Reply #64: goodness [View All]

[gottaB]

You are asking an ethical question, and you want to move away from the question of justice? I think that's a sure way to get tangled up in questions that don't matter.

When you talk about "the lives of the poor" I think you're missing my point. Having a life is primary. Being human is arguably primary. Being poor is more like a condition that many of us find ourselves in. So there is a crucial distinction to be made between "living in poverty" and "the lives of the poor." The latter assumes that "being poor" is primary and "having life" is something that can be added to or subtracted from that.

More decoupling. "Humans as a species" and "society" represent two competing paradigms for talking about people in aggregate. That much we both recognize I guess. Does the question "What is better?" belong to either of these paradigms? Is there anything in the scientific method or the overall practice of science which would warrant turning to science to provide answers to such questions as "What is better?"

Doesn't the question "What is better" rather assume that we agree upon what is good?

What does the sociological viewpoint have to say about what is obligated? Certainly sociologists describe obligations, or describe social relations in terms of obligations. But in what way does sociology answer the question "What is obligated?"

In either case I believe you're conflating descriptive models and the phenomena they purport to describe. Reifications of this sort aren't an eggregious fault per se, but when you drag them out into full public view, you should be able to defend the appropriateness of your representations. Thus the question, are you talking about justice, or justifications?

p.s. I think "deserving" or "deservedness" ought to be able to express what you mean. If you want to be colorful, how about "just deserts"?