Judging History (branch off from election thread)

[a completely inoffensive name]

The other stuff we've talked about?

What, the lying example? The one where I said I don't consider lying to be inherently wrong in the first place?

What moral axioms?

What basic premises do you use to create a system of "right" and "wrong" from which you can make judgements on actions? Why is this action by so and so bad or good ultimately comes from our personal moral premises that we hold to be truth. You criticized my use of empathy to construct said truths, that I make my judgements on. I am asking you where yours comes from.

Sure it is since the others didn't do that.

So? You make it seem like anybody who didn't whip their slaves until their backs became giant scars are paragons of humanity.

Why on earth not? How do you decide who to vote for or who to have a relationship with? We always deal with people as a whole.You would be schizophrenic in your daily life if you tried to do this.

But this is different from what I am talking about. I don't compare two people about two different things. I am not going to compare Washington's slave owning with Napoleon's tyrannical domestic policy. When I am deciding between two candidates I am comparing the two on the same things. Foreign policy, domestic policy etc...

There is a difference between picking someone for a specific role/job and making a blanket comparison like "Who was most evilest dictator?!?"

Listen...you said you were disgusted with Washington. That's an overall judgement. What's your justification for being disgusted overall? And why are you disgusted with his individual choice to keep slaves? What's disgusting about it given the context? Like I said, you are using the superstitious part of your brain. Some people have to wash their hands every time they touch something dirty, you have to be disgusted by someone any time they are tainted by connection to something "immoral".

No, I believe I said I was disgusted with him about that specific aspect of his life. I distinctly remember saying my overall impression of him as a man is mediocre to good. I can have an overall judgement of a person, I just don't take that overall judgement and make silly comparisons with it.

How is me saying, "I really don't like that he enslaved people." a superstitious thought? Like what?


I gotta explain what I mean about these overall comparisons better. When you say "their quality as a person, their overall excellence" what do you even mean? What is a quality of a person or overall excellence? It's vague generic notions that are not talking about specific roles or jobs. When you present a question of "Which president exhibited the most overall excellence?" It's absolutely garbage. Because there were presidents good at their job and terrible in their public life and vice versa. You are trying to make comparisons of completely different aspects grouped together which ultimately creates an answer that makes no sense. When you ask the question, "Which presidential candidate will you vote for?" That provides common ground for comparisons because you are talking about a specific job/role. You can say, well I like candidate X because he is stronger in most aspects of what this job entails him to make decisions about than candidate Y. There you can make a solid comparison.

End of the day: I look at Washington's individual aspects of his life. There are bad (slavery) and good (leadership) aspects of his life. You ask me what my general view of him is, I will say: pretty good. You ask me if I am better than him, I will say: On what specific issue? You ask me if his quality as a person is better than someone elses, I will say: On some specific aspects sure, on others no. I am not going to say Washington >>>>> Other person Because he led this country to independence and was a great man overall in my eyes. Does this make sense?

What?

What? If the criticisms are valid, they are valid. If they are not, ignore the silly "feminist history". If they are trying to declare a philosopher's work as invalid because he was sexist then that is silly provided that his work is not related to notions about social structure.