Because history has shown that they allow society to fonction, propserty to grow, etc. We teach them because they work for the human race. It isn't about universal truths, it is that these ideas WORK. When people play nice, EVERYONE wins.
OK, let's say someone disagreed with one such assertion. Maybe someone disagrees with "Hatred = Bad; Tolerance = Good." They can disagree with anything, whatever. Is that person wrong?
Because history has shown that they allow society to function, prosperity to grow, etc. We teach them because they work for the human race. It isn't about universal truths, it is that these ideas WORK. When people play nice, EVERYONE wins.
OK, let's say someone disagreed with one such assertion. Maybe someone disagrees with "Hatred = Bad; Tolerance = Good." They can disagree with anything, whatever. Is that person wrong?
As a general rule or in a specific matter? Are you asking if they are empirically wrong or if I personally think/believe they are wrong? I would highly recommend taking a few courses in ethics or reading a few ethical text books that will help you to evaluate this for yourself or realize that you are posing questions that most would say have no True (with a capital T) answer.
Because history has shown that they allow society to function, prosperity to grow, etc. We teach them because they work for the human race. It isn't about universal truths, it is that these ideas WORK. When people play nice, EVERYONE wins.
OK, let's say someone disagreed with one such assertion. Maybe someone disagrees with "Hatred = Bad; Tolerance = Good." They can disagree with anything, whatever. Is that person wrong?
As a general rule or in a specific matter? Are you asking if they are empirically wrong or if I personally think/believe they are wrong? I would highly recommend taking a few courses in ethics or reading a few ethical text books that will help you to evaluate this for yourself or realize that you are posing questions that most would say have no True (with a capital T) answer.
Either in general OR in specific, and either empirically OR personally. I'll go into specifics first, but I'm going to pull it out to generality afterwards. My whole question is what makes something right in a specific iteration of a given problem, as opposed to a different iteration of that same problem. We'll start off easy.
Let's say that you present to a person the argument "Hatred = Bad; Tolerance = Good." Let us also say that you present to them an inordinate amount of research and support for this claim. Translation: you make a very well-researched, rational, logical claim.
A person disagrees with your argument and says that "Hatred = Good; Tolerance = Bad." Their counter-argument is not researched and has little to no supporting evidence. Whatever evidence is presented is weak and flimsy at best.
1. Is this person empirically wrong? 2. Do you personally feel that this person is wrong?
I've done plenty of reading with regard to ethics, particularly as it relates to scientific ethics. I'm well-read in various philosophies as well. I know these questions have been asked since, essentially, the dawn of time. I know that I'm treading old turf, but it's valid old turf. The questions have never been answered, and as you've pointed out, have no True answer. Technically, I contend that there is no such thing as a True answer, so this is sort of a given for me.
What I'm interested in is perspective. If I wanted to know what Hume thought, I'd (re) read Hume. The same holds for Descartes, Nietzsche, or whomever else has addressed these topics. I'm not interested in those perspectives alone; I want to hear from other people who have different experiences than myself or various authors. I want to know how you (both you specifically and the generic form) take these questions and apply them to your life and your experiences. I've evaluated it myself and hit on something, but I'm wondering what other people think of the same thought process.
If you want to skip all that, here's the question: Is there ever a situation in which one can say that a person's belief is wrong? Obviously, an empirical belief is simple to invalidate, as they require proof. What I'm talking about is, in effect, how far to take cultural relativism. Clearly, most people will set boundaries when there is a violation of human rights (FGM and so forth); however, the cultures in which those things are practiced OBVIOUSLY do not share those same values. There is a disagreement, and it appears that there is no evidence to support that disagreement. Ergo, we declare that person to be wrong, and view the cultural practices as an atrocity (I would certainly hope, anyhow).
I'm questioning deeper than that: what, fundamentally, makes it OK for us to make such a declaration? Is there a universal truth that the "wrong" culture doesn't understand or ignores? Or, as I suspect, is it nothing?
