A friend had an assignment to argue a side of a debate with which he does not agree.
By the time he was done, he was starting to see some of the other side's arguments as legitimate. He jokingly said this was "scary." I wrote back:
Not scary. If you're utterly 100% convinced of every element of your world view, you're nuts and closed-minded.
It takes intelligence and maturity to accept that our understanding is limited, contingent, and may contain elements of paradox or contradiction or balanced yet competing forces.
I think the practical case for free markets is a "preponderance of the evidence" case -- separate from the moral case for it, which is absolute, but only if you accept a Natural Rights philosophy of right and wrong.
Cheers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment