Disclaimer:
There is nothing in this post which is meant in any way damaging against you personally, Nic. You are a decent person who has found goals in life, and you are a friend whom I respect. Whatever has happened in the past is irrelevant. This is merely my take on several of your viewpoints which you have expressed, usually with strong words, against me.
Readers, please forgive the ever-changing points of view, spelling or grammatical errors – I wrote this quickly and somewhat tardily.
Over-intellectualisation This is a spurious argument, but since several stupid people seem to adhere to it, I shall attempt to deal with it as economically as possible.
For those interested in the “pragmatic” aspect of life, placing beliefs on a sound intellectual footing can seem like an abstract and fruitless expedition. Indeed, if you stumble upon philosophy, or other normative subjects, in an ill informed way as I recently have, it can all seem a bit like the war between the big enders and little enders in Gulliver’s Travels.
It is my opinion that all branches of philosophy seek to justify beliefs, or statements, opinions, etc. For what is a belief, without justification? Suffice it to say for now that a proposition based on assertion is not a proposition at all, which I have written about in one of my earlier entries. I am really tired of argumentum ad hominem against philosophers; working out solutions in an “abstract problem space” is neither a reflection of their character nor ability to deal with everyday life. They attempt to provide justifications, and this is not inherently incongruent with experiences and opinions forged in the furnace of the human experience. Indeed there is a branch of philosophy called pragmatism. It is not adequate to say “they don’t know shit”, or “dun need to make it so institutionalised lah”. That defence is not open to you, if it were a defence at all – in itself it is a proposition based exclusively on assertion.
“Parents have no duty to provide education for their children” Nic is obviously what people would call an external sceptic: a person who denigrates a proposition by offering a counter-proposition which is bereft of justification. It is a question-begging assertion. One cannot make a (counter) proposition without assigning a truth value to it. In Donaldson’s brusque words, “the external sceptic should get lost”.
Nic’s statement is tantamount to saying there is no duty to provide education because there is no duty to provide education. Whether one believes that an obligation on the parents exists, one must provide reasons.
Here is my take:
There is an argument that there is no moral obligation for your parents to provide you education. I fail to see any cogency in this. It is quite obvious that there is a moral obligation on parents to provide what is “reasonably necessary” for their children to survive in the real world. They, at least, need to satisfy this minimum condition. Imagine if you parents didn’t send you to nursery, or primary school. Most would agree that they would have failed in one of the aspects of parenthood.
Ok. So they provide you with basic education. Why then, university? This is the crux of N’s argument against me. The duty to provide is universally applicable, in the sense that all parents should provide this. The argument from inadequacy of resources or the demographic culture of certain backward societies is a strong one. If parents do not have adequate means to do so, their obligation has been superseded by countervailing factors, though not extinguished. This means that whilst they cannot achieve X, they have to provide some form of compensation. In our context, parents should teach you whatever they know outside of classroom related activities. For example, if your dad was a hawker, how to make a good portion of bak kut teh, or if he was a hairdresser, how to cut hair well enough to sell your services. If we were in a weirdass state which forbade or didn’t cater for university education, how to make a good living, whether by art and craft martial arts or whatever. I personally think they satisfy their duty by imparting to you the drug importation or gambling business trades, but this is contentious and is a subject for another time.
So why do I suggest this duty? The main reason is that it is normatively desirable. The imposition of this duty has a dual effect -
The static effect - we would contribute to the progress of humankind if we so did. This applies regardless of time period; from Socrates and Ancient Athens, the Qing Dynasty to modern day, the value of education has been recognised.
The dynamic effect – Parents and children would both provide and receive the duty and its benefits differently and varying degrees. The efficacy of the duty would vary context-sensitively, which shifts the question as to whether there exists a duty in the first place. I reiterate - this is desirable.
It would surely be normatively beneficial if we were universally supportive of my proposition and were united in that opinion.
But this is not the point. My point, Nic, is that for you to assert and reprimand my lack of gratitude for my parents’ provision of tertiary education, you have to provide reasons why you don’t think a duty exists. Further, for me to say that they owe me that duty doesn’t negate the fact that I am appreciative of what they have done for me. I say appreciative, not grateful. They are two different words with varying connotations, which are too often used interchangeably. I think this is a sufficiently simple point that my intelligent readers would understand. Whether one agrees with my argument is irrelevant – so long as they provide reasons. We can then examine the arguments and see whose reasons carry more weight.
The castigation of people who are "rich" “He’s not rich like you la…”
“You are rich la, different”
Rich boy don’t talk, etc…
This is one of the most stupid points you have made. Again, my post is predicated on your providing justifications for your propositions. This… is… stupid. I do not understand the point you are trying to make.
Is it merely that I come from a financially decent background and hence I am given opportunities others may not have? If that is so, I completely agree. Some people think this is “unfair”, but that is not pertinent. It is simply a fact or not. Whether a fact exists is surely a hard edged question, whether it is normatively fair or just is independent of that.
But as I see it, from other conversations and not merely your statements read in isolation, that you are making some type of innuendo (a generous word) against me, and “rich” people in general. If that is so, I do not see why. There is no reason to discriminate against others merely because they are from a stronger financial background. I will use two situations -
The dad is rich but the child is bleeding useless Anyone is probably right to say that the child is useless. He dropped outta school, couldn’t make it as a paikia, blahblah. He fucked up.
But since he is so damn rich, he has a good inheritance anyway. That is not his fault. He may be able to live an undeserved life of luxury. But that is not to be held against him. Whether you have moral reasons for refusing the inheritance (which I doubt most people would, when it comes to the crunch) is again, irrelevant. He is not to be faulted for his choice, nor his parents’ gift. A statement on his situation (not ability) should be one of envy, not fault.
The dad is rich but the child is capable I believe I fall into this category, at least to some extent. I do not agree entirely with the “dad is rich” bit – my dad is upper middle class, but not more. I do believe I am capable and have proven myself to be, again, at least to a certain extent.
If that is the case, it is not my fault that I have been furnished with opportunities others might not have had. I saw an opening which my dad orchestrated, and I took it. How I performed is independent of that. There is no reason to take anything away from me. Your castigating tone is not justified, nor in my opinion could it ever be. I may get a hotshot job, but that is to my own credit. If it is not, one zips back to the second category, and the same arguments apply.
“I was with you at the lowest point in your life” Er… ok. So what is the point of this? You want gratitude? That is spastic. I wouldn’t even give you appreciation. I will not hang our dirty linen in public, but I suppose you know what I mean. Another point is that it was consensual. I do not believe you did it out of pity. Your motivation was something other than that, and hence you cannot claim credit for merely being with me at a specified time dimension.
Further, what is your definition of lowest? If it is an emotional state, which I construe it to be, then your point is factually untrue. The lowest point in my life up to the time you made your statement was when you dumped me. So you left me, causing the lowest point in my life. You are certainly not to be credited for that.
There are other points you have made, which I postpone for discussion. Now I want to drink and make merry.
Cheers,
Yan
