- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Yeah...sometimes I slip up.

Posted by: bill on March 30, 1999 at 12:18:37:

In Reply to: bill's derivation (he's not alone) of 'IS' from 'Ought' posted by Joel Jacobson on March 29, 1999 at 16:12:14:

"When you say "sustainability" you are referring to "sustainability" under the particular standards of your particular mind."

Actually sustainability has a pretty precise meaning, not requiring standards other than the fact of sustainability itself. But I get your point - I place a value on sustainable eco-systems.

As I posted above, I'm aware of the logical (often called naturalistic) fallacy of ought from is, and that our values are judgements that cannot "logically" be derived. Similarly I expect you must admit that theories about "natural rights" to property comprise similar values that "require particular human value judgements to give them meaning".

When you write a sentence like: "If you were to say, as I stated, "no pollution" then you would be advocating the complete end of the human race." this is sheer hyperbole. We both know it and it isn't necessary to make your points.


: And, any standard beyond that can only be reached by someone implementing some standard. My standard is that the environment is of concern only if our actions upon it have massive adverse implications upon the lives of human beings. I do not worship nature as do many environmentalists; it is their God, make no mistake, and by their advocation of environmentally-worshiping legal measures they are seeking to make their God as sovereign over my life and particular value systems. But, if Marx's view of religions, taken from Schopenauer and Fuerbauch, is correct, then they really are doing nothing more then proclaiming themselves as my God. "


One could as easily make the argument that the free-marketer's worship money and property. It is their God. "and by their advocation of [insert- Property Rights and Laws] they are seeking to make their God as sovereign over my life and particular value systems."


No, boys, please give your value statements the respect they deserve by referring to them as such. But, remember, they are no more than the value judgements of you particular minds. Any attempt to make them objective leads to value-imperialism.
You do respect diverse views, don't you?


Very well, we shall debate the relative merits of values if you like. I will assume no "absolute" or fixed "heirarchy" of values, whether it be property, the environment, money, or kindness. Ultimately it becomes (for me) a matter of temperament. Frankly I think it likely that two values might clash in some irreconcilable manner - sort of like the abortion question. What then? Has the "debate" advanced. Well yes, we admit to our beliefs resting on unprovable "value statements. The effort to seek a livable wage, to save endangered species, to see to it that everyone be able to receive housing, employment, and health-care, to live under conditions of sustainability - ALL rest on unprovable "value statements". We shall see how this resonates in the hearts and minds of the peoples of the world. We shall see how they stack up to, for example: The right to clear-cut the forests, to possess as much property as one can acquire, to exploit labor, relocate factories, etc. - ALL resting on unprovable "value statements" about property.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup