 | | 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)
|
