Nietzsche wrote on 11/10/08 at 06:06:26:


They become arbitrary via whatever the sovereign feels to be convenient, and not because there is an intrinsic requirement for them to be right, or wrong.

Quote:


There is no objective right, or wrong on this issue, therefore what the social contract produces, is simply what the social contract produces. 

Quote:


A universal method implies an objective method, and given that rights/laws are all entirely subjective, that is the reason there is a great divergence in the results. There is no consistency on each of those steps in terms of outcome, but the progression will happen, and as it happens the differences arise.

People, unlike the hard sciences, don't behave with overwhelming consistency.

Quote:


That's what the original argument was about earlier in this thread (American versus Dutch). Each society has a social contract that it follows, and it has no bearing at all on the contracts of other societies.

Quote:


If you want to use the recipe example, it's essentially giving people the ingredients in sequence (rights, ethics, morals, laws), and then letting them do whatever they want with them. The outcome, each and every time, will be completely different even though the incredients are the same.

And what would make a President great if not the things I mentioned? 
What do you think the words "great president" mean if not that?

You argue that a thing is 'great' or 'horrible' based solely on a person's individual opinion.   
Do you think a shared language is composed of arbitrary terms?  Is Lincoln's greatness up to you? 
Doesn't that seem odd?

For example:
A dog has 4 legs regardless of what you call 'legs'.
Blue is really "blue" even if you don't say so. 

A society determines for itself what is great or horrible.
Don't you not think Americans have decided Lincoln was great?
You might not like it, but its not up to you.

A word has meaning because it is given meaning by that society...not you, or any other individuals.  

Another example:
Do you think a dollar is worth 4 quarters because you say so?
I think we can agree that money has value  only because everyone believes it has value, right? 
So, society creates the meaning of its words (and laws) and the value of certain things.  That's it.  There are no "metaphysics" beyond this.

To get back to a previous point, you think that even if I don't believe in a social contract,  I'm still bound by it.
So, clearly, you can see that a constructed, social reality can exist beyond the individual's preferences.  So, what does is this "social contract" underneath denote?
 
I don't decide what a $20 bill is worth or what "great president" means.  It's simply not up to me.  It is not arbitrary.

Besides, in your position you'll have to say statements like  "the Holocaust was horrible" are completely opinion-based and without any objective truth-value.   

Child molestation isn't horrible unless you say it is.  
Does that sound right to you?    
Do you want to argue that?

And, give me a break, it's hardly a "straw-man" to use the most prevalent definition of a word. 
Do you think I somehow deliberately mis-used the word "arbitrary" to deceive people?  Or do you think maybe you just weren't clear?
You've greatly over-estimated what constitutes a straw-man.  Apparently, a straw-man is whatever you decide it is.  Hmmm...that argument keeps popping up, doesn't it?


And by the way, semantics will always be an issue when you argue philosophy. Always!  
Just think about early Wittgenstein.
Or as one of my professors used to say, "Watch your mouth!"

And since I'd rather not hop onto a merry-go-round of what 'necessity' means or how something can be both determined and yet still arbitrary, I think I'll go ahead and take that 'high road' you mentioned earlier and cease to post here.  
Back to chess and away from amateur philosophy!

Sounds pretty good to me!  
Nietzsche

p.s. - seriously though, be careful about your "no big deal" assessment on emancipation. I know you're saying that you think it would have happened without Lincoln, but other people might think you're saying "Black people used to be property, and now they're not...big deal". And that (along with your tone) could get you in real trouble if you say it to the wrong person.

Nietzsche wrote on 11/10/08 at 04:11:16:


Any value-based statements like "great/horrible" are purely opinion based. I won't even pretend there is an objective, authoritative standard as to what constitutes a "great" <fill in the blank>.

So, he isn't a great president because you say so.
All those other things don't matter.
ok....

And, please....at least deal with the skinny version of my argument.

RE:  "The slaves would've been let free within the decade, anyway, as it wasn't even that popular in the south." 


Well that's a new one!
Slavery wasn't popular in the south? 
WTF are you talking about?
It was one of the pillars of their entire economy, right?
Which you mentioned earlier was the real reason Lincoln freed the slaves (and not morality)!  

Oh, and BTW, even if the only thing Lincoln accomplished was freeing the Slaves, (which I don't think is true) he'd still be a great president.  
Slavery is considered the darkest chapter in our history by many historians since we were failing to live up to our own creed that 'all men are created equal'.   Until the emancipation, this country appeared to many to be all talk and fundamentally flawed.  He did a tremendous service to our nation and made it stronger in the process.  

And he really was a great president; even if you don't think so. How do I know?

Did you happen to notice that he is on our money (twice!) and has that big monument to him in Washington?  Why would we do that?

His state, Illinois, is still the 'Land of Lincoln' and his party, the GOP, is still referred to as 'the party of Lincoln'.  Doesn't sound like a lightweight to me....   He is considered one of our greatest presidents, even if you don't think so.

And trying to minimize the importance of "just" freeing the slaves is a bit close to insane ranting.  Millions of lives were ended in that process; have some respect. 

You can obviously dislike Lincoln if you want, no problem. But he really is a great president by our nation's own standards. Hence our country's literally monumental opinion of him!   

Once again, people can disagree with you and yet NOT be misinformed, uneducated, and/or stupid.  You will just be wrong sometimes...like everyone else.

Nietzsche wrote on 11/10/08 at 02:16:51:


Quick! Let's proclaim George W. Bush a great president because of his efforts in foreign aid!



Freeing the slaves is his only major accomplishment that he personally is responsible for. Everything outside of that, he was horrible. The slaves would've been let free within the decade, anyway, as it wasn't even that popular in the south.

Markovich wrote on 11/10/08 at 02:14:40:


Just can't give it up, can you? Mr. "I'm done with this" twice now. 



You're a joke. If you're going to pretend to be high-and-mighty at least follow through with it.

BPaulsen wrote on 11/07/08 at 23:22:07:


No actually, I think that Lincoln was a great president because he ran his ramrod d--k up several hundred thousand Johnny a--es.  Sincerely, Johnny boy.