tg <tgdenning@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Jul 24, 2:48 pm, no...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(PeterBP) wrote:
> > tg <tgdenn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > On Jul 23, 8:46 pm, no...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(PeterBP) wrote:
> > > > Mark M. <m...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > > Is the common good really so hard a concept to grasp?
> >
> > > > No, but as Aristotle said, an educated man can entertain an idea
without
> > > > believeing in it; the same goes for the "commong good" as it goes
for
> > > > Snoopy and The Buddy Birds.
> >
> > > > The problem with this mythological concept is that its proponents
never
> > > > bother to accurately define it, delineate it, enumerate how good
the
> > > > common good is, and who it is good for, etc. When challenged to
> > > > specificy what this "common good" exactly is, it usually goes
straight
> > > > from appearently reasoned debate to screaming and mudslinging, and
lots
> > > > of accusations of egoism, anti-social mindset, indifference to
suffering
> > > > of others, etc and blah-blah-blah ad nauseam of the poor fool who
had
> > > > the indecency to challenge this exalted idea.
> >
> > > > Furthermore, it is used to excuse senseless expansion of scope and
> > > > powers of government, even for things that only a madman would
claim to
> > > > be "good", much less a "common good".
> >
> > > As usual, refuting this stuff is almost too easy.
> >
> > > If you are trying to have a philosophical discussion, and someone
> > > offers a definition, then it is possible to continue the
conversation
> > > based on that definition. For example, if I define a circle as a
> > > geometric figure with four sides of equal length at right angles to
> > > each other, we can continue to discuss geometry quite nicely.
> >
> > > The only reason for you to raise this business is that you are
> > > interested in propaganda/politics, not a philosophical discussion.
So
> > > here:
> >
> > > I define a common good as a good that is held by all members of a
> > > group. That is no more difficult to understand than saying that
some
> > > group has a common eye color.
> >
> > > So if all members of a group wish to have a life span of at least 72
> > > years, living to 72 is a common good.
> >
> > > -tg
> >
> > Well said. That is exactly true.
> >
> > But lets hear it then - what is the 'common good' that all these
> > political advocates always talk about, specifically? They never say.
> >
>
> I can't answer for all those people, since they may only exist in your
> imagination.
No, they exist in my *memory* and as a general fact seen in most
politcal debat forums. Don't twist the debate with ad hominems.
> But from your OP, you appear to be replying to someone
> and I would examine the following:
>
> Mark M:
>
> "So a common good would be absence of disease epidemic."
>
> Your reply was:
>
> "Only if there was an actual impending threat of such an epidemic. "
>
> Mark M presents a perfectly reasonable example of a common good,
Under a certain set of assumptions, which was a point I also mentioned
in my reply to MM, and which you seem to ignore.
> putting aside the possibility that some doctor who was immune might
> think he could profit from an epidemic.
Beware the weasel - if a doctor could immunize a town from an epidemic,
even at a price, would that NOT be a public good? Examine your
assumptions before you answer that.
> All the rational members of a
> group would hold absence of disease epidemics as a 'good', *whether
> there was a threat of one or not.* So it fits my definition of a
> common good.
Key word being "my definition".
Since when did YOUR definition of the common good get elevated to THE
definition of a common good? Consider this for a moment, and you might
comprehend what my point in this discussion is.
>
> If you wish to criticize others and be taken seriously you should
> probably not make such nonsensical statements.
What statements specifically? You have cited nothing of what I have
written.
> Now, as a political argument one could say that in the interests of
> the common good,
Which you, Marm M or anybody here have still failed to prove the actual
(or even reasonable probablility of the) existence of. You are engaged
in circular reasoning.
Additionally, you continually claim that there is a common good, but you
make a load of assumptions which are ignored from the equation of how
good this alleged good actually is, thereby hollowing out your claims.
> there should be a national health service to monitor
> and control contagious diseases---as in CDC---so that epidemics would
> be less likely. What's so strange about that?
The strange thing, or things, is for one that intent is equated with
actual outcome, that the cost of the programs in the real world is not
factored in, not by you or any other commong ood advocate I have debated
for a long, long time. Approaching the real world a bit closer, the
strange thing is also the idea that if a given thing is not made into
being by political power, it will never exist, even if experience proves
that the opposite is or can be possible.
>
> -tg
So far, your reasoning is as deficient as Mark M's. You do not actually
adress my points, but you erect strawmen, and ignore what I actually
write.
You wrote something above about being taken seriously that I would
recommend that you take to heart.
--
- Peter *** http://titancity.com/blog/
"Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes
you nothing. It was here first." - Mark Twain
|
