Subject:
|
Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 26 Oct 2001 17:44:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
479 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Horst Lehner writes:
>
> > How open is Germany to immigration and fair treatment of those newcommers?
>
> Well, open enough for my taste,
What must a person of Turkish descent whose family has lived in Germany for
three generations do to seek citizenship?
> > > So you think that exercising one's rights never limits the rights of
> > > others?
> >
> > That's correct.
>
> Let me try a very simple example: Presumably you accept there is a right to
> live.
Actually, this is a tricky situation because ultimately I think that rights are
just a notion. But I spend the majority of my time acting like I believe in
rights because I think they're a really valuable notion. And I think that your
right to live is not universal. Really, what I think we have are
responsibilities. It is my responsibility not to victimize you.
> If so, ANYTHING that poses a risk one someone else's life should be
> banned.
No. That just shows that you don't actually have an unquestionable right to
life. You don't have a right to life in spite of your behavior.
> Obviously, that is not very realistic, because just about anything
> we do implies that risk. To balance the right to DO something with one's
> life, you have to accept certain risks to people's lifes. No conflicting
> rights? That's too simplistic ...
I think we mean something different by rights. I'm kind of including in the
definition of the notion of rights that they can't conflict.
> > > I firmly believe, that no one has the right to define good and bad.
> >
> > And I firmly believe that each of us has that right. Not just that right, • but
> > in fact a responsibility to try and do so. I have revised my notion of good
> > and bad all my life.
>
> But still you cannot assume it is valid for ALL people, can you?
I'm not sure, but I think so. I have wavered on this point. There are
activities that I believe -- against the majority opinion in this world -- are
evil (and I'm not even counting the misuse of less intelligent animals, I just
mean human interactions). I would