Comments on: False Consciousness, Psychological Freedom, and Pluralism

By: Overcoming Bias comment « Entitled to an Opinion

Overcoming Bias comment « Entitled to an Opinion — Sun, 24 May 2009 05:41:03 +0000

[...] takeovers as “liberation”. My take is that “false consciousness” proves too much: no one can ever establish that their preferences are correct and emanating from their real essence [...]

By: nba news

nba news — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 18:07:40 +0000

Thank you i was looking for something like this

By: Færless

Færless — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 09:52:23 +0000

Thanks

By: Jacob Levy’s “Liberalism’s Divide” « Entitled to an Opinion

Sat, 02 Aug 2008 19:47:26 +0000

[...] work on child development. As for brainwashing, I think it’s only relevant in movies. I argued with Will Wilkinson about false consciousness with the point that if you rule out any decisions [...]

By: Club Troppo » Missing Link Daily

Club Troppo » Missing Link Daily — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:42:57 +0000

[...] Brighouse and Will Wilkinson both look at issues surrounding removal of children from their parents’ care in the wake of [...]

By: EconTech

EconTech — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:12:16 +0000

[...] polygamous marriage because they were not exposed enough to the rest of the world. For example, Will Wilkinson: About kids raised on isolated compounds by religious fanatics … It is tyrannical for parents [...]

By: Clyde Mays, Jr.

Clyde Mays, Jr. — Thu, 15 May 2008 01:01:50 +0000

Something we can all gree on there, Micha.

By: Micha Ghertner

Micha Ghertner — Wed, 14 May 2008 19:16:42 +0000

It’s an irrational addiction, Clyde.

By: Clyde Mays, Jr.

Clyde Mays, Jr. — Tue, 13 May 2008 01:45:20 +0000

Aren’t you guys sick of this yet?

By: Jason Malloy

Jason Malloy — Mon, 12 May 2008 22:32:19 +0000

Micha,

Again, who belongs in the ingroup involves reasoning and facts about rights and capacities.

You can’t cause “harm” to a rock, because a rock has no preferences. (Comment #46) “The environment” is also an abstraction without sentience and preferences.

See Comment #68 for animals.

By: Micha Ghertner

Micha Ghertner — Mon, 12 May 2008 20:58:40 +0000

This is not the definition of ‘morality’ in any society, it’s the definition of ’selfishness’, or ‘immorality’ if it means hurting others. The concept of morality inherently means something different: behaving in a fair way to reduce or not cause harm to others.

Again, this just begs the question: which entities count as “others” worthy of consideration? Can we cause harm to non-human animals for our own benefit and still be moral? Insects? Plants? Rocks? The environment in general?

By: Jason Malloy

Jason Malloy — Mon, 12 May 2008 20:23:27 +0000

Comment #52. What differs drastically are the facts known to people. The underlying cognition of human moral motivations is entirely similar.

I don’t know of any time and place where a motivation of causing more harm was considered ‘good’ by local standards. In many instances harm is and has always been (often tragically) caused in perceived service of a greater prevention of harm.

By: Caledonian

Caledonian — Mon, 12 May 2008 04:13:05 +0000

Standards of right and proper conduct vary rather drastically from person to person and from culture to culture. Insisting that the only way to be moral is to try to avoid causing harm to people is short-sighted. There have been many, many times and places in which avoiding causing harm would be the wrong and improper thing to do by the local standards.

I think we’re through, here.

By: Jason Malloy

Jason Malloy — Sun, 11 May 2008 17:10:26 +0000

Caledonian, you don't get much philosophy from a dictionary. Those entries don't contradict me, and neither do they clarify much at all. In the dictionary link 'morality' is defined as being 'moral' which is defined as "principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong". 'Right' is then defined as 'good', and then 'good' is defined as 'moral'! The dictionary gives you a circle of synonyms and assumes you can take from there. Wikipedia, which does dissect the concept says: Generally speaking, morals are basic guidelines for behavior intended to reduce suffering in living populations.

By: Caledonian

Caledonian — Sun, 11 May 2008 14:00:19 +0000

The concept of morality inherently means something different: behaving in a fair way to reduce or not cause harm to others.

That is not what the word means. Please see this, this, and this.