Michael Gove to double spending per pupil in state schools

[SpontaneousOrder]

Okay, I'm trying not get to pulled into an argument of logical fallacies and semantics here, but I'm going to try and explain my position in regards to this:



I don't see how ANY manmade right or law can be "objective" - essentially, the only thing that I'm born to do is breed and survive, regardless of cost to others. The problem with the way you argue is that you use philosophical points and attempt to apply them as fact and logical absolutes.

That's why I pointed you (or whoever posted) towards Objectivism and a website dedicated to it. IF you care (and i guess that you do at least a little as you wouldn't bother even paying any notice to me otherwise) then you can do a little reading.

It's worth the effort because
1) How awesome would it be to have an objectively true model of ethics/metaphysics/epistimology?
2) You will be convinced because you can't un-see the truth. The realisation of truth is inexorable for anyone who cares to see it.

The problem with the way you argue is that you use philosophical points and attempt to apply them as fact and logical absolutes.

That's what philosophy is.

[Gibbon]

That's what philosophy is.

Philosophy, like religion should be consigned to Room 101. People who study them seem to think they know more about the world.

I'm with Aristophanes who in hisClouds suggests that the study of philosophy turns you into a , literally. Looking at all the PPE tossers in Westminster I'm inclined to agree with him.

[pjclarke]

Such contractual legal rights are really an observance of a man's negative moral right to not be defrauded

Rather more to it than that, surely? In this particular jurisdication we have legal rights to privacy, property, personal safety, freedom of movement and so forth. These are indeed legal codifications of arguably moral principles.

If moral rights are meaningless then morality is meaningless.

I was using 'meaningless' as shorthand for 'of little significance or consequence'. In that sense morality only becomes meaningful once it is embodied in a legal framework. If I meet a mugger in a dark alleyway I may have a moral right not be be robbed, but that moral right only becomes 'meaningful' once there is a theft law and a police force to enforce it. To coin a phrase, in Heaven you get Justice, down here we have lawyers.

But let me ask you, if ethics & morality are meaningless then why are you trying to convince me that I'm wrong?

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I think we agree on quite a lot.

The preference of truth over falsehood is a moral value. If right and wrong is meaningless then why do you care enough to argue about whether i'm right or wrong?

Well right and wrong are not quite the same as true and false, again just because something has little real world consequence (=meaningless) does not mean we can't have fun arguing our own, personal, subjective, prejudiced moralities.

How awesome would it be to have an objectively true model of ethics/metaphysics/epistimology?

Good luck with that.

You will be convinced because you can't un-see the truth. The realisation of truth is inexorable for anyone who cares to see it.

There is only one true God. Acording to Wiki on Rand, academia.. 'has generally ignored or rejected her philosophy' so there are some who seem resistant to your 'truth'.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Philosophy, like religion should be consigned to Room 101. People who study them seem to think they know more about the world.

I'm with Aristophanes who in hisClouds suggests that the study of philosophy turns you into a , literally. Looking at all the PPE tossers in Westminster I'm inclined to agree with him.

Er... philosophy is science.

[Gibbon]

Er... philosophy is science.

Is it, you'd better tell the OU they have got it in the wrong Faculity them. So MPhil is the same as MSc?

[SpontaneousOrder]

Rather more to it than that, surely? We have legal rights to privacy, property, personal safety, freedom of movement and so forth. These are indeed legal codifications of arguably moral principles.

I mean that contractual rights are blah blah blah defrauded. The rest (apart from privacy) are derived from our right to live free from aggression (of which fraud is actually a type, but it normally talked about distinctly for clarity).
Right to privacy is a legal right based on an illegitimate law - so therefore an illegitimate right.

I was using 'meaningless' as shorthand for 'of little significance or consequence'. In that sense morality only becomes meaningful once it is embodied in a legal framework. If I meet a mugger in a dark alleyway I may have a moral right not be be robbed, but that moral right only becomes 'meaningful' once there is a theft law and a police force to enforce it.

It is of great consequence because legal frameworks in free-ish societies are invariably based upon moral principle (people want law for a reason - the same reason they need a moral code). It;'s just that peoples moral code gets confused.
So you have cause and effect back to front - shared morality is self-empowering through law, NOT the other way around (some a priori law giving potency to morality).

It is virtuous for a man to eat an apple to sustain himself, rather than dying, but we don't suppose that that is only true once he has harvested some apples.

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I think we agree on quite a lot.

You wouldn't express an opinion if you didn't want it to influence anyone : )

Well right and wrong are not quite the same as true and false

I meant right as in correct, wrong as in incorrect.

again just because something has little real world consequence (=meaningless) does not mean we can't have fun arguing our own, personal, subjective, prejudiced moralities.

But it does have real world consequences. Ask the millions of people being killed in conflicts around the world. Ask the young and impoverished who are being priced out of the labour market due to coercive labour laws, etc, etc.
This is why i take matters of objectivity seriously - there are very serious real world consequences.

If you want to talk abut subjective preferences, then I'm more than happy to hear your opinion. But in issues of objective reality, opinions are subordinate to truth.

Good luck with that.

I don't need it. It's already been mainstream for 70 years or so!

[SpontaneousOrder]

So MPhil is the same as MSc?

Is a tree the same as it's leaf?

[d000hg]

Is it, you'd better tell the OU they have got it in the wrong Faculity them. So MPhil is the same as MSc?

Well Cambridge classify science as art, and my uni allows you to do psychology as art OR science, so I wouldn't be too quick to place values on labels.

[pjclarke]

It is of great consequence because legal frameworks in free-ish societies are invariably based upon moral principle (people want law for a reason - the same reason they need a moral code). It;'s just that peoples moral code gets confused.
So you have cause and effect back to front - shared morality is self-empowering through law, NOT the other way around (some a priori law giving potency to morality).

But you've just repackaged exactly the point I was making! The point at which inconsequential morality becomes consequential is the point at which the law based on the morality is passed. Up until then its just conversation.

But it does have real world consequences. Ask the millions of people being killed in conflicts around the world.

Oh puh-leeze. I never started them. Not as a consequence of a detailed discussion of morality I reckon. More an example of the pure impotence of pure morality, and indeed a failure of international law. For any given conflict we could argue and come to an 'objective' conclusion about which side, if any, was the more moral. Wouldn't save a single life.

[Gibbon]

Well Cambridge classify science as art, and my uni allows you to do psychology as art OR science, so I wouldn't be too quick to place values on labels.

I'm not, it was SO who said philosophy was science, not that some consider it as such. I was merely pointing out some contrary evidence.