On 01-03-98 Day Brown wrote to John Boone... 
 
        Hello Day and thanks for writing,  
  
        [snip] 
  
 DB> JB>   Day, this comes down to, will we or will we NOT agree on 
 DB> JB> values.  I realize it has been you thoughts that "reason"   
 DB> JB> alone or perhaps control the "values" thus giving a common   
 DB> JB> basis.  It has been my contention rather that reason alone   
 DB> JB> will not be sufficient.   
 
 DB> I agree that reason has not been sufficient for *most* people, 
 DB> who, for one reason or another, do not think well.  But, that is  
 
  Your logic follows, if any person or most people is/are not able 
to reason out "values", then they are reason deficient (do 
not think well). 
  Now, let us test this logic, from Robert H. Bork's "The 
Tempting of America" page 254: 
 
    The state of affairs in moral theory is summed up, 
    accurately so far as I can tell, by Alasdair MacIntyre. 
    After canvassing the failure of a succession of thinkers 
    to justify particular systems of morality, MacIntyre says 
    that if all that were involved was the failure of a 
    succession of particular arguments, "it might appear 
    that the trouble was merely that Kierkegaard, Kant, 
    Diderot, Hume, Smith and their other contempories were 
    not adroit enough in constructing arguments, so that 
    appropiate strategy would be to wait until some more 
    powerful mind applied itself to the problems. 
    And just this had been the strategy of the acedemic 
    philosophical world, even though many professional 
    philosophers might be a little embarassed to admit it." 
 
  I -assume- you believe the list of Kierkegaard, 
Kant, Diderot, Hume and Smith were "good thinkers." 
Please notice, the list of good thinkers (not deficient 
in thinking) but were unable to arrive at a "logical" set 
of values. 
  To wit, just because, an individual or a group of in- 
dividuals can't or doesn't arrive at some "logical set 
values" doesn't mean they are deficient in thinking (don't 
"think good") unless you are willing to say thinkers like 
Kierkegaard, Kant, Dierot, Hume and Smith are deficient 
in thinking, not good thinkers.  
  
 DB> not to say that it cannot, as Aristotle provides an example. 
  
  You are correct, such evidence doesn't mean it is 
impossible.  However, from previous examples, it looks 
like it isn't likely. 
    
 DB>  JB>  DB> thirty years, I can hardly imagine anyone with the hubris to 
 
        [snip] 
  
 DB>  JB>   You almost seem to say the data is it. 
 
        [snip] 
  
 DB> I do knot know that we will all reach compleat agreement, just am 
 DB> saying that is the trend of development, which agreed, has a long  
 DB> way to go.  I just do not know that it won't get there.  
    
  As do I, on the other hand, I just don't know that we -will- 
get there. 
 
 DB> There is considerable historical and anthropologic evidence to 
 DB> show that values are changed over time by adjustments to the real  
 DB> changes in the social and physical enviornment.  As the world is  
 
  Values have changed, however, there is considerable historical 
evidence via Thomas Sowell's "Migration and Cultures" that 
cultures such as Chinese, Jews, Germans, Italians, Indians 
(not to be confused by American Indians) -shared- common values 
such as hard work, frugaliy, emphasis of education, etc over 
thousands of years and many different countries, the world.   
  Lest, this sound contradictory, Sowell's point, such 
commanality were a result not of -reason- but rather 
trial and error. 
 
 DB> well on the way to becoming homogeneous, I would expect that value 
 
  As long as there are -individuals-, different geographical 
terrians, etc, the world won't be homogeneous. 
 
 DB> system which is in the most concurrance with those conditions will 
 DB> be adopted.  
 
Take care, 
John 
 
___ 
 * OFFLINE 1.54 
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------