Just as it is impossible for you and me to compromise between my desire to murder you and your desire not to be murdered, it is likewise impossible to compromise between truth and non-truth. To put it bluntly: the world is black-and-white, after all.
It's quite popular these days to sing peans to relativism: to assert either that there is no such thing as objective truth -- especially in regard to morality -- or, that if there is, it cannot be known (and so, is unimportant). I refer to this "All The Pretty Shades Of Grey."
It the typical fashion of Ilion's black-and-white thinking, he confounds the existence of shades of grey with the existence of relativism. Lest the reader think I am judging on the basis of this one small blurb, rest assured that this is a regular feature of his writing. The existence of objectively quantified shades of grey, and of bi-valued relative positions, are so commonplace that such thinking can only be considered a departure from reality.
An example of the former would be the question of taking a shot from the upper elbow on a fast break. You can quantify the value of this shot compared to the standard value of a possession for your team when you reset the offense. There is no absolute true or false answer to taking the elbow shot, but the answer is quantifiable probabilistically, and the means of evaluating those answers are certainly objective. In any area of endeavor that allows you to evaluate outcomes numerically, you wind up weighing costs, benefits, resources, commitments, etc. and generate a large array of variables, very few of which will correspond to 1 or 0. This reasoning can certainly be extended to moral issues. Money spent on the support for underage mothers will cause fewer of them to desire abortions. Saving lives, at need for increased taxation: absolutely good or absolutely evil?
On the other hand, how about kid's programming that is designed around a toy line? I have no trouble conceding that you could say it is good or evil, but how would you show either objectively? This becomes a matter of personal taste, in many respects.
Well, I don't expect this sort of thinking to change Ilion's ideas anytime soon. For him there may always be just two camps, even though the world of black-and-white is itself not black-and-white.
Posts
2 comments:
Looks like you have some particular animus against Ilion, for some reason.
Interestingly, I TRIED to take the tack regarding the nuanced shades of grey that I agree sometimes exist on some issues in life, and had my head taken off by the anal retents of one particular blog of supposed blue ribbon quality. It seems ideology trumps truth and morals and all discussions of such per se.
I think the confustion comes around that moral statements to some people are not relative as much as the CONTEXT in which they occur.
We all know the examples. The fussy egalitarian moral (shall we say.....black and white--the common accusation against......conservative types???) comparisons that hold killing animals as on par with humans, or that all forms of interrorgation are the equivalent of separating someone from their noggin, are oddball to me.
All the more given the lie that only the right wingers have some kind of stark dichotomy their minds operate with...
More often than not, I've found that what matters to most people is that cloud of comforting notions that buzz around preset notions and prejudices and fallback positions, even the ones from Cuckooland about Islamists joining us in the peace conga-lines.
But it matters not to some.
I thought it odd that one person hailing from the halls of "science" and ratio-centric reasoning held that plunking recalcitrant loonies into water to save American lives (in some cases, at least) was now (per some of the Left, and certainly oddly enough those now prosecuting the Night of Horror under Bush/Cheney) on par with all manner of other historical horrors.
If this is truly the case, then let's have some gigantic Cosmic court to posthumously prosecute the ghost of Harry Truman for Hiroshima, then hold a candlelight vigil for the "victims" of Dresden with all the same vigor we usually hold only for child molestors and street thugs.
Looks like you have some particular animus against Ilion, for some reason.
He's both irritating and amusing.
Interestingly, I TRIED to take the tack regarding the nuanced shades of grey that I agree sometimes exist on some issues in life, and had my head taken off by the anal retents of one particular blog of supposed blue ribbon quality. It seems ideology trumps truth and morals and all discussions of such per se.
Well, without knowing the details, all I can say is that I hope reasonable points of view are given a reasonable hearing.
I think the confustion comes around that moral statements to some people are not relative as much as the CONTEXT in which they occur.
We all know the examples. The fussy egalitarian moral (shall we say.....black and white--the common accusation against......conservative types???) comparisons that hold killing animals as on par with humans, or that all forms of interrorgation are the equivalent of separating someone from their noggin, are oddball to me.
Well, I certainly agree with you on the former. I am definitely prejudiced to my own species, and most pets and even meat animals are still better off in our care than in the wild.
As for interrogation, I don't recall ever reading anyone who said that all types are the same physical brutality. The most effective, useful, and reliable types of interrogation are not physical at all. Turning a person is always better than breaking them.
All the more given the lie that only the right wingers have some kind of stark dichotomy their minds operate with....
That's a lie I hear more often from the right than the left, and usually with a sense of pride.
... about Islamists joining us in the peace conga-lines..
You can reduce the number of fanatics, but there will always b a few, certainly.
I thought it odd that one person hailing from the halls of "science" and ratio-centric reasoning held that plunking recalcitrant loonies into water to save American lives (in some cases, at least) was now (per some of the Left, and certainly oddly enough those now prosecuting the Night of Horror under Bush/Cheney) on par with all manner of other historical horrors.
Comparing waterboarding to "plunking ... into water" is highly dishonest tactics. So I'm sure that's not what a person who rails against the unfairness of the way others treat his ideas wouldnot open themselves up to ridicule with such a shallow, self-serving lie. However, I'm not aware of a "plunking" interrogation procedure.
In any case, it's been well known, and confirmed again recently, that useful intelligence doesnot come from breaking people through fear and pain, but turning them through sympathy and manipulation. Breaking people leads them to saying anything that will stop the pain/fear, true or not. However, if you gain their sympathy and trust, if you become a good kidnapper, you can engender something akin to Stockholm syndrome and make them want to please you. The informatino you get that way will be much closer to the truth.
If this is truly the case, then let's have some gigantic Cosmic court to posthumously prosecute the ghost of Harry Truman for Hiroshima, then hold a candlelight vigil for the "victims" of Dresden with all the same vigor we usually hold only for child molestors and street thugs.
Your comparing acts of combat to mistreatment of prisoners? Again, that's really not very honest.
Post a Comment