That's a shame because I really destroyed your argument with my last post!
Well, actually you were completely oblivious in that case...
He claimed that judgements are important for humanity to decide what is right or wrong.
Care to defend that statement?
I said that there has been a tendency throughout this thread where people attempt to discredit the positive things that Fischer did by claiming that he was either insane or simply doing it for himself.
Absolutely. I AM discrediting the positive things that Fischer did...because I think it was just accidental if they turned out to be positive for the rest of us. He never did anything for anyone but himself. When Fischer claimed that $125,000 wasn't enough of a prize fund in 1972, was he really doing it to up the ante for pro players everywhere? No--he was doing it like some 8-year-old kid whose demands will suddenly be listened to, no matter how frivolous, so he says: "Get me better lighting...and my custom chair...and get rid of the first 30 rows in the audience...and no TV! [even though their sponsorship is largely making that money possible]...and I want more money!" So James Slater steps in and doubles it, then says: "Let's see him chicken out of that." Fischer stayed around (just barely) because his childish demands had been met and his ego had been attended to, with all its grandiosity.
Fischer didn't really care about money.
If he did, how do you explain his offering to play the WCC match for free? Or his refusing to play as WC when he could have made millions of dollars.
He actually did care about chess, and you can't simply brush off his good intentions.
Edit: By the way I am also aware that Fischer is quoted as saying "the only reason chess is played is to make money", or something along those lines.
Fischer sacrificed literally everything in his life for his art. He deserves a lot of leniency when judging his character.
No, he doesn't. He deserves less leniency. He used all 187 IQ points to become a Jewish Nazi. And he may have done everything for "his art"...but he didn't do any of it for chess. His only concern throughout his life was himself; if he ever did anything that ended up benefiting the rest of us, it was purely unintentional.
You are a normal (I assume), well adjusted human being.
Fischer was not. It is pretty absurd for you to judge someone like this without being able to understand him at a very basic level.
Something is absurd or it isn't, I would suggest.
Judging someone's political statements IS fair game. One does not get a "get out of jail free" card for making hate speech whether one is not well-adjusted, self-loathing, or otherwise, IMHO.
I don't disagree that you can look at Fischer supposed views and say "he is very wrong", but I don't think that you can judge his character as a man.
How many people posting in this thread knew Fischer personally?
Reductio ad absurdum, hyperbole, call it what you will it's an apt analogy that highlights the problem with justifying ones actions based on other unrelated
accomplishments.
Fischer's political views don't diminish his accomplishments on the board, but neither do his accomplishments on the board justify his very public hatred.
Perhaps I should present my argument directly then.
There is nothing wrong with Bobby Fischer's presentation of his views. He was not a politician, he did not try to rally people into doing hate crimes. To say that Bobby Fischer shouldn't have said what he did is to say that he shouldn't have practiced his right to free speech.
Hence, I find your statement that he should have kept his political views out of his radio interviews to be absurd.
My main point wasn't that because he's a chess player and not a politician that he should curb his desire to publicly express his views, it was that if he chooses to curb his desire to publicly express his views then no-one should be surprised that they become subject to review and criticism, and no-one should begrudge anyone else's right to express their views on Fischer's views.
In addition, however, Fischer's celebrity afforded him an audience that he otherwise wouldn't have been able to address and the fact that he used it to push an agenda of hate was at best extremely poor judgement and at worst a gross abuse of his influence. In this sense, whether he cared about the criticism or not, he should have kept his mouth shut for ethical reasons. So I stand by my statement that he should have kept his political views off of the radio.
That's a shame because I really destroyed your argument with my last post!
Well, actually you were completely oblivious in that case...
He claimed that judgements are important for humanity to decide what is right or wrong.
Care to defend that statement?
If that's a direct quote, he did get it a little off: Judgements are necessary for humanity to decide what is right or wrong and thankfully so otherwise moral subjectivism could well be a valid defense.
Reductio ad absurdum, hyperbole, call it what you will it's an apt analogy that highlights the problem with justifying ones actions based on other unrelated
accomplishments.
Fischer's political views don't diminish his accomplishments on the board, but neither do his accomplishments on the board justify his very public hatred.
