Discussions

"everybody is ignorant, but just about different things"

Tags:
+
0 Votes
Locked

"everybody is ignorant, but just about different things"

Absolutely
The fact that we don't know how to do other people's jobs as well as they do illustrates libertarian, or classic liberal, ethics, fairly well. We also do not know how to live other people's personal lives as well as they do, and have no right to attempt to do either. The only valid judge of the value of any worker's labor is the employer. Likewise, for other activities, there is far less justification for expecting any justification than many people presume.

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell012307.php3
  • +
    0 Votes
    boxfiddler Moderator

    I understand how an inability to do something illustrates any sort of ethics?

    And I'm also not too all-fired certain how you pulled ethics from this article at all.

    Though I do thank you for the article, it was a very good read. Thomas Sowell used to have a column in our local paper, but folks around here don't seem to care too much about truth and logic when it comes to their daily 'mental food'.

    edit-add a comment

    +
    0 Votes
    Absolutely

    to dismiss or coercively reduce the value of their work, ie via non-uniform taxation.

    www.fairtax.org

    If people who are capable of being outstanding executives were a dime a dozen, nobody would pay eleven cents a dozen for them.


    Many observers who say that they cannot understand how anyone can be worth $100 million a year do not realize that it is not necessary that they understand it, since it is not their money.


    All of us have thousands of things happening around us that we do not understand. We use computers all the time but most of us could not build a computer if our life depended on it ? and those few individuals who could probably couldn't grow orchids or train horses.


    In short, we all have grossly inadequate knowledge in other people's specialties.

    +
    0 Votes
    boxfiddler Moderator

    I have to admit that I think of those things in terms of reason and logic rather than in terms of ethics. Ethics are a rather relative [to the underlying pre-suppositons of the mind] field, and therefore often defined on a cultural or religious basis as far as I can tell. Framed within the context of your first statement regarding rights I can see how you might apply an ethical perspective [from a western philosophical set of pre-suppositions] to the article.

    +
    0 Votes
    Absolutely

    such as it is.

    I have to admit that I think of those things in terms of reason and logic rather than in terms of ethics.

    Framed within the context of your stated inability to understand the ethical implications of the original article I can see how you might apply an amoral perspective [from a caveman's set of pre-suppositions] to imply that ethics is contrary to and separate from facts and logic. In fact ethics is one of many fields in which facts and logic can be employed, or can be ignored, dependent upon the quality of the person.

    You're dismissed.

    +
    0 Votes
    boxfiddler Moderator

    ?The fact that we don't know how to do other people's jobs as well as they do illustrates libertarian, or classic liberal, ethics, fairly well.?

    The above quote from your original post, illustrates only that ?we don't know how to do other people's jobs as well as they do?, which is not an ethical issue but rather an issue of ability (which is also not an ethical issue). I did not state an inability to understand the ethical implications of the article, I stated an inability to understand how your statement was valid. To quote myself, ?I?m not certain that I understand how an inability to do something illustrates any sort of ethics??

    I did state some curiosity as to how you tied ethics to the article, however that is not a statement of lack of understanding, but rather an inquiry into your reasoning.

    Without quoting the entire discussion thus far, I must point out that you have quite effectively avoided the question I raised as well as made a number of assumptions about me that you have ?no ethical right? to make from within your own implied position. Do you know any cavemen well enough to know what their underlying presuppositions are? You certainly don?t know me well enough to know what mine are.

    As ethical systems can be true or false, the use of logic to approach an issue is more appropriate. Correct reasoning is more likely to lead one to the conclusion that it is inappropriate to pass judgment on that about which we know nothing, be it a job or another person, than is ethics. Furthermore, logic does not address truth or falsehood (generally issues of morality or factuality), only validity or lack thereof making logic the more appropriate methodology for drawing correct conclusions.

    As ethical systems can be true or false, the conclusions drawn from them can be true or false. As ethical systems are relative to the cultures which produce them, the conclusions that can be drawn from ethical systems are relative.

    The fact that logic can be applied to ethics in no way suggests that ethics can be applied to logic. Logic is the science of sound reasoning; ethics is the science of human duty.
    ?
    Eth?ics
    n. (ĕth"ĭks)
    [Cf. F. ?thique. See ETHIC.]
    The science of human duty; the body of rules of duty drawn from this science; a particular system of principles and rules concerning duty, WHETHER TRUE OR FALSE; rules of practice in respect to a single class of human actions; as, political or social ethics; medical ethics. (caps mine)
    Ethics: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ethics&db=*
    Logic: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/logic

    +
    0 Votes
    Absolutely

    I **** in your general direction.

