----- Original Message ----- From: "Justin Schwartz" <jkschw at hotmail.com> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 10:51 PM Subject: Re: perversely wrong
> It's up to you. You intimated that you had something to say.
Many of our intuitions arise from folk-wisdom or (the horror!) vulgar self-interest. The empirical fact that such intuitions are unlikely to evaporate upon the presentation of superior counterargument doesn't mean they shouldn't.
> Say more.
It's hard to see (no pun intended) exactly how one could observe an ethical fact. Even though I have realist and naturalist leanings, I haven't been able to formulate a good response. (Moore's open question, on the other hand, is a piece of cake.)
> >Thanks for clearing that up for me. I was actually getting at precisely
> >what you said a couple of sentences later: "I know that I am not likely
to
> >be right about everything." I'd go further: the divergence of opinion
> >displayed even (and perhaps particularly) by those of the supplest
> >intellects leads me to believe that most of us are substantially in error
> >much of the time.
>
> This is strange. Davidson argues (I think wrongly) that most of our
beliefs
> have to be true. You seem to suggest that most of them are in fact false.
> Any candidates?
Perhaps there exists a deep resvoir of true belief shared by most persons that happens to be correct. That isn't what concerns me. I'm simply trying say that, between any two people, there are likely fundamental divergences of opininion on important issues. By definition, both can't be right. And I see no reason to think that one (by virtue of superior intelligence, education, culture etc.) is likely to be almost always right and the other almost always wrong.
Candidates for false belief: in my own case, I believe that is possible that Kant revealed the true foundation ethics and Friedman is right on economics. If so, almost every ethical or political argument I make is wrong. I needn't be anywhere near this radical, though: there are probably many cases where being precisely right is nearly impossible, and, therefore, most everyone is just a little off. It follows that such beliefs are strictly false.
> You are being humor-impaired.
Oh. So it was a humorous aside...
> But in more serious vein, if I disagree with
> you, it follows that I think you are wrong.
Yes, that goes without saying. The fact that you've said it not once, but twice, leads me to believe that you're being unwittingly condescending.
> If I disagree with you about
> almost everything . . . .
Whether we actually disagree about almost everything is an open question. I wouldn't expect an answer from listserv debates.
-- Luke
>
> jks
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
> http://www.hotmail.com