Perhaps I should present my argument directly then.
There is nothing wrong with Bobby Fischer's presentation of his views. He was not a politician, he did not try to rally people into doing hate crimes. To say that Bobby Fischer shouldn't have said what he did is to say that he shouldn't have practiced his right to free speech.
Hence, I find your statement that he should have kept his political views out of his radio interviews to be absurd.
"To say that Bobby Fischer shouldn't have said what he did is to say that he shouldn't have practiced his right to free speech."
No, it's to say that calling for the rounding up of Jews isn't on. For starters.
Using public airwaves to spout this is using a platform to disseminate same views. Would he have had to break out pom poms and cheer to "rally" someone? Isn't using his usage of the imperative tense sufficient or does one only get to resist when a Leni Riefenstahl film crew gets into action?
There is no such thing as an absolute right to free speech. You obviously haven't tried to regale a riot cop in crowd dispersal mode with the splendours of deductive reasoning eloquently expressed THUMP.
Russ
There is no such thing as an absolute right to free speech. You obviously haven't tried to regale a riot cop in crowd dispersal mode with the splendours of deductive reasoning eloquently expressed THUMP.
Of course there is. This example simply illustrates that you have to fight for it.
You obviously haven't tried to regale a riot cop in crowd dispersal mode with the splendours of deductive reasoning eloquently expressed THUMP.
Did you?
That's a shame because I really destroyed your argument with my last post!
Well, actually you were completely oblivious in that case...
He claimed that judgements are important for humanity to decide what is right or wrong.
Care to defend that statement?
If that's a direct quote, he did get it a little off: Judgements are necessary for humanity to decide what is right or wrong and thankfully so otherwise moral subjectivism could well be a valid defense.
Moral subjectivism is a valid defense. If you think that ever culture in the world throughout all of time have had the same moral views you are mistaken.
So which are right and which are wrong?
Thankfully for the families of Ted Bundy's victims it is not a valid defense.
Thankfully for society, there are not only laws based on relatively objective judgements that everyone in principle agrees to abide by, but also societal norms and social interactions whose convention is based on the same principle.
The point wasn't that morality isn't subjective, but rather that it's subjectivity isn't a valid defense against being judged and facing the consequences of your contravention of the norms or laws of the society in which you participate.
The original point, was that the requirement to take generally accepted consensus within a society and to codify them into either societal norms or laws against which the actions of individuals can be judged is an important exercise for orderly societies.
I'm inclined to agree.
Thankfully for the families of Ted Bundy's victims it is not a valid defense.
Thankfully for society, there are not only laws based on relatively objective judgements that everyone in principle agrees to abide by, but also societal norms and social interactions whose convention is based on the same principle.
The point wasn't that morality isn't subjective, but rather that it's subjectivity isn't a valid defense against being judged and facing the consequences of your contravention of the norms or laws of the society in which you participate.
The original point, was that the requirement to take generally accepted consensus within a society and to codify them into either societal norms or laws against which the actions of individuals can be judged is an important exercise for orderly societies.
I'm inclined to agree.
Thats one HELL of a stretch to mention a cold blooded murderer in a forum that is discussing Fischer's hateful speech ! Where do you guys come from ? THERE IS NO COMPARISON
The comparison wasn't intended -- Ted Bundy unsuccessfully used moral subjectivism as a defense and we got off the topic of Bobby Fischer and onto the subject of objective versus subjective values. It was an off topic reference and I agree that there is no comparison.
The original point, was that the requirement to take generally accepted consensus within a society and to codify them into either societal norms or laws against which the actions of individuals can be judged is an important exercise for orderly societies.
I'm inclined to agree.
Wow you sure proved me wrong! I guess I'll get to the back of the bus now.
Remeber when Slavery was legal because coloured people were judged by society to be less human than whites?
It was the law!
Just short of invoking Godwin's law. Nice.
I guess you're right -- we should probably throw out all of our laws and cultural norms.
I believe it's important for people to stay in the middle in most issues and then sway back and forth. You can learn a lot from reaching inside others shoes. I don't know a lot about Bobby Fischer, but from what I can account from him is that he was a brilliant chess player, but deeply troubled with identity.