  • +
    0 Votes
    boxfiddler Moderator

    I understand how an inability to do something illustrates any sort of ethics?

    And I'm also not too all-fired certain how you pulled ethics from this article at all.

    Though I do thank you for the article, it was a very good read. Thomas Sowell used to have a column in our local paper, but folks around here don't seem to care too much about truth and logic when it comes to their daily 'mental food'.

    edit-add a comment

    +
    0 Votes
    Absolutely

    to dismiss or coercively reduce the value of their work, ie via non-uniform taxation.

    www.fairtax.org

    If people who are capable of being outstanding executives were a dime a dozen, nobody would pay eleven cents a dozen for them.


    Many observers who say that they cannot understand how anyone can be worth $100 million a year do not realize that it is not necessary that they understand it, since it is not their money.


    All of us have thousands of things happening around us that we do not understand. We use computers all the time but most of us could not build a computer if our life depended on it ? and those few individuals who could probably couldn't grow orchids or train horses.


    In short, we all have grossly inadequate knowledge in other people's specialties.

    +
    0 Votes
    boxfiddler Moderator

    I have to admit that I think of those things in terms of reason and logic rather than in terms of ethics. Ethics are a rather relative [to the underlying pre-suppositons of the mind] field, and therefore often defined on a cultural or religious basis as far as I can tell. Framed within the context of your first statement regarding rights I can see how you might apply an ethical perspective [from a western philosophical set of pre-suppositions] to the article.

    +
    0 Votes
    Absolutely

    such as it is.

    I have to admit that I think of those things in terms of reason and logic rather than in terms of ethics.

    Framed within the context of your stated inability to understand the ethical implications of the original article I can see how you might apply an amoral perspective [from a caveman's set of pre-suppositions] to imply that ethics is contrary to and separate from facts and logic. In fact ethics is one of many fields in which facts and logic can be employed, or can be ignored, dependent upon the quality of the person.

    You're dismissed.

    +
    0 Votes
    boxfiddler Moderator

    ?The fact that we don't know how to do other people's jobs as well as they do illustrates libertarian, or classic liberal, ethics, fairly well.?

    The above quote from your original post, illustrates only that ?we don't know how to do other people's jobs as well as they do?, which is not an ethical issue but rather an issue of ability (which is also not an ethical issue). I did not state an inability to understand the ethical implications of the article, I stated an inability to understand how your statement was valid. To quote myself, ?I?m not certain that I understand how an inability to do something illustrates any sort of ethics??

    I did state some curiosity as to how you tied ethics to the article, however that is not a statement of lack of understanding, but rather an inquiry into your reasoning.

    Without quoting the entire discussion thus far, I must point out that you have quite effectively avoided the question I raised as well as made a number of assumptions about me that you have ?no ethical right? to make from within your own implied position. Do you know any cavemen well enough to know what their underlying presuppositions are? You certainly don?t know me well enough to know what mine are.

    As ethical systems can be true or false, the use of logic to approach an issue is more appropriate. Correct reasoning is more likely to lead one to the conclusion that it is inappropriate to pass judgment on that about which we know nothing, be it a job or another person, than is ethics. Furthermore, logic does not address truth or falsehood (generally issues of morality or factuality), only validity or lack thereof making logic the more appropriate methodology for drawing correct conclusions.

    As ethical systems can be true or false, the conclusions drawn from them can be true or false. As ethical systems are relative to the cultures which produce them, the conclusions that can be drawn from ethical systems are relative.

    The fact that logic can be applied to ethics in no way suggests that ethics can be applied to logic. Logic is the science of sound reasoning; ethics is the science of human duty.
    ?
    Eth?ics
    n. (ĕth"ĭks)
    [Cf. F. ?thique. See ETHIC.]
    The science of human duty; the body of rules of duty drawn from this science; a particular system of principles and rules concerning duty, WHETHER TRUE OR FALSE; rules of practice in respect to a single class of human actions; as, political or social ethics; medical ethics. (caps mine)
    Ethics: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ethics&db=*
    Logic: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/logic

    +
    0 Votes
    Absolutely

    I **** in your general direction.