>
> Ha. So you've boxed yourself into a position where you have to refuse
> even to say why you believe what you believe? And you think this flows
> from some sound philosophical basis? Doug was right, this whole pose is
> forced and weird.
Anytbing that challenges common sense is "forced and weird". (C'mon outside; the weather's fine!) Let's be clear: nobody knows "why they believe what they believe". Sure, we make up elaborate stories, but how do we verify that the stories are true? --Short answer: we can't.
>
> And there's a reason for that: I'm sorry Miles, but it's abundantly
> clear that you're against exploitation for exactly the same reason the
> bourgeois sentimentalist cringes at the tortured puppy. It outrages your
> moral sense. Yet you've worked up an elaborate philosophical structure
> that requires you to deny it. Sure, in principle, people *should*
> question their own moral impulses, especially given the potential
> influence of power structures. But in the end one has to come up with
> reasons for whatever conclusions one's arrived at.
Thanks for explaining my motives. I understand myself so much better now!
> In the most literal sense. It renders pointless very idea of
> a discussion about politics, except about the most narrowly instrumental
> questions: If you refuse on principle to provide a reason for the
> assertions you make, why should anyone want to discuss them?
I'm providing reasons; they just don't conform to your notion of "good" reasons. I will reiterate my point: I think your position relies on a common sense notion of personhood that reinforce capitalist social relations in our society. I recognize you might not agree, but it's a logically coherent position that can be meaningfully discussed by intellectually curious people.
> Well, in another post, you bring up the civil rights movement. Okay,
> then - answer your own question: How did the civil rights movement's
> moral discourse reinforce power relations?
Interesting question. Quick take: it drew from and reinforced traditional Christian values; it perpetuated the myth of meritocracy (we should all be judged by the content of our character); it evoked moral teleology (the arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice).
Miles