Bobby Fischer appeared to be frusterated with his role identity. Most people will suffer the same thing, only because he was famous that his problems were compounded. His lack of patriotism makes him a sour symbol in some eyes, but because he was arguably the best American chess player he will be remembered. If he didn't have drama in his life then the average household wouldn't remember quite to the extent that they do. People will always have atleast a little compassion for celebrities with problems, because stars with problems reminds people that their own trials and tribulations occur with people outside of themselves. Why do you think people take the time to care about celebrities whom all seem to have an issue? The reason is because they relate to them and assures them that their problems aren't limited to themselves.
People like people with flaws. Not many people would want to be around someone who was PERFECT.
Just short of invoking Godwin's law. Nice.
I guess you're right -- we should probably throw out all of our laws and cultural norms.
That's not what I said and you know it.
Right back at you, although if that wasn't your point (disproof by counterexample?) I'm not sure what was.
Although we may not always get them right, the point was that the judgements that go into setting up the tacit social agreements, whether encoded into law are not, are an import means of maintaining social order. The alternative is chaos.
Throwing out an example where the process has failed us, or rather we have failed the process, particularly one so deeply rooted in a contentious part of American history who's scars are still healing today is at best in extremely poor taste and at worst deliberately inflammatory. You seem relatively smart, which is why I'm going to give you credit enough to assume you're being intentionally obtuse simply for the purpose of being disagreeable.
If I said research leading to medical advancements was a good thing would you throw thalidomide out as an example of why it is not?
If I said technology research benefited humanity would you cite modern mechanised warfare?
Any of these can be put to harmful uses, whether intentional or through our failures to apply them properly, we are human after all, but that doesn't mean that they don't still have value and play an important role in our advancement as a species. The same is true, more so even, of the fundamnetal need to maintain social order through what at the end of the day are a series of tacit agreements that govern our interactions with each other. Even in a society with no laws there would still be a tacit social contract between individuals and the community that is implicitly based on the community's judgements of what is right and wrong. I'm frankly amazed you can find footing from which to argue otherwise.
Incidentally, we are way off topic.
Right back at you, although if that wasn't your point (disproof by counterexample?) I'm not sure what was.
Although we may not always get them right, the point was that the judgements that go into setting up the tacit social agreements, whether encoded into law are not, are an import means of maintaining social order. The alternative is chaos.
Throwing out an example where the process has failed us, or rather we have failed the process, particularly one so deeply rooted in a contentious part of American history who's scars are still healing today is at best in extremely poor taste and at worst deliberately inflammatory. You seem relatively smart, which is why I'm going to give you credit enough to assume you're being intentionally obtuse simply for the purpose of being disagreeable.
If I said research leading to medical advancements was a good thing would you throw thalidomide out as an example of why it is not?
If I said technology research benefited humanity would you cite modern mechanised warfare?
Any of these can be put to harmful uses, whether intentional or through our failures to apply them properly, we are human after all, but that doesn't mean that they don't still have value and play an important role in our advancement as a species. The same is true, more so even, of the fundamnetal need to maintain social order through what at the end of the day are a series of tacit agreements that govern our interactions with each other. Even in a society with no laws there would still be a tacit social contract between individuals and the community that is implicitly based on the community's judgements of what is right and wrong. I'm frankly amazed you can find footing from which to argue otherwise.
No I still disagree with you. I never questioned the validity of laws, however, some laws objectionably make an awful lot of sense. For example laws against murder, theft, rape, traffic violations, etc.
Comparatively, certain laws have existed for hundreds of years in modern countries/societies which have been based entirely on subjective morality (which is an abstract concept at best). Even today, even in America (and that's north America, not just the U.S.A) ,there are laws based entirely on subjective morality and societies judgements, which of course are "essential" for deciding what is acceptable, and what is not.
Is there a logical reason why a homosexual couple can't adopt children? No, that's moral subjectivism.
Is there a logical reason why a homosexual couple can't get married? No, that's moral subjectivism.
Sorry about my text... I meant to spell check but instead hit the big A.
Hate speeche is legal, by the way, as it should be. Incititing a riot is not.
'm glad to hear that Berkeley still stands up for personal freedom. But times are changing, aren't they?