The right to education is part of the right to fully participate in society - why is that absurd? — unenlightened

To categorically state that any person has a right--a justified claim--to any material good is absurd.

It makes sense to say that everybody has the right to equal access to A. But to categorically state that everybody has the right to A is absurd.

Do you believe that people have the right to have chocolate milk? If having chocolate milk is a right and nobody is growing any cocoa to make it with, are governments then obligated to grow cocoa or force non-government actors to grow cocoa? Are/were non-dairying societies violating people's rights?

Again, to say that people are guaranteed the freedom to do something or are guaranteed equal access to something is one thing. Saying that something must be guaranteed is another, even if it is "education", "marriage", etc.

People are being absurdly ethnocentric if they think that an arbitrary feature of their culture--something that may not exist in the future due to environmental, biological and cultural changes--is a universal right guaranteed to every individual.

can you thnk of anyone whose books I could read, or videos I could watch who is more brilliant and insightful than him? — rickyk95

Ken Wilber.

Christopher Lasch.

I really liked your arguments. I followed you and agreed with you up to the doctors example, but if asked "if no instituion provides formal education should the government create them?" Something tells me that the answer is affirmative. . I cant quite explain why my intuition tells me that. Could you further justify your claim that the government should not? — rickyk95

To say that a cultural innovation is a right is absurd. A college education is a right? Does that mean that societies that had no such thing as "college" were violating people's rights? The places today where there is no such thing as "college", should governments force the creation of "colleges"?

A more extreme example would be to say that agricultural products are a human right. Does that mean that hunter-gatherer societies that did not have agriculture and therefore did not have agricultural products were violating people's rights?

I compared saying that marriage is a right to saying that being formally educated and awarded a credential to list on a resume and hang on your office wall is a right. Formal educational institutions awarding credentials is a recent cultural innovation. There are other ways, such as informal education, to meet people's needs.

Marriage is a cultural innovation. It makes no sense to me to say that it is a right. It makes sense to say that the freedom to marry is a right. But saying that marriage is a right means that society has the duty to create and make available to all members something recognized as a "marriage". In other words, the state of Kansas saying that it is no longer sanctioning marriages would be like the state of Kansas saying that it is no longer protecting free speech. That is an absurd comparison. If marriage is a right, if the state of Kansas stopped sanctioning marriages, and if no church or other private entity in Kansas was sanctioning marriages, would the federal government have the duty to intervene and sanction marriages in Kansas? How would it be violating anybody's rights to say, "If you, individual citizen, want there to be something called 'marriage' and want to enter it, create it yourself"?

A right is a justified claim.

Many of the things that I hear stated that people have a right to make very little sense.

Medical care is a universal human right, some people say. An adequate diet is a universal human right, some people say. Marriage is a right, the Supreme Court of the United States said in Obergefell v. Hodges.

Those sound like entitlements, not rights.

If medical care is an individual's right then that means that a product--training for doctors; facilities; equipment; medications--must be produced. If nobody wants to train to be a medical doctor, peoples' rights are being violated? That does not make any sense. If somebody files a lawsuit and the judiciary decides that that person's right to medical care is being denied, would the government then force people to train to be medical doctors?

If the supply of food does not meet the nutritional requirements of everybody, would governments take over food production? ("The production of beef will now end. To increase the amount of essential nutrients available, we are replacing beef production with rice production").

It makes sense to say that being in an exclusive consensual relationship with the person of your choice is a fundamental right, or having a consensual sexual relationship with people of your choice is a fundamental right. But marriage is a right? That means that every society must have something official called "marriage" available to people. It means that governments could not decide to stop sanctioning marriages. It is like saying that a formal education ending in a diploma being awarded is a right. If no institution that provides a formal education and awards diplomas existed--if only informal education existed--would governments be required to create such institutions? That makes no sense.

It is one thing to say that certain intangible things like freedoms, liberties, etc. are rights. But saying that a product/service like medical care or nutrients is a right, or that the availability of a cultural innovation like marriage is a right, makes no sense. And upholding such rights for everybody seems materially and politically implausible.

I thought the discipline of history aims to explain the past.

Political scientists, economists, sociologists, psychologists--social scientists--might try to find causal relationships and historians might borrow their findings to incorporate into explanations of the past, but I have never heard of historians trying to find causation.

Think about the definition of causation. It mentions causes and effects. "WWI was an effect of this cause..."--I have never heard any historian think that way.

