Are political principles inherently good?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 02:51:28 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Are political principles inherently good?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Are political principles inherently good?  (Read 2032 times)
Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.
HoffmanJohn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,951
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 18, 2010, 10:38:50 AM »

metaphysical principles of the 19th century have much in common with isolationism,non-intervention, and the common good do today in how they are used. This is because various individuals make the mistake of using them for a golden axiom, despite the fact they have no inherent quality. For example someone may oppose, or agree with an issue simply because it is labeled managed trade,non-interventionist, free trade, or any category that an individual may voluntary attach meaning to. I am no expert,but I am pretty sure that G.E moore proved that what is considered good is always an open question, and thus such things as non-interventionism and the common good are not inherently good or evil.

In any event in a political discussion political principles can become dogmatic in this example.
Person A) What do you think of the marshall plan,think it will work?
Person B) I oppose it because it goes against non-intervention, and thus the potential net benefit of this plan doesn't matter if it goes against my principle which has no inherent value what so ever....except for the one that i gave it.

on a side note person B formed the argument in a manner that many fundamentalist do. For example fundamentalists often attempt to restrict their opponent to their interpretation of the bible, and this is very similar to how person B tried to restrict person A to B's own principles.( there is a simple trick used in debate to thwart this strategy,but whatever).
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 18, 2010, 02:12:06 PM »

It depends on how grounded you are in your principles. I wouldn't compare your example to the Bible only because with my knowledge of the Bible, it's very open to interpretation. Overall I would say standing on principles is good because it shows conviction and that you are not willing to go with the flow. However it can also show closed mindedness. I can relate to your interventionist principles because I am close to always being against the government getting in the way of the free market. If someone conceded on that principle then where do they draw the line? I tend to stick to principles because going against them can set precedent, but it normally comes down to the situation at hand.
Logged
Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.
HoffmanJohn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,951
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 18, 2010, 03:36:50 PM »

It depends on how grounded you are in your principles. I wouldn't compare your example to the Bible only because with my knowledge of the Bible, it's very open to interpretation. Overall I would say standing on principles is good because it shows conviction and that you are not willing to go with the flow. However it can also show closed mindedness. I can relate to your interventionist principles because I am close to always being against the government getting in the way of the free market. If someone conceded on that principle then where do they draw the line? I tend to stick to principles because going against them can set precedent, but it normally comes down to the situation at hand.

You draw the line based on the context of the situation and so forth.
Logged
Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.
HoffmanJohn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,951
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 18, 2010, 03:54:59 PM »

why would have to draw a line? Why should we limit ourselves if we don't even know what the context is?
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,890
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 18, 2010, 04:01:36 PM »

Some political principles are, Human Rights above all.
Logged
Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.
HoffmanJohn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,951
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 18, 2010, 04:12:10 PM »
« Edited: June 18, 2010, 04:21:16 PM by Market interventionist of the highest order(wal-mart) »

Some political principles are, Human Rights above all.

What puts human rights above other political principles such as non-interventionism? From my view point such things as NI, and I are simply means that wish to bring about an indirect end. Why should human rights be respected?
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 18, 2010, 05:45:11 PM »

It's not really that complicated just do what's right for the situation at hand.
Logged
Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.
HoffmanJohn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,951
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 18, 2010, 05:50:33 PM »

It's not really that complicated just do what's right for the situation at hand.

one would think so, but too often someone will say that the oppose something merely because of principle.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 18, 2010, 05:54:57 PM »

It's not really that complicated just do what's right for the situation at hand.

one would think so, but too often someone will say that the oppose something merely because of principle.

There's nothing wrong with that either. Principles are good to stand by. They obviously have reason for their principles.
Logged
Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.
HoffmanJohn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,951
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 18, 2010, 05:56:30 PM »
« Edited: June 18, 2010, 05:59:32 PM by Market interventionist of the highest order(wal-mart) »

It's not really that complicated just do what's right for the situation at hand.

one would think so, but too often someone will say that the oppose something merely because of principle.

There's nothing wrong with that either. Principles are good to stand by. They obviously have reason for their principles.

obviously they have a reason for their principles, but why have any at all if they have no inheret quality unless we attach meaning to them?
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 18, 2010, 06:26:35 PM »

It's not really that complicated just do what's right for the situation at hand.

one would think so, but too often someone will say that the oppose something merely because of principle.

There's nothing wrong with that either. Principles are good to stand by. They obviously have reason for their principles.

obviously they have a reason for their principles, but why have any at all if they have no inheret quality unless we attach meaning to them?

For most people their principles are believed for good and genuine reasons.
Logged
Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.
HoffmanJohn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,951
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 18, 2010, 06:28:50 PM »

It's not really that complicated just do what's right for the situation at hand.

one would think so, but too often someone will say that the oppose something merely because of principle.

There's nothing wrong with that either. Principles are good to stand by. They obviously have reason for their principles.

obviously they have a reason for their principles, but why have any at all if they have no inheret quality unless we attach meaning to them?

For most people their principles are believed for good and genuine reasons.

Their is nothing good or bad about having principles, but the principles themselves are neither good of bad. In the end it is an ultimate appeal to self. Principles are an extension of the self.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,112
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 18, 2010, 08:44:31 PM »

     No, because nothing is inherently good. Things are only good within a certain paradigm. It just so happens that we all accept certain ideas (that human rights is a good idea, for example) because it is clearly to our advantage to do so.
Logged
Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.
HoffmanJohn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,951
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 18, 2010, 11:16:09 PM »

     No, because nothing is inherently good. Things are only good within a certain paradigm. It just so happens that we all accept certain ideas (that human rights is a good idea, for example) because it is clearly to our advantage to do so.

