Comments by "harvey young" (@harveyyoung3423) on "Starmer's War on Farmers u0026 Traditional Britain + Nigel Farage's Comments on Islam" video.

  1. Part 1: Recommend PMQ's from Wednesday 27 11 24. They were are talking about... hang on let me check exactly what was said: Labour MP Tahir Ali, drawing on the context of November being Islamophobia awareness month, informed the house, that last year the United Nations Human Rights Council, adopted a resolution, condemning the desecration of religious texts, including the Koran. He claimed that mindless acts of desecration just fuel hate and division. Asking: will the government commit to introducing measures to prohibit the desecration of all religious text, and the prophets of Abrahamic religion. He claimed the Conservative government opposed this last year. PM Keir Starmer said he condemned all religious desecrations and causes of division and hatred, including Islamophobia, and we had an obligation form the UNHRC to prevent this. Now many years ago I attempted to discuss the Koran with a Muslim around my house. The first thing he said was that i should put my copy of the Koran on the tope shelf of my books case, and that it should never be put on the floor. Then he launched into discussions of 911 conspiracy theories, referring me to some YouTube programs. I thought this was an considerable imposition from the get go. Thing is when i became very ill some time later he was the only person who had any idea that i need care and help. Which he followed though on. The issue here though is a classic example of what apparently simple propositions and ethic moral imperatives, can end up "meaning" when run though complex and evolving institutions and burocracies, particularly the law, here. i mean we might easily judge that hate and division is dangerous and to be avoided. Then we might realise this means it will be adopted in health care eg mental health, and education and the force of the law. Then we see that this general proposition or principle, can be interpreted and applied, though levels of institutional systems to mean that it is illegal for me not to put the Koran on my books case Top Shelf. its a great example of the problem that beset philosophy, post World War Two. The context was the rise of pragmatism, which meant traditional positivism was over, and the Oxford Ordinary Language Philosophy was over too. The claim was that positivism was a mythical abstraction from the practical context of use, and that philosophy must be internally connected to issues in science and institutions too. The claim was philosophy was to become a mere "handmaiden to science", that it could no longer hide within an Ivory Tower exploring questions of meaning and use in ordinary language since science rejects this common sense standpoint, for its view of the world. Also practically and ethically and morally, questions of practical action, must be addressed primarily from within, the institutional and scientific meaning of the world. So for questions of practical ethics, particularly in law and medical science, we must defer to the findings of experts. This resulted in ethical issues being framed entirely within the terms of legal Rights and scientific projections of harm. But ironically the problem that easily adopting a moral principle, might result in bizarre and counter intuitive results when: that principle is mediated by many institutions, interpreting and applying it, before it manifests as its use at the professional/ordinary person interface. These institutional practices of application and interpretation often involve an expansion of scope of its use. But of course if no ordinary meaning can be fixed from outside of the hegemonic legitimacy privileging of institutions and science and law systems, then their is no recognised Criteria or Standard available to even claim expanding scope of meaning. ie if there is no determined meaning outside of changing science and law, owned by mostly a legion of anonymous experts, then really this science and law , by its own pragmatic standpoint, has no pre determined scope or limit to use. These movements against positivism and ordinary language, were made primarily by Wittgenstein and J.L. Austin, then Quine and Wilfred Sellars, and Kripke and Putnam and Dreyfus and then many others. Its also ironic that Wittgenstein thought such determination of meaning must exist in ways before science and law , but was not to be found in simple positivism of facts or rules as rails. His work though was used for the opposite purpose. Also this pragmatism was affiliated with Post Modernism particularly Derrida by Richard Rorty. It was this that I think caused McDowell to reject there views on empirical content and rule following, but to view this though Kant and Hegel following Robert Brandon.
