From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Thu Jan 06 2005 - 03:07:45 GMT
Hi Keith (and Sam wherever you are, and all)
Your last response to this thread seemed to divide neatly into two
sections, so I'll offer this now, and more later...
msh said:
But my position is that the worst of the "others'" already know the
message as they, apparently, have placed themselves in charge of
delivering it, at any cost. It seems as though you have internalized
the idea that the western powers are on the right track; that they
make mistakes here and there, but are essentially interested in
making the world a better place for everyone. IMO, this has been and
continues to be repeatedly contradicted by history. I think it is a
mistake to think that states are moral agents.
keith bites back:
well, we could say that you have internalized the idea that the
western powers are on the self serving track; that they incidentally
improve things here and there, but are essentially interested in
making the powerful elite more comfortable at the expense of everyone
else. IMO, this has been and continues to be repeatedly contradicted
by history. I think it is a mistake to think that states are immoral
agents.
msh says:
We need some clarification here. When I say that states are not
moral agents I don't mean that none of their activity has morally
positive effects. I mean that their decisions to act are ALWAYS
rooted in maintaining or expanding state power. That is, to the
them, the morality of their actions is irrelevant.
Now, with that understanding, I'm willing to contest your idea that
history considered in toto contradicts the notion that states are not
moral agents. Can you provide an historical example where a state
performed a benevolent action, when doing so meant WILLINGLY
relinquishing state power?
keith:
It's interesting to me how the very nature of this method of
discourse tends to polarize. I don't know if we could think of a way
of making the conversation more constructive (not that this isn't
civil and not fun - It's just I tend to adopt a contrary position
simply to continue the discussion). I wonder whether Platt is really
as conservative and entrenched as he sometimes comes across, or
whether he simply likes a good conversation and knows that his stance
usually calls for a response...?
msh says:
But, you see, the polarization and demise of the debate occurs when
one party takes a contrary position but does not defend the position
with fact and argument. If I say "I believe Z because of W, X, and
Y, and here's why evidence in support of W, X, Y." and you say "No, Z
is false because not-W, not-X, not-Y" this is contradiction without
argument. This is my friend Platt's method of discussion, at least
when it comes to politics. (Although I've noticed others getting
annoyed by it in discussions of philosophy and science as well.)
This kills debate, and truly does turn it into a meaningless word
game.
So, to answer your question, the conversation need not be polarized
and moribund, and can be as productive as we want it to be. In the
section above you contradicted my position that States Are Not Moral
Agents without supporting evidence and argument. Now I've asked you
to provide some, so we'll see what happens.
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
--
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
"The shadows that a swinging lamp will throw,
We come from nowhere and to nothing go."
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 06 2005 - 03:14:28 GMT