Justin Benner Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 Hey guys, I heard about the boards through another forum I've frequented for many years (PoliticalCrossfire), thought I'd drop by and check things out. I am a former libertarian, now somewhat conflicted. Always interested in political philosophy, and particularly finding practical, non-ideological solutions to modern problems. I find myself disagreeing with much about objectivism, but I've noticed a distinct trend amongst those who believe in it: they know how to debate civilly, which can't be said for most people with opinions. Anyways, I'm sure we'll be getting into it soon. Justin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 Welcome to the forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeatherFall Posted January 5, 2013 Report Share Posted January 5, 2013 Welcome. Why the aversion to ideology? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Benner Posted January 5, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2013 Welcome. Why the aversion to ideology? Hey! Just so you know, I loosely define ideology as a set of principles by which we judge prospective actions. The problem with them is that I'm no longer sure that any one ideology is suitable for all circumstances, or even for most of them. In order for a particular ideology to make sense, it has to be applied to the appropriate people, at the appropriate time. The logical conclusion is that the only possible way to effectively govern, and to maximize human rights, is to do what works, and that will depend entirely on local context. If you don't mind, I'd like to hear your thoughts on that. I am aware that this argument exists on a slippery slope... and yet when I realize there are 20,000 nuclear weapons in the world, I think, what doesn't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted January 5, 2013 Report Share Posted January 5, 2013 ... ... I'm no longer sure that any one ideology is suitable for all circumstances, or even for most of them.This criticism can be applied to any type of principle, not just in morality but any other arena. Even a simple rule that "water boils at 100 degrees C is only true within a context, and about 99.9% of people who are boiling water at home actually do not fit that context. Principles and rules are always formulated within a context (Newton's laws are an oft-used example). Context is part of a well-formulated the principle. Even when people do not keep repeating what that context is, or even if they have not articulated that context, it is always there. Circle back to the criticism that says "this principle is only valid in a particular context", and you see how it is really an empty criticism. Possibly it is religion that gives people this incorrect viewpoint: God says "do this", and there is no reasoning behind it. So, that's how they think of the most fundamental principles in the area of human action. However, if one applies rationality to the topic, the full form would always have a "because": i.e., "do this, because..." So, something like "Thou Shalt not Lie" is clearly applicable to all sorts of situations, but there are other situations where it is no longer applicable. In situations like that, what's really required is to step back and articulate the more abstract and broader principle(s). A software department may have some rule like "no routine should be more than N lines long". This is very concrete. A programmer might come to a situation where it does not make sense to him. If one considers the broader principle it may be something like: "no routine should to so long that a reader loses track of what it is doing as a unit". And, even this is formulated with a context in mind: a context where the routine being written will actually be read by someone who wishes to understand it... which assumes a context about it not being a throw-away routine, and about the cost of development and the cost of repair. [i don't want to get side-tracked with the specific example: just illustrating the point of concrete to abstract, and the role of context. I know this is an introductory thread. So, if you want to split this topic out please say so... or start a new one. DonAthos 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted January 5, 2013 Report Share Posted January 5, 2013 BTW, have you read any of Rand's books? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeatherFall Posted February 25, 2013 Report Share Posted February 25, 2013 Justin, it's taken me quite some time for me to respond. Sorry for the long wait. I agree that context (time and place) can make or break a course of action. If your principles are incapable of dealing with the present context, I think they are the wrong principles. If we are to do "what works" we need to define goals that are realistic... Which is a principle in and of itself, no? A good ideology includes the principle that there is no moral-practical dichotomy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.