Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6404243" data-attributes="member: 42582">This doesn't make any difference to my point.Sure, it is possible for a CG person to be different in some respects from another CG person. Or from a LG person. But from the point of view of LG, CG is radically flawed. Yet a LG person cannot, coherently, deny that it is possible for a CG person to be perfectly, maximally good. Hence, a LG person is committed to it being possible that a maximally good being is nevertheless radically flawed.That doesn't make sense. And it lacks parallels in the real world. In the real world, for instance, socialists don't think that libertarians are fully committed to human welfare yet flawed. They think that libertarianism is inimical to human welfare. Conversely, when Hayek wrote The Road to Serfdom he didn't think that socialists and social democrats were fully committed to human welfare yet problematically collectivist. He argued that their collectivism was a threat to human wellbeing and hence that socialism and social democracy were evils to be opposed.In the real world, there are no political or moral points of view which treat goodness/evilness, and lawfulness/chaoticness, as distinctive measures of value, such that the question of how good or evil someone or something is is independent of the way it relates to stability, change, liberty etc. Rather, they take positions on the contribution of stability, change, liberty etc to good and evil.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6404243, member: 42582"] This doesn't make any difference to my point. Sure, it is possible for a CG person to be different in some respects from another CG person. Or from a LG person. But from the point of view of LG, CG is radically flawed. Yet a LG person cannot, coherently, deny that it is possible for a CG person to be perfectly, maximally good. Hence, a LG person is committed to it being possible that a maximally good being is nevertheless radically flawed. That doesn't make sense. And it lacks parallels in the real world. In the real world, for instance, socialists don't think that libertarians are fully committed to human welfare yet flawed. They think that libertarianism is inimical to human welfare. Conversely, when Hayek wrote The Road to Serfdom he didn't think that socialists and social democrats were fully committed to human welfare yet problematically collectivist. He argued that their collectivism was a threat to human wellbeing and hence that socialism and social democracy were evils to be opposed. In the real world, there are no political or moral points of view which treat goodness/evilness, and lawfulness/chaoticness, as distinctive measures of value, such that the question of how good or evil someone or something is is independent of the way it relates to stability, change, liberty etc. Rather, they take positions on the contribution of stability, change, liberty etc to good and evil. [/QUOTE]

Verification