How are things within a certain paradigm. In any event I will conclude this lesson my stating "mankind routinely attach's qaulitys to abstract princples, and sometimes even objects, and thus i must ask what is the meaning of a flower?" Finally for further reading I suggest someone read up on the naturalistic fallacy, moral skeptcism, and G.E moore.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,112
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 18, 2010, 11:45:09 PM »

     No, because nothing is inherently good. Things are only good within a certain paradigm. It just so happens that we all accept certain ideas (that human rights is a good idea, for example) because it is clearly to our advantage to do so.

How are things within a certain paradigm. In any event I will conclude this lesson my stating "mankind routinely attach's qaulitys to abstract princples, and sometimes even objects, and thus i must ask what is the meaning of a flower?" Finally for further reading I suggest someone read up on the naturalistic fallacy, moral skeptcism, and G.E moore.

     Paradigms are essentially the sets of principles held in high regard by certain ideological groups. You have the libertarian paradigm, the nationalist paradigm, &c. However, there are certain principles that are held as good by most (if not all) groups, due to their universal appeal. For example, everybody holds that murder is bad, principally because people would like to not be murdered.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,890
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: June 19, 2010, 05:39:23 AM »

Some political principles are, Human Rights above all.

What puts human rights above other political principles such as non-interventionism? From my view point such things as NI, and I are simply means that wish to bring about an indirect end. Why should human rights be respected?

You are seriously asking that ?
Logged
Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.
HoffmanJohn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,951
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: June 19, 2010, 08:10:52 AM »

Some political principles are, Human Rights above all.

What puts human rights above other political principles such as non-interventionism? From my view point such things as NI, and I are simply means that wish to bring about an indirect end. Why should human rights be respected?

You are seriously asking that ?

yes? What is wrong with asking a simple question? I'd rather hear someone's elses reasons than my own.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,890
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: June 19, 2010, 11:11:55 AM »

Some political principles are, Human Rights above all.

What puts human rights above other political principles such as non-interventionism? From my view point such things as NI, and I are simply means that wish to bring about an indirect end. Why should human rights be respected?

You are seriously asking that ?

yes? What is wrong with asking a simple question? I'd rather hear someone's elses reasons than my own.

Well, if you are interested in a so evident question...
The best, and actually the only way to set universal principles to ensure a fair society is using Rawls' method : you have to immagine what would people agree about, if they didn't know anything about their position in such societies, nor are infuentiated by cultural principles. Such people would certainly reach a consesus leading to concilitae individual freedom with the guarantee that the stronger won't oppress the weaker. Human rights provide this. When I say human rights, I mean their broad conception : the original HRs (freedom of expression, equality before the law, security, property, protection against arbitrary decisions, democracy...) but also the new social rights that have been added since 1948 (right to work, to health, social justice...). these principles are fair because they are good independently to particular cases : because someone who doesn't know if he is privileged or not would accept them.
Logged
Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.
HoffmanJohn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,951
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: June 19, 2010, 12:46:01 PM »

Some political principles are, Human Rights above all.

What puts human rights above other political principles such as non-interventionism? From my view point such things as NI, and I are simply means that wish to bring about an indirect end. Why should human rights be respected?

You are seriously asking that ?

yes? What is wrong with asking a simple question? I'd rather hear someone's elses reasons than my own.

Well, if you are interested in a so evident question...
The best, and actually the only way to set universal principles to ensure a fair society is using Rawls' method : you have to immagine what would people agree about, if they didn't know anything about their position in such societies, nor are infuentiated by cultural principles. Such people would certainly reach a consesus leading to concilitae individual freedom with the guarantee that the stronger won't oppress the weaker. Human rights provide this. When I say human rights, I mean their broad conception : the original HRs (freedom of expression, equality before the law, security, property, protection against arbitrary decisions, democracy...) but also the new social rights that have been added since 1948 (right to work, to health, social justice...). these principles are fair because they are good independently to particular cases : because someone who doesn't know if he is privileged or not would accept them.

Thanks I just learned something.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: June 19, 2010, 06:11:32 PM »

Depends.
Logged
nclib
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,300
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: June 22, 2010, 08:49:06 PM »


In any event in a political discussion political principles can become dogmatic in this example.
Person A) What do you think of the marshall plan,think it will work?
Person B) I oppose it because it goes against non-intervention, and thus the potential net benefit of this plan doesn't matter if it goes against my principle which has no inherent value what so ever....except for the one that i gave it.

on a side note person B formed the argument in a manner that many fundamentalist do. For example fundamentalists often attempt to restrict their opponent to their interpretation of the bible, and this is very similar to how person B tried to restrict person A to B's own principles.( there is a simple trick used in debate to thwart this strategy,but whatever).

In the examples you give, those principles may not be desirable, but in plenty of cases principles are noble, regardless of whether we all agree with them or not. In my case, most of the principles I take the furthest are those having to do with protecting human rights.

For example:

Person A: I oppose gay marriage because I find it repulsive to walk down the street and see two guys hugging.
Me: Regardless of whether you (or most of society) feels that way, the two guys behavior is not objectively harmful to anyone, and they have the right to that behavior and to equality, and our government should prioritize human rights over anyone's perspective of what they find repulsive or not.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: June 22, 2010, 09:56:52 PM »

yes it really does depend.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,112
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: June 24, 2010, 01:57:11 PM »

     But to say it depends misses the point, which is to question whether it ever makes sense for a political principle to be held as all-overriding. I would suggest looking at it as "can political principles be inherently good?"
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.057 seconds with 12 queries.