Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think you are right. I forgot about Rationalism. Both Empiricism and Rationalism were responses chiefly to "Scholastic" modes of thought which were seen as being based on tradition and not on thought.
Maybe what I am looking for is simply "rational thought" (which would encompass both Empiricism and Rationalism) in opposition to the traditionalism of conservatives and the emotionalism of progressives.
I do not understand the idea that moral arguments are inherently emotional. If I tell you that we should donate money to charities working to fight Malaria because Malaria kills millions of innocent children per year, how is that inherently an emotional appeal? It seems it could be broken down into a logical syllogism just like many other things:
I. Malaria kills millions of innocent children per year.
II. Innocent children dying is a thing we should try to prevent.
III. Some charities can prevent it quite well if they are funded correctly.
Conclusion: We should donate to Malaria charities.
Whether you agree with the syllogism or not, I can't see how it is an emotional appeal. To me, most traditionally liberal objectives don't require emotion in order to be justified.
Btw, I agree with the second poster: You are misunderstanding "empiricism" and "rationalism." You are applying them to topics where they don't apply. If you were trying to figure out whether we are born with an innate notion of good, sure. Go for it. But the distinction between empiricism and rationalism have nothing to do with "freedom of thought and expression."
Three hundred years later, that argument was carried much further by Ayn Rand, who viewed the workings of open markets in an open society as further proof of the role (and eventual rule) of empiricism and efficiency -- in the exchange of ideas as well as economic goods.
But I doubt this process is going to get too far in the present environment. The people who dispose of most of the wealth in our present economy are usually not the same people who put in the most effort to create it. Furthermore, the "consumerist" attitude promoted by the schlockmeisters of Hollywood and Madison Avenue, and their focus on short-sight leaves too many of us trapped in the retail "job ghetto" where the customer, no matter how irrational, is always right.
Short of a monumental economic crisis, that attitude seems unlikely to change anytime soon -- more so because most of our politicians, including the Trumpsters, want the Great Party prolonged at all costs.
Ayn Rand was a crackpot. There is a reason no real philosophers take her seriously. I have a hard time keeping a straight face when a person finds out I have an actual degree in philosophy and they ask if I have read any Ayn Rand, as though her work is taken seriously by philosophers.
Today we have the "alt-right"/"Social Justice Warrior" dichotomy where people are forced to chose sides. Empiricism demands that you make decisions not based on tradition or emotion but on experience. If we take politics on a "case by case" basis can we get out of this mess?
I agree with other posters who have pointed out the somewhat weird application of "empiricism" in the OP, but for what it may be worth I'm going to run with it and make a couple of observations.
Science is intended to be empirical, and it seems to me that a substantial wing of "conservatism" has been hijacked by an anti-science mindset. For them, certain principles trump (indeed, for the "alt-right" may even "Trump") empirical data. So a quick answer to the OP would be "no". Empiricism won't help bridge the critical political gap, although I wish it could.
BTW: I'm not suggesting that liberals don't often spin and twist science to their own spiritual/political preferences, but at least in principle empirical evidence and logical argument CAN work on them, whereas data and logic are powerless to change a mind that has already decided that truth is beyond science and logic, or a conspiratorial mind that is convinced that college education in inherently corrupting.
I do not understand the idea that moral arguments are inherently emotional. If I tell you that we should donate money to charities working to fight Malaria because Malaria kills millions of innocent children per year, how is that inherently an emotional appeal? It seems it could be broken down into a logical syllogism just like many other things:
I. Malaria kills millions of innocent children per year.
II. Innocent children dying is a thing we should try to prevent.
III. Some charities can prevent it quite well if they are funded correctly.
Conclusion: We should donate to Malaria charities.
Whether you agree with the syllogism or not, I can't see how it is an emotional appeal. To me, most traditionally liberal objectives don't require emotion in order to be justified.
Btw, I agree with the second poster: You are misunderstanding "empiricism" and "rationalism." You are applying them to topics where they don't apply. If you were trying to figure out whether we are born with an innate notion of good, sure. Go for it. But the distinction between empiricism and rationalism have nothing to do with "freedom of thought and expression."
Well, suppose instead of fighting Malaria in Africa I choose to invest my money in economic development projects which might help Africans better fight the epidemic in the long run? Would I be a "morally" bad person?
