From Where do (Should) we get our Norms?

[CWL]

From Where Do (Should) we get our Norms?

Well, tell me!

 

[MRC_Hans]

Where is the planet X option?

Hans

 

[CWL]

Where is the planet X option?

Hans

Sorry, I forgot about that one.

Perhaps I should have added another option as well: "My friend Norm comes from Kansas", since I suppose that joke is unavoidable in this thread anyway.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Well, I see it's a serious topic, its just that the sun is shining, the birds are singing, everything is turning green outside exept the sky, which is deep blue, and Franko is gone. I simply can't feel serious to-day

Hans

 

[CWL]

I note that someone has voted for the "morality" option. I kindly invite that someone to elaborate on the reasons why.

 

[CWL]

Please?

 

[whitefork]

I voted for "practical" because if reason is contradicted by praxis, then reason has to give way. In other words, your conclusions are only as good as your assumptions, and for norms, the assumptions are ultimately practical.

 

[CWL]

I voted for "practical" because if reason is contradicted by praxis, then reason has to give way. In other words, your conclusions are only as good as your assumptions, and for norms, the assumptions are ultimately practical.

I personally voted for the second option as I felt that simply saying "practical" may be dangerously close to "might is right" - i.e. "practical" from whose point of view? However I think you make a good point Whitefunk (as always). In the sense you suggest, Option 2 merely appears to be a more elaborate version of Option 1.

 

[whitefork]

I go back and forth on this one. On the one side, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Think of all the evil that's been perpetuated on the basis of purely rational norms without regard to practical consequences. I don't dispute the power of reason but when it's disconnected from concrete reality, "results may be unpredictable".

On the other side, you have "let's try this and see what the results are - we don't need to do any analysis before hand". Of course, you may not get a second chance.

In the end, you have to act - even if the action is to do nothing. On that flimsy basis, I vote "practice", but always tempered by reason.

Life isn't a chess board.

 

[CWL]

That's why I added Option 3 which I am personally quite drawn to (although I stand by my vote). The basic legal principles in a society based on the rule of law, such as proportionality and foreseeability should IMO indeed be axioms (whether in reality based on reason or not) when any laws are passed. Of course, I personally firmly believe that this will ultimately be to the benefit of society and its citizens, which brings us back to being rational and practical...

 

[Skeptical Greg]

.......and Franko is gone. I simply can't feel serious to-day

Hans

Then I won't spoil it for you....

 

[whitefork]

They should be based on certain basic principles (such as proportionality, the rule of law, foreseeability etc.), which principles simply must be accepted as axioms

I'm with you up until the "must be accepted as axioms" part. I think these principles are based on experience.

We've been around this before and my position (which I will not defend to the death - at least not my own death) is that many of the things which we take as axiomatic are practical principles whose origins are as old as our species. I won't extend that to mathematical axioms, although there are pragmatists who do.

To a large degree, the world is comprehensible to us because we built it, and it, in turn has built us. I just extend that to the principles of morality.

So, these principles have become axiomatic because we've become who we are in response to them - a big feedback loop. Maybe that's the best we have. I do not feel that there's any need to ascribe them to a transcendental or supernatural cause (and I'm not accusing you of doing that of course).

 

[CWL]

I'm with you up until the "must be accepted as axioms" part. I think these principles are based on experience.

I agree 100 %. Perhaps I should qualify my "axiom statement" somewhat. What I mean is that these principles are established as such for good reason (as you yourself suggest). One does not need to go over them every time a new law should be passed. They should be accepted as the fundamental principles on which such new law shall be based. What I mean is that these principles should function as axioms in any society based upon the rule of law, not that they are axioms in any mathematical sense. You know me - I certainly do not "ascribe them to a transcendental or supernatural cause".

 

[whitefork]

I need the old Upchurch "thumbs up" picture here. I think we have concurrence.

 

[CWL]

I need the old Upchurch "thumbs up" picture here. I think we have concurrence.

Indeed I think we do.

I really miss that avatar of his.

 

[whitefork]

You know, I can't believe I missed this nuance:

They should be based solely on practical grounds

That's a meta-statement and I can't really justify it on practical grounds.

I'll have to restate it as a simple declarative.

They are based solely on practical grounds.

Well, you have to start somewhere.

 

[CWL]

Noted, but still!

 

[Dancing David]

I voted number two, oh i am such a poop head. I
want to add 'emotional' reasons, and I am not sure about the axiomatic stuff. My morals come from a hodge-podge of things, treat others as you would want to be treated, self integrity, and the idea that everything I do is like a wave or a kudzu vive and will spread.
Why aren't more people answering, must be the weather.

peace
dancing david

 

[daenku32]

Is this a reference to what we should make our government force on the people, or something that we just personally believe and have NO intention of coersing onto others?

The latter could be anything, but the former should be as far from 'unquestionably source' as possible.

 

[whitefork]

Is this a reference to what we should make our government force on the people, or something that we just personally believe and have NO intention of coersing onto others?

The latter could be anything, but the former should be as far from 'unquestionably source' as possible.

That's interesting. I took the question to be "what's the source of our norms as they exist". You appear to have taken it as "what should the source of our norms be (whether those norms are different than the ones we use today or the same)".

Your reading may well be the one CWL intended.