    1
  2. It means debates on ethics and morals since have basically turned on only issues of competing legal Rights and scientific measures of harm and risk. But these are technical issues only for experts in these fields and every issues requires a legion of experts to decide what is what. it takes ethical and moral debate away from ordinary peopels intuitions and understandings, and off into the new mirrored glass office and medical buildings. it is a massive inflation of the science and law aspects of the Enlightenment and a massive deflation of its aspirations to democrat consent and the people. Indeed i met a philosophy researcher interested in ethical questions, who had chosen an area of medical ethics to study and had to do 5 years training as a doctor before beginning his work. The approaching debate on "Assisted dying" will be a prime example of this framing and hegemony of anonymous scientists and lawyers. The philosophical point of the institutional underdetermination of agreed or consented principles though, is valid even if all the expert people involved are trust worthy and of good faith and intension. It is not first a problem of determining normativity in the face of ill will, and malfeasance, but of course if you add ill will bad faith and malfeasance and political economic ideological and personal preferences then its is a formidable problems and risk. We may accuse such as breaking the law or the mis use of science, but since they are in the business of doing this by "changing" the meaning of legal Rights and the use and measure of harm, any such accusations will be silenced because the only recognised Criteria are the legal rights and sciences that they themselves have re-constructed over time. I broadly agree with the position on this by a Conservative MP Danny Kruger in a recent interview. I would jsut add that the wide effects of this new scientific and legal approach to ethics and morals, is not clarity, but rather multi level complexity of ever changing meanings and science. No one can be held responsible, its modelled like shell companies and multi level corporations. The results is systematic confusion: no one can understand what significant moral and ethical claims are grounded in anymore. We are not unaffected by this as we loose our sense of ethical and moral orientation, and just defer to the experts, even if we have no idea why. They have robbed us of our substantive legitimate moral and ethical input into the debate. Such that on any issue what ever, you are meant to consult the experts though your mobile phone. it is an anonymous system all the way up and down. For my part i do not consider science and particularly medical science as free from partisan ethics and morality, or political and ideological bias. And that's just as it is now.
    1
  3. In Hegel's "Philosophy of Right", while International law is accounted in a section on the State it is clear that international law is higher. Indeed in many ways i think "multiculturalism" of groups in a State is modelled on the view of different States under international institutions of science and law. In the multicultural directions for the States, they knew there would be conflict, that's in the theory. The solution is to evacuate ethics and morals from immediacy in communities and through roots, and sublate this to institutions of science and law. We are meant to shift or alienate, our dispositions up to deference to the findings of experts. Errored facts and claims about law are the new original sin in this modernist Cathedral. "Don't Criticise or harm health care professionals or the medical text books on the internet". The project of multiculturalism and the rise of power and size of national versions of international institutions are necessarily connected. Indeed the more trouble there is between communities the more excuse there is for alienated elite power to intervene and expand in numbers. In a totalitarianisms there are always people that run it of course. Not everyone is a victim of a totalitarian regime. For some its highly beneficial.
    1
  4. Here is one unsaid if not unforeseen consequence of this Rights/Utility system. In any State harms and benefits area meant to be allocated though policy to maximise benefit for all and an minimise harms. Now consider comparing harms and benefits for the very old with the very young. You are meant to be able to order this audit Cardinally. The formula which then assumes it is objective as opposed to subjective, delivers an account, and recommendations for policy and money. Its easy to see that elective dying, even execution would necessarily follow a Utilitarian maxim. Now consider that audit with respect to the whole world of benefits and harms, and see what happens. it is Rights law that facilitate the links and Cardinality claims. If you think this is rational imagine applying it to your own life and others on a day to day basis. Rights claim to oppose utility on this wide totality of use, but in practice they require utility calculations for there account of freedom. They say absolute Rights limits this use of people as disposable for the greater good or less harm, but its is because the Rights are universal that this problem of the scope of the accountancy, come to bear down on the individuals as in an audit with the whole of humanity. Also the people and institutions that administer this do not really fall under it like everybody else because this system will say that the preservation of the system and its people are the first necessity and exception for all.
    1
  5. At 28 mins: its not just my enemies enemy is my friend, all these different groupes expressed their policies though Rights and utilities. This is not new of course: Thomas Paine, Mary Wolfsencraft, Nuremberg Trials, Black Civil Rights, Feminist Civil Rights, minorities, protests and more in the 1970's 1980's and then on through to the 1990's to present. What is a demand for legal consistency under right and justice becomes, later on, a conflict, but that is not an add on or unforeseen its the theory of Freedom through Right necessitates Terror in Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit. The resulting problems from tactical affiliations made necessary as legally consistent under right are not for them a cause of shame or regret or surprise. Its nothing to them substantially that they are criticised for contradictory positions. I mean they recognise that such criticism might be pragmatically and tactically difficult for the project if it sways peopels support away, but they don't think its a serious problem in itself or for them and their projects legitimacy. Indeed not only is consistency not an internal norm for them, it might be a useful to Critique others over. Promise, truth, trust are all redundant substantively, if still useful as a tool against opponents, eg its meant ironically. The aim of some groups might be counter enlightenment theocracy, but their method and way of legitimate it is entirely within the legal scientific terms of liberal and social democracy. I would jsut say these are excesses of that project when taken to totality as it seems is the logic and semantics of the modern science and law. The aim might be to reverse the enlightenment but the method is a hyper modernity or transcendental legitimacy or Hegelian speculative Reason. That make me think that the actual players here have not realised that the real winners are the middle class professions that will be remaining there though our all, the changes, and regardless of who wins. They tend not to fight the wars either. its the middle classes that praxis neds to appease not any group.
    1