No, it's just a fact that strong arguments do not trump intuitions. Absolutely nothing could persuade me that slavery is better than freedom, even though this is remarkably difficult to show. It's idle to say that this is not as it should be; you just have to live with it. Moral argument only changes people's minds incrementally and at the margins. People adjust, tighten up, and systematize their intuitions; the results of many small changes may be a big one, but there is no reason to think that moral philosophers have been effective prophets. On historical materialist grounds, why would you expect them to be? Social being determines thought, and much less vice versa. And no, most intuitions are, I think, unargued. The grounds I ahve to thinking that slavery is worse than freedom are much weaker than the conclusion.
--jks
>
>At 03:37 AM 7/22/01 +0000, you wrote:
>
>>That's why Posner's right that philosophical arguments don't trump strong
>>intuitions. --jks
>
>I have a hunch that this is incorrect.
>
>But seriously... philosophical argument don't trump strong intuitions, ie.
>everyday life wins, or philosophical arguments ought not to trump strong
>intutions? (ie. libidinally cathected love objects win).
>
>In either case, we're on rather unfortunate grounds here.
>
>intuition is (somebody elses) argument in disguise,
>ken
>
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp