This is the third part of a four-part series which began with “What If? What If? Why Shoudn’t?” on Friday, 03-07-2014.
This is the second part of a four-part series which began with “What If? What If? Why Shouldn’t?” on Friday, 03-07-2014.
Certain questions tend to come up whenever I teach about natural law. They don’t always come up in words, much less in these words, but they often lurk beneath and between the lines. What if our nature had been different? What if we changed our nature? Why shouldn’t we transcend our nature?
If neutralism is impossible, then bias is inevitable. So what am I saying? Should laws and rules and policies embrace bias? Is bias good?
Toleration is a virtue. But it is a puzzling one, because the whole point of it lies in putting up with some things that are immoral, offensive, erroneous, in poor taste, or in some other sense bad.
When I was young, barbarian that I was, I used to think that although some intellects are smarter and some not so smart, at bottom there is only one kind of mind – my kind, of course. The first shock to that cocky misconception was marriage. The second was raising children. My wife and daughters think beautifully, but they think differently.<
A peculiar feature of our intellectual culture is that we don’t believe anything until we can describe it in a language which looks like physics. The reason the social sciences have not advanced as far as physics is that they are trying to be the same sort of thing.