Thread by @EveKeneinan

Ben is on today, speaking about the Left’s failure to understand Aristotelian categoricals and Hohfoldiab rights. Two subjects dear to me, and lacks that cause great mischief.

You Aren’t The Only Person In The World

Aristotelian Categoricals or Aristotelian Categorical Statements is simply the technical way to state a general uniformity in nature or society which is true according to the category, but not true universally without exception.

For example, “human beings are sighted.”

“Human beings are sighted” is a true qua the category ‘human being’ or qua human nature. It is *natural* for human beings to be sighted.

This is true despite the existence of blind human beings. The blind do not refute the categorical statement.

It is natural for human beings to be sighted. Blind human beings exist, but accidentally. An ‘accident’, philosophically, means something that comes about not according to any nature.

A blind human being has had an accident depriving him or her of sight, before or after birth.

It is a human good to attempt to accommodate the blind. It would, however, be foolish to abolish everything that involves sight, e.g. whiteboards, computer monitors, etc. because these are goods from which a few are excluded.

No *wrong* is being done by this exclusion.

This can apply to things which are a fusion of the natural and social as well.

Shapiro is discussing marriage in this context. Marriage is a normative good for human beings. No one has ever claimed that every single human being universally should be married — but most should.

‘Should’, that is, from considerations of the fulfillment of human nature and personal happiness.

The normative status of marriage is undercut NEITHER by (1) the unsuitability of a few for marriage NOR (2) failed or bad marriages.

As Shapiro is pointing out, Leftism today accepts an argument that goes as follows

1 Such-and-such good or institution (e.g. marriage) isn’t a universal good or institution
C: So it isn’t really a good, and should be abolished

And this argument is nonsense, because it doesn’t follow that

1 An Aristotelian Categorical truth isn’t a universal truth
2 ∴ it isn’t true in any significant way

It’s a kind of “all or nothing” fallacy.

The Left often falls into these, because “if everyone cannot equally enjoy a good, no one should.”

That is, “ban movies and paintings, because there are blind people; ban music, because there are deaf people.”

There are many, many, MANY goods which cannot be given equally to ALL.

So the only option for equality is that they be had by NONE.

Insane Leftism often thinks depriving ALMOST EVERYONE of a given good is BETTER than a state in which a few, for external reasons, don’t have it.

As in the war between the Trannies and the TERFs, it is hard to say that the Woke idea of distributing goods by race is a good idea, simply because it is opposed to the bad idea of insane egalitarian leveling.

But my sympathies are again against the Woke.

The pursuit of equality can be a good thing in moderation, and in some cases a duty. The problem is when equality is taken as an absolute value, which it isn’t.

Wokeness, of course, is simply opposed to justice.