These discussion Tuesday things are often statements – the fun part of it should be in us questioning the statements 🙂

I think it is virtually a fact that there are unstated moral values involved in any description – no matter how much we would like descriptive elements to be neutral free. However, the crux of the issue is whether these moral statements are “justified” or “unjustified” – I’m fishing for a perspective on how we may consider that.

It is a tough question, hence why I’m generally interested 🙂

Or maybe I’ve just not well read enough to see a “known reference” thus and reading your words at face value. In which case that was definitely an unethical assumption on your part.

Hmm, maybe I mis-read the original questions, which I read as:

The words/phrase/ways people use to talk is altered by their stance on a larger set of ethical assumptions: Thus when they talk about trade-off there are unspoken moral assumptions implied.

Which sounded like a statement, not a question, so I agreed with it.

But your reply points to me that you have some unspoken ethical assumption around the justification of assumptions. Now I assume to could write a thesis on theories of moral sentiments presented in the trade-off of life, or a detail investigation in the big set of trade-offs most people make about das kapital and how they relate to their labor and there labor power, but would the average man read these, thus would we be in a better place or would the animal spirits still run a muck due to the inability of man to see the shortcomings in that which they think they can design?

Hehehe, anyway thoughts on discussing “unjustified” in this context?