Originally posted by lilpixieofterror
View Post
Not really because the article really doesn't define why the things they picked are 'moral issues' to begin with or why they selected that criteria. What do they mean by 'militaristic'? Are we talking about maintaining a strong military presence, that can be used to project military power to all areas of the world and/or use such power as a means to 'show concern' to a trouble spot? Many countries depend upon the US military strength to protect them, in that same fashion. Why don't the countries of Europe spend as much as the US does on the military? Why when the US has already pledged to do it for you? This is something that some people seem to forget and try to pretend it is a 'moral issue' when they ignore the deeper picture of the reason for it. If the US started to let these countries fend for themselves, do you think their military spending would need to rise to make up for the loss of US presence? This is just one of the problems with the criteria they selected. How far should 'tolerance' go? Why is being 'more tolerant' a better thing? Why is being 'less nationalistic' a better thing? The article does not explain why any of these issues are really 'moral' issues to begin with. It just assumes they are and expects their readers to agree with them.
And there is the problem, the criteria is not set or agreed upon, so why should the conclusion be trusted?
I'm not dismissing all of sociology at all, but pointing out a critical thing. It is not based on near as many facts as math, physics, chemistry, or biology. Look at the criteria they selected, what makes these issues more important than other issues? What makes these issues 'moral' issues to start with? How did they select the people they looked at? If these questions can't be answered, why should we take the 'study' seriously?
And there is the problem, the criteria is not set or agreed upon, so why should the conclusion be trusted?
I'm not dismissing all of sociology at all, but pointing out a critical thing. It is not based on near as many facts as math, physics, chemistry, or biology. Look at the criteria they selected, what makes these issues more important than other issues? What makes these issues 'moral' issues to start with? How did they select the people they looked at? If these questions can't be answered, why should we take the 'study' seriously?
Comment