My whole thing is this: we define, collectively, certain things that must be true in order to lead a practical life. Given the solipsistic problem, this is a necessity. We need to make certain fundamental assumptions just to make life "go." I'm pretty sure everyone would agree with that point; while correct, saying "you're just a brain in a jar and there's no free will" isn't terribly useful, nor pleasant. One of things we've decided is that people should be treated with a certain level of dignity and respect, and that we should allow for individuality and self-determination. History has demonstrated that many various groups disagree with this assertion. We have reasons for what we believe, and they have reasons for what they believe. We each present our arguments along with our evidence to our children, in an effort to perpetuate these arguments past our own time. THUS, there are people who may present a view that we argue is "wrong" to their children, and the child may grow up believing, perpetuating, and practicing that. I assert that this is just as bad as physical child abuse and should be treated as such.
I understand, 100%, that this conclusion is fascist. I understand the ethical implications of effectively saying "You may not believe X." I know full well the ethics with regards to adults. I'm inquiring about the ethics of teaching children. The way I see it, children are very often used as tools to propagate certain ideals or philosophies, many of which most people would agree are harmful. Many of the parents of these children actively thwart efforts to educate the child otherwise. I posit that those people are unfit to be parents and their children should be removed from their care. We already effectively tell parents how they can and can't raise a child - we teach them certain things that may contradict parental care - so why not just be honest about it?
Take the case of the Campbell family. Think of little Adolf Hitler Campbell. It's just a name, so right now, I think the government has done the wrong thing by taking the children away. What if the parents were teaching those children white supremacist propaganda? Raising them to be neo-Nazis? In that case, I would fully support the removal of the children from that environment and placing them into a more supportive and nurturing one. I'm not saying not to teach them about neo-Nazism; however, I AM saying that they must not be indoctrinated to be neo-Nazis by their parents, as early-childhood conditioning like that can present problems later in life. Similarly, I would remove any child who was being taught to be a suicide bomber from that environment. The two are equally dangerous.
This isn't really an argument, Pete. It is somewhere between an intellectual exploration and rhetoric. Present a case, make a point, and then an argument can happen. You are merely asking questions that some of the greatest minds in history could not answer. While I think that the FRC is full of intelligent, well informed, thoroughly educated people - we can't definitively answer your question(s).
This isn't really an argument, Pete. It is somewhere between an intellectual exploration and rhetoric. Present a case, make a point, and then an argument can happen. You are merely asking questions that some of the greatest minds in history could not answer. While I think that the FRC is full of intelligent, well informed, thoroughly educated people - we can't definitively answer your question(s).
We can solve everything because I think we're that smart. Well, actually, I think EVERYONE can solve everything if we all come together about it, but that's a different story altogether.
Re-read my first post. I precisely laid out my case and made an argument. I even bolded a particularly juicy statement. It's pretty inflammatory, but that's because I've hit on something that I consider to be a very uncomfortable conclusion.
Thus, we are capable of legislating at least the behavior resultant from a given philosophy, and as such can effectively legislate a philosophy away. I argue that we should do so when it is clear that the philosophy encourages detriment to others, and especially in cases where children are being indoctrinated into said philosophy.
Comments
I would highly recommend taking a few courses in ethics or reading a few ethical text books that will help you to evaluate this for yourself or realize that you are posing questions that most would say have no True (with a capital T) answer.
Let's say that you present to a person the argument "Hatred = Bad; Tolerance = Good." Let us also say that you present to them an inordinate amount of research and support for this claim. Translation: you make a very well-researched, rational, logical claim.
A person disagrees with your argument and says that "Hatred = Good; Tolerance = Bad." Their counter-argument is not researched and has little to no supporting evidence. Whatever evidence is presented is weak and flimsy at best.