Conventional thinking says that the American Civil War was about slavery. Morris Berman, I have discovered, says that the American Civil War was about progress (the South was considered to be an obstacle to progress, I think he is saying). But that is not two competing versions of "y is an effect of the causal agent x". It is two competing explanations for a particular historical event.

It can always be argued comparatively that the poor just have it worse off. That's not the topic though. But, if you insist, I would like to point out that every nation with a demographic of 'poor' individuals is/are always worse off than those who are relatively better or well off instead. I have nothing aginst some socialism for the poor, and I suspect any politician that runs for office in a noncorrupt nation will be answerable to the poor also. So, in the end, the poor eventually get what they need through work and voting. Which, brings to fray the need for strong and stable governments that encourage open markets and intellectual freedom... — Question

Straw man.

I did not "compare" anything. I stated that low wages is just one small pixel in the picture of the plight of people who we supposedly help by being selfish and taking advantage of the low prices that their plight makes possible rather than by approaching them altruistically.

If you are going to completely address a picture, you have to see the complete picture.

In regards to your second point... I would argue that eventually, all externalities have to be accounted for in the end. Typically prices reflect the typical externalities accounted for. Sadly all externalities cannot be accounted for and if some are omitted, then the taxpayer is left to pick up the tab. — Question

Irrelevant.

The point is that if all of the costs of "goods produced in China or India" that you specifically refer to were included in their price either demand for them would be so low that they would not be produced in the first place or the price would be so high that people in "rich countries" would instead buy local products. Either way you wouldn't be coming here saying that it helps workers with breathtakingly low pay more to buy the products that their breathtakingly cheap labor produces rather than altruistically directly address their plight--either way we would not be having this conversation.

Yes, I have read Haack and am in a lot of agreement with her. However I have found from my own reading that she calls science a loosely-organized federation of disciplines, and I can't help but wonder why, then, do we need the word "science" anyway and risk the sort of rampant scientism we have today? — darthbarracuda

I think that the source of the problem that you are trying to address is the magnified anti-intellectualism in the U.S. (and probably in other Western societies); the corporatization of education, especially higher education; and the accompanying decline of the liberal arts tradition.

When I juxtapose science with scientism I mean science as a Western intellectual tradition like philosophy.

I don't think that the latter version of science is what concerns you. I think that it is the contemporary state of science, an institution in service to nothing more than perpetual economic growth, that you have a problem with.

The word "researcher" could mean a biologist working for a corporation solely to develop new products, not to increase appreciation and understanding of the natural world.

I suggest "scholar" be applied to scientists in the liberal arts tradition and "researcher" only be applied to the scientists you are concerned about.

There can't be scientism if there isn't any science! >:O — darthbarracuda

Right.

But I would say that all of the issues/problems you list are issues/problems with scientism, not science.

The issues/problems you list remind me of Susan Haack’s work on scientism. Haack, as I recall, says that scientism is characterized by things like being obsessed with demarcating science and pseudoscience; having the attitude that science is superior to all other forms/traditions of inquiry; etc.

After talking with a friend who is an economist, and as a partial although incomplete economist in training I had to agree with his argument of altruism being inferior to taking a selfish stance in life.

Nothing organizes labor and resources as well as the market. Where there is cheap labor that can be utilized (this is a big assumption that needs to be explained), then selfishness will bring about a greater degree of change than trying to directly help the poor. Me buying goods produced in China or India will bring about more change than trying to help the impoverished and poor more than simply trying to give or deliver money directly to poor and impoverished people. This is because that money that I am paying some company to produce some good will go much farther and improve more lives than had I simply gave it directly to some poor individual. Regarding the assumption that labor can and will be utilized assumes first that labor exists in a politically ready and willing environment. So, for example, a state that is oppressive to opening up its national, private, and inefficient industries will not be able to benefit from the efficiency of the invisible hand. This is a serious issue that needs global support in facilitating open and educated leaders to the benefits of cheap labor that some do not comprehend. The knee-jerk reaction of any politician to benefitting from the cheap labor that they represent is a simple, 'fuck you'. Most politicians aren't educated enough or impartial to realize that cheap labor is a good thing in the short run because it attracts investment. Wages remain low in the 3rd world due to discriminatory immigration policies in western countries and if there was free movement of people between countries the poor countries would receive much larger gains in wages. So, if you're going to attack low wages, then you might as well attack immigration policies that allow the rich to live behind gates communities.

