Re: Restored (and a final story for Luke and Daniel)

Robbie, let me focus on a little word in my original statement:
"usually." Here it is again in case there's any doubt:

> What constitutes "common sense" is usually a product of power structures
> and personal interests shared among a large group of people
>

Because of the presence of that little word, an appeal to possible
exceptions doesn't invalidate the statement or even serve as an adequate
response.

I could provide counterexamples, you could provide counterexamples, and
we'd only know if I was right or not once we've cataloged every notion
that falls under the heading of "common sense" and been able to identify
either a political or mathematical (or otherwise objective) referent to
each of them.

I don't think either of us are willing to invest time in that exercise,
so let me play around with one of your examples a little bit.

This statement, in particular, is very troubling:

> The whole is greater than the part?
>

It's mathematically correct, but once we attempt to apply this beyond
counting apples we can move onto dangerous ground.

Would you agree that "the state is more valuable than the individual" is
a valid extension of this principle? "Greater" here no longer applies
only to a numerical value, but to a moral or ethical value. It is
common sense that what is bigger is also more important, right? The
numerical has shifted, then. It has extended its domain to value
judgments. So it only stands to reason that killing a few million to
create a utopia for a few hundred million -- or billions -- is perfectly
justified. Really, it's just common sense.

You can say that this is a frivolous example, but unfortunately we both
know of numerous examples, just in the 20th century, when this kind of
reasoning was employed. It all starts from that word "greater."
Language can be a very slippery thing, you know.

Jim

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Thu Jul 17 20:08:01 2003