1. Is this person empirically wrong?
2. Do you personally feel that this person is wrong?
I've done plenty of reading with regard to ethics, particularly as it relates to scientific ethics. I'm well-read in various philosophies as well. I know these questions have been asked since, essentially, the dawn of time. I know that I'm treading old turf, but it's valid old turf. The questions have never been answered, and as you've pointed out, have no True answer. Technically, I contend that there is no such thing as a True answer, so this is sort of a given for me.
What I'm interested in is perspective. If I wanted to know what Hume thought, I'd (re) read Hume. The same holds for Descartes, Nietzsche, or whomever else has addressed these topics. I'm not interested in those perspectives alone; I want to hear from other people who have different experiences than myself or various authors. I want to know how you (both you specifically and the generic form) take these questions and apply them to your life and your experiences. I've evaluated it myself and hit on something, but I'm wondering what other people think of the same thought process.
If you want to skip all that, here's the question: Is there ever a situation in which one can say that a person's belief is wrong? Obviously, an empirical belief is simple to invalidate, as they require proof. What I'm talking about is, in effect, how far to take cultural relativism. Clearly, most people will set boundaries when there is a violation of human rights (FGM and so forth); however, the cultures in which those things are practiced OBVIOUSLY do not share those same values. There is a disagreement, and it appears that there is no evidence to support that disagreement. Ergo, we declare that person to be wrong, and view the cultural practices as an atrocity (I would certainly hope, anyhow).
I'm questioning deeper than that: what, fundamentally, makes it OK for us to make such a declaration? Is there a universal truth that the "wrong" culture doesn't understand or ignores? Or, as I suspect, is it nothing?
My whole thing is this: we define, collectively, certain things that must be true in order to lead a practical life. Given the solipsistic problem, this is a necessity. We need to make certain fundamental assumptions just to make life "go." I'm pretty sure everyone would agree with that point; while correct, saying "you're just a brain in a jar and there's no free will" isn't terribly useful, nor pleasant. One of things we've decided is that people should be treated with a certain level of dignity and respect, and that we should allow for individuality and self-determination. History has demonstrated that many various groups disagree with this assertion. We have reasons for what we believe, and they have reasons for what they believe. We each present our arguments along with our evidence to our children, in an effort to perpetuate these arguments past our own time. THUS, there are people who may present a view that we argue is "wrong" to their children, and the child may grow up believing, perpetuating, and practicing that. I assert that this is just as bad as physical child abuse and should be treated as such.
I understand, 100%, that this conclusion is fascist. I understand the ethical implications of effectively saying "You may not believe X." I know full well the ethics with regards to adults. I'm inquiring about the ethics of teaching children. The way I see it, children are very often used as tools to propagate certain ideals or philosophies, many of which most people would agree are harmful. Many of the parents of these children actively thwart efforts to educate the child otherwise. I posit that those people are unfit to be parents and their children should be removed from their care. We already effectively tell parents how they can and can't raise a child - we teach them certain things that may contradict parental care - so why not just be honest about it?
Take the case of the Campbell family. Think of little Adolf Hitler Campbell. It's just a name, so right now, I think the government has done the wrong thing by taking the children away. What if the parents were teaching those children white supremacist propaganda? Raising them to be neo-Nazis? In that case, I would fully support the removal of the children from that environment and placing them into a more supportive and nurturing one. I'm not saying not to teach them about neo-Nazism; however, I AM saying that they must not be indoctrinated to be neo-Nazis by their parents, as early-childhood conditioning like that can present problems later in life. Similarly, I would remove any child who was being taught to be a suicide bomber from that environment. The two are equally dangerous.
OK, chew on that for a bit.
OH! We could use scripting sheets! :P
Re-read my first post. I precisely laid out my case and made an argument. I even bolded a particularly juicy statement. It's pretty inflammatory, but that's because I've hit on something that I consider to be a very uncomfortable conclusion.
I've actually come to some kind of answer with which I'm comfortable, but I'm going to keep at this anyhow.