Now given, that the state is open to external markets and the subsequent investments made by another market, the organizing power of money will target the most in need by the amount of labor they are able to produce. No matter how superior machines are to humans, there will be industries that machines cannot compete with in terms of the low cost and lack of maintenance of human beings producing some good. For example, we will most likely never see machines producing simple goods like toys and clothing no matter how low the competitive cost of human beings. There is simply an absolute advantage (at least within my lifetime) of humans producing some cheap good rather than having a machine do it. Some services are immune to mechanization of labor, like plumbing, electricians, HVAC, repair, home building, auto repair, and teaching.

So, my point is that investing and buying goods from another country makes your efforts to help the poor the most because it does not create dependency on government funds and brings about education in terms of job skills and creates competition that further drives down cost (in the short term). China and India are countries that have displayed profound economic growth due to the above-mentioned conditions. The amount of poverty in China has dropped astoundingly due to neo-liberalism and open and free markets.

A common theme is that a few managers benefit disproportionately from said conditions of exploiting cheap labor; however, the net effect is that poverty, disease, and death from poverty have likewise gone down to a similar if not greater measure. Your employer might not care about you, as you're a simple substitute in the grand scheme of things; but, the person buying from you wants you to be there, producing and living to produce the goods s/he demands from your employer.

So, in essence, be happy that you're able to post here or elsewhere at leisure, without having to toil to make bread and milk, and don't feel sorry for the poor. I mean, the state of mind of feeling sorry for the poor is important; but, not very productive. You buying goods produced in China or India is a better response. — Question

1.) High wages for their labor are not the only thing that the "poor" people you refer to are not getting. They are not getting safe work environments. They are not getting humane working conditions such as regular bathroom breaks, lunch breaks, etc. They do not have the legal right to unionize and collectively bargain. They, it is my understanding, are being treated with absolutely no dignity--they, as I understand it, are treated like horses and other non-human animals that do work.

2.) When you buy "goods produced in China or India" and similar places the price does not include externalities such as people being dispossessed and seeing their indigenous culture destroyed; families being broken up as people who have been dispossessed and had their culture destroyed in rural areas migrate to urban areas to find work; pollution and other environmental destruction that is caused; etc.

3.) Most importantly, being altruistic means acting out of concern for the welfare of others and in the interest of others. If "buying goods produced in China or India" is thought to be in the best interest of others and done out of concern for the welfare of others then it is altruistic.

If one's well-being is determined by his/her pleasures, and if killing people gives one pleasure, then doesn't reason dictate that his/her well-being is partially determined by killing people?

If well-being and morally good are not connected, how can hedonism be a moral theory?

I am of the moderately educated opinion that it is time to discard the term "science". It does not refer to anything but a loose federation of people of various fields, investigating different things that sometimes overlap in subject matter, methodology or equipment. There is no essential feature that makes a field "scientific", and there is no such thing as the "scientific method". The structure of the educational institution is perhaps the greatest overall similarity between the sciences.

Continuing to use the term "science" adds no value to discussion. A physicist can explain to someone how they are a physicist and get all they need to say from only this, labeling themselves as a scientist does nothing additionally. Calling yourself a scientist only opens the door to what sort of scientist you are - thus giving the false impression that there is some thing called Science that is unified, organized, official and genuine.

Furthermore, science has become a term of abuse, especially in politics, where the term is slapped around to help justify a poorly thought out policy. Since it is not specific, a shoddy proposal can use the term "science" and get away with murder because nobody knows what specific field they are referring to. It is an abstract, vague, nebulous concept that nobody really knows anything about but what seems to be important and impressive.

Then there is the issue of demarcation, especially "pseudoscience". Since there is no acceptable definition of what makes something scientific, calling something "pseudoscientific" is meaningless. It also fails to actually explain what is wrong with the theory, and gives the impression that anything that comes with the label of "science" is "better than" other forms of inquiry, even if they may be legitimate themselves.

In conclusion, then, "science" has become an honorific term that is exploited and abused, including "scientists" themselves (to promote their social status image as a modern priest of knowledge of sorts, something some will not easily let go of), when in fact this term cannot be uncontroversially defined and has no practical use. It is time to transition away from this term and embrace a more anarchistic and nominalistic conception of inquiry. (A better term for a "scientist" is a "researcher").

Doing so will erode the shallow public image of science as some "other" entity of sorts, as well as the obsession with demarcating what is science and what is not. Physicists will work as physicists, psychologists as psychologists, philosophers as philosophers, artists as artists. There is absolutely no need for the additional term of "science", and it should be jettisoned. — darthbarracuda

It sounds like what you really have a problem with is scientism.