3:47 - What are your thoughts on why Secretary of State John Kerry said that "this little thing called the Internet... makes it much harder to govern."
8:30 - I was recently having a discussion with someone associated with the (edited) libertarian party, and they mentioned that when they get into a discussion of morality with someone who is inclined towards socialism, this person typically makes the argument that the moral goal of helping the poor is a higher goal than the moral goal of non-aggression. To which our libertarian friend of course gets into the argument of the more practical and pragmatic arguments for minarchism/anarchism, explaining the ways in which it is more effective at achieving the goal of helping the poor than socialism and welfarism.
Fair enough. But I'm wondering if the argument could be tackled without getting into the pragmatic elements of non-aggression / libertarianism. Is there a rebuttal that stays completely in the realm of a discussion on morality? My inclination would be to say that no one wants or works towards the goal of being aggressed against, where as some people do choose a life of poverty for various reasons (religion, etc) - and therefore non-aggression is more universally preferable than poverty. But that doesn't seem like a rock-solid rebuttal to me. I'm wondering how you would respond on a moral / philosophical level to the idea that helping the poor is a more moral goal than ending aggression, or if you like my rebuttal, perhaps you could just elaborate on it and provide a little more clarity.
13:42 - I've encountered a unique type of Christian argumentation as presuppositionalism. The arguments usually starts with a series of questions, such as, "Is it circular reasoning to use your reasoning to justify your reasoning?" or "If a person's reasoning can be wrong, how do you know that your reasoning is not wrong?" or "How do you know that you are not in a mental hospital and think that your reasoning is valid when it is actually not?"
And if an atheist were to ask "How do you know your reasoning is valid?" the presuppositionalist would appeal to Divine Revelation and say "God made me certain." And the atheist would ask, "How do you know that God made you certain?" the presuppositionalist would respond with "Because God made me certain." The atheist would respond and ask, "Isn't that circular reasoning?" the presuppositionalist would respond and say "Yes that is circular, but your argument is viciously circular, because God's knowledge and reasoning is perfect and man's reasoning and knowledge is not."
The same argument applies to the validity of the senses as with reasoning, and the conversation goes to hell from there. The presuppositionalist would go on a rant on how that there are no atheists and that God has revealed himself to everyone and that the atheists are not really atheists and are "suppressing the truth in unrighteousness." Any objections to the claim results in the presuppositionalist saying "But you could be wrong about that" like a childish sophist that he is. I have a gut-feeling that there is something fundamentally wrong with the arguments, I just don't know how to express it into words. If you would address these arguments, I would very much appreciate it.
22:25 - You've mentioned the old adaage that power corrupts, but perhaps the problem is NOT that power corrupts but that those who gain and desire power are psycohopathic. Do you believe that extremely empathetic individuals would be corrupted if placed in a position of power?
No comments:
Post a Comment