Or maybe, I would rather fight AIDS in San Francisco or South Africa.
Ultimately, it is my "rational choice" but there will always be someone trying to argue with me on liberal/conservative/humanitarian/Christian/progressive grounds that their particular cause is worth my money. And their appeal often descends into emotionalism.
I do not understand the idea that moral arguments are inherently emotional. If I tell you that we should donate money to charities working to fight Malaria because Malaria kills millions of innocent children per year, how is that inherently an emotional appeal? It seems it could be broken down into a logical syllogism just like many other things:
I. Malaria kills millions of innocent children per year.
II. Innocent children dying is a thing we should try to prevent.
III. Some charities can prevent it quite well if they are funded correctly.
Conclusion: We should donate to Malaria charities.
Whether you agree with the syllogism or not, I can't see how it is an emotional appeal. To me, most traditionally liberal objectives don't require emotion in order to be justified.
Btw, I agree with the second poster: You are misunderstanding "empiricism" and "rationalism." You are applying them to topics where they don't apply. If you were trying to figure out whether we are born with an innate notion of good, sure. Go for it. But the distinction between empiricism and rationalism have nothing to do with "freedom of thought and expression."
If the left and the right would stop there, we wouldn't have any problems. The real problem is when the left or the right decides that your donation is mandatory. You no longer have free will, because now you are forced either by threat of violence, or financial ruin. As a Libertarian, that is my biggest problem with government, and the problems faced by this country. If the country did a real cost benefit analysis of actions, and only took actions that bettered it's citizens, we would come a long way. However, the left and the right will continue to use morality in the example of the right, and justice in the example of the left, to make decisions.
Well, suppose instead of fighting Malaria in Africa I choose to invest my money in economic development projects which might help Africans better fight the epidemic in the long run? Would I be a "morally" bad person?
No, of course not. You are missing the point of my post. I am simply illustrating that moral arguments are not inherently emotional arguments. You are proving my point here -- you disagreed with my moral argument without resorting to emotion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BougNeg1
Ultimately, it is my "rational choice" but there will always be someone trying to argue with me on liberal/conservative/humanitarian/Christian/progressive grounds that their particular cause is worth my money. And their appeal often descends into emotionalism.
I am not saying people don't get emotional about morality. I am saying that moral arguments are not inherently emotional arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericsvibe
If the left and the right would stop there, we wouldn't have any problems. The real problem is when the left or the right decides that your donation is mandatory. You no longer have free will, because now you are forced either by threat of violence, or financial ruin. As a Libertarian, that is my biggest problem with government, and the problems faced by this country. If the country did a real cost benefit analysis of actions, and only took actions that bettered it's citizens, we would come a long way. However, the left and the right will continue to use morality in the example of the right, and justice in the example of the left, to make decisions.
You're opening up an entire can of worms that is outside the scope of this thread. I'm not going to debate the merits (or lack thereof) of political libertarianism. However, I will say that you are misunderstanding the concept of free will here. Free will cannot be taken by force. That is a stipulation on the definition of what free will is.
No, of course not. You are missing the point of my post. I am simply illustrating that moral arguments are not inherently emotional arguments. You are proving my point here -- you disagreed with my moral argument without resorting to emotion.
I am not saying people don't get emotional about morality. I am saying that moral arguments are not inherently emotional arguments.
You're opening up an entire can of worms that is outside the scope of this thread. I'm not going to debate the merits (or lack thereof) of political libertarianism. However, I will say that you are misunderstanding the concept of free will here. Free will cannot be taken by force. That is a stipulation on the definition of what free will is.
The definition of free will is..
1.
the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
If a person is required by the government to fund a politically driven cause, that is beyond the basic functions of government, it can be argued that in does infringe upon free will. Using the example stated, Malaria, just because one group of people are horrified by deaths caused by Malaria, doesn't mean that everyone has this opinion. Some may be in favor of doing nothing, as a means of natural population control. The government is making a decision that binds all citizens. Because of tax revenue being used to fund the program, you are forced to pay this, lest the IRS will come calling. That to me is a direct infringement upon free will. If it is paid for exclusively with donations by the general public, then they are able to exercise their own free will to donate or not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
