 | | Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
|
Snipped a lot of head twisting stuff to just answer two questions, then I HAVE to get back to writing docs... more later, maybe. (...) Yes. (...) I can't accurately answer that hypothetical. It's indeterminate since I don't accept the premise and (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
|
(...) Ah, ok. So what you're objecting to is specifically my method of moral judgement, instead proposing that some unspecified (at least at present) yet universal code is a better tool for judging morality, and that you have at least some inkling (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
|
(...) Ok. I think that 'morality...derived from enforcement' and 'whatever you have the power to do is OK' are equivalent statements, but that's just quibbling. (...) That consequence does follow fairly directly, so I guess that's where it fails for (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
|
(...) Right, I understand that concept. I just don't find it valid. Because I don't accept relative morality. (...) Yes. (...) I don't think that's what I am saying, but since I haven't provided a derivation for universal morality I guess that might (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
|
(...) Ah, then ok. I'm fine with that. Just so long as we make sure to clarify that the 'right' in MMR isn't a moral right. The only problem being, though, that while theoretically true, it's not the case in reality, only because human moral codes (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes: Snip. (...) I would not agree with the above definition, but rather offer this one instead: MMR is the belief that there *is* no morality. whatever you have the power to do is OK, with no objective (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
|
(...) No, I think you've got it backwards. Moral relativism is (essentially) stating that morality is subjective & internal, while 'might makes right' is stating that moral action is anything that can be enforced. I've started to go further about (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
|
(...) ? Maybe I'm missing the point here, but I don't see that connection-- I.E. that "might makes right"... What do you mean by "right"? If you mean "moral" then no. If you mean "not immoral" then yes. But then again, 'weak' would make right too... (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
|
(...) Yep. That is a good summation of both David's position and mine, I think. Now back to might makes right... *isn't* moral relativism a kind of "might makes right"? I think it is (without too much, if any, twisting) and that's one of my issues (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) It could be twisted into meaning that, I suppose, but just about anything can be twisted around until it supports a 'might makes right' mindset. It boils down to relative morality. When David talks about someone acting morally (or (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
