?

But this is besides the point. I asked Conservatives to provide principles of justice. Their manifest failure to do so is another mark of the intellectual poverty of conservatism.

You have a narrow box. Why should Conservativism be poor for not being able to squeeze inside?

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Agathon


The point is that the choices about the rest does all the real work. Efficiency is at most a weak normative constraint.

A society that is extremely efficient at producing rapists doesn't really cut it as a just society.

What is justice if it is not the uniform application of a norn ?

In a society fighting for its demographic survival rapists could be heroes.

You asked for conservatives principles, not for principles reflecting modern moral attitudes.

[Berzerker]

For the record the standard justification of Liberalism is Rawls' theory or some variant of it like Dworkinian equality. The fundamental principle is equality in deciding the arrangements by which society is to be ordered, and the irrelevance of particular interest in deciding it (that's the veil of ignorance thing).

Kerry's kids went to fancy private schools, equalise that.

Conservatives seem to have nothing like this.

They make it up as they go along just like liberals.

They rely on some crap like Locke which involves a lot of religious hand waving about natural rights.

Libertarians, most of whom are atheists or agnostics, believe in natural rights. The only conservatives who mention natural rights are paying lip service because they share the liberals' contempt for freedom.

[Berzerker]

Oh yeah, you say it is a matter of faith for conservatives, do you have actual proof you know what is just? Is abortion just? Is the drug war just?

[Berzerker]

The point of a theory of justice is to reason from examples that people accept to first principles and then revise your examples from that.

All people? Most people? Just liberals? Here is a first principle - no one wants to be murdered. Therefore we have a natural right to life. I don't need "faith" in God to reach that conclusion, just observing human nature is proof enough.

God is not a first principle that most people are going to accept, so it's useless.

Most people are religious, non-believing liberals are a small minority, so your assertion about what most people accept or not is flawed.