I've been reading "What You Can't Not Know" by J. Budzewziski and find myself agreeing with him on the simple fact that we all do know that there are basic values.
The fact that every society has *exceptions* as to which humans may and which may not be killed actually supports the position that they hold the value that humans may not kill humans. I know that society will hold you responsible for killing a human, unless you follow society's rule for the exceptions. And, I doubt that you will get off on a plea of "I didn't know."
A simple Google search for the term "default position" will confirm the meaning as a standard term for technology, including the Dell computer, Windows XP and Netscape I'm using to type this post. And I assure you that Dr. Spitzer's terms are "standard" for ethics discussions.
"Begin" is another simple term. Each of the human embryology texts I have state that human life begins at fertilization. The more technical, medically-oriented will denote specific cellular structures that appear at the beginning of the individual human life.
All in all, you have not supported your claim that the default position for humans is one of no values. The "default position" for FR is not a blue screen or even the sign up page - log out and you'll see it. The default position for humans - especially any that you or I would feel the need to convince of our values - is one of a thinking, talking (and, in our case, typing), adult who notices patterns, has seen consequences, and whose thinking is affected by their environment as well as their genetics. It could be they are influenced by their soul, but I can't measure that, and have not made a strong point of claiming the distinction between the soul and the mind and body as influences for values.
Can you turn your point around and persuade me that values only exist for the one(s) who value, without denying that there are any values at all? Which, why, how do you know?
Yes, it would seem obvious that one thing core to any thinking creature is that it values things, and that creatures of similar nature would value similar things. However, it is suprising how dedicated some reasonably intelligent people are to floating predicates.
The fact that every society has *exceptions* as to which humans may and which may not be killed actually supports the position that they hold the value that humans may not kill humans. I know that society will hold you responsible for killing a human, unless you follow society's rule for the exceptions. And, I doubt that you will get off on a plea of "I didn't know."
Or, maybe it is the excpeptions of which humans may NOT be killed that supports the position that they hold the value that humans MAY kill humans. Perhaps the formation of societies grew out of the exceptions made for members of the society. Perhaps the value for members grew from people's value for themselves and the recognition of the personal benefit a society can bring. This would seem to coincide with the practice of wholesale slaughter of foreign peoples, such as following sieges and during empire building.
A simple Google search for the term "default position" will confirm the meaning as a standard term for technology, including the Dell computer, Windows XP and Netscape I'm using to type this post.
Naturally, so it is even more confusing how knowing this, knowing the context of my words, and reading my elaborations, you still didn't know what I was talking about.
And I assure you that Dr. Spitzer's terms are "standard" for ethics discussions.
Whether Dr. Spitzer uses the words "default position" in a some narrow sense or not I cannot say. However he uses them, I assure you that Dr. Spitzer does not form the standard for the study of ethics. That there is any standard meaning, say among ethics professors, is doubtful as even a search of the entire Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy brings up remarkably few hits.
I know English as well as the next guy, and when "default" doesn't refer to its literal meaning of failure, it refers to the state of a thing that precedes some specified action upon a thing. As a person's ability to even hold a position develops over time and is affected by his experiences, it is obvious that his ultimate default position is a tabula rasa.
"Begin" is another simple term. Each of the human embryology texts I have state that human life begins at fertilization. The more technical, medically-oriented will denote specific cellular structures that appear at the beginning of the individual human life.
Quite simple term. It refers to some chosen time point when a time period of interest follows. Since the reality of the universe is that time flows smoothly (to our best measurements, and theoretically above Planck time), nature affords us no *particular* time for any of its processes. Any stipulated time point is necessarily vague at some level (above the measurable or theoretical limits).
Even the formation of cellular structures is a process that occurs smoothly over time.
Everybody uses time points freely without assuming that someone is going to take that usage as some sort of physical evidence that time is not continuus. In particular, when embryologists define different stages of development, I doubt they are intenting to promulgate a new counterintuitive physics.
All in all, you have not supported your claim that the default position for humans is one of no values. The "default position" for FR is not a blue screen or even the sign up page - log out and you'll see it.
O brother. One step forward, two steps back. Why, once you finally understand what I'm talking about, would you revert back to misinterpretation? Not getting it in the first place was just dense, deliberately miscontruing is rather rude.
The default position for humans - especially any that you or I would feel the need to convince of our values - is one of a thinking, talking (and, in our case, typing), adult who notices patterns, has seen consequences, and whose thinking is affected by their environment as well as their genetics.
If you want to start a brand new conversation about something other than anything I have ever discussed, we can do that, but not under false pretenses. Maybe you want to define the "default position" of a person as his state of values the moment before you meet him. Fine. As long as you are clear that you are using those words in a different sense than I was. We can argue from that point, and I would start by saying that at the least, you have no gaurantee of any hierarchy of values for the person in front of you, and there will also be an enormous amount of things in the universe of objects and ideas for which that person really will have NO opinion. AND, if he has no opinion, it is not incumbent upon him to explain why.
Can you turn your point around and persuade me that values only exist for the one(s) who value, without denying that there are any values at all? Which, why, how do you know?
Valuing is something people do. There is no thought without thinking, and there is no value without valuing. Perhaps you deny that there are any thoughts at all.
And I don't see how this turns "my point around". Perhaps you will tell me what you think my point is.