| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > > That makes capitalism moral and communism immoral. That's a good enough
> > > argument right there.
> >
> > Huge clarification to inflict on you-- it makes evidenced communism immoral
> > and evidenced capitalism moral (by utilitarian standards).
>
> But I'm not using utilitarian morality (were there such a thing, which there
> isn't)
Silly Larry! Of course there is! The more happiness resulting from an action
there is, the more moral that action is, and visa versa, says
utilitarianism. Actually, I associate utilitarianism first and foremost with
its view on ethics...
> here. My argument has several legs, each should be evaluated
> independently.
I have no qualms with the others. In fact, I don't really have a problem
with what you're saying. Merely how you're saying it.
> The utilitarian argument (which makes no reference to
> morality)
In that case perhaps it's that which I find fault with. Let's quote what you
said before (which is what mislead me to believe you were associating it the
moral belief)
> you can show from a utilitarian basis that
> central mechanisms fail (and markets work) to maximise utility.
This is the wrong part-- not because what you're saying is *false* but
because it's not fact. Societies exist (not often human) wherein central
mechanisms work MUCH better. Likewise, one can envision a human society
where such would be true. However, as to whether such speculation is
"realistic" is another question, to which nobody can answer definitively. I
would have encouraged you to say something along the lines of "Within the
examples of human society, central mechanisms have been very consistantly
shown to fail when compared to individualistic societies".
> No, this argument rests on the moral premise that it is immoral to enslave
> others, whether it's for the common good or for the pleasure of a politburo.
Ah-- so only immoral based on your own moral values. And of course I can't
argue that so superficially, as your argument is valid as given-- but were
we going back to the moral issue (The only topic I seem to like repeatedly
involving myself in) I'd have to have you explain further, as I still think
both you and I are fuzzy on the "grey" areas of your moral definitions...
Meanwhile I can equally refute your assesment by claiming "no, it's not
necessarily immoral", since as it stands that part of the argument is
completely subjective.
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Cuba
|
| (...) But I'm not using utilitarian morality (were there such a thing, which there isn't) here. My argument has several legs, each should be evaluated independently. The utilitarian argument (which makes no reference to morality) is entirely (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
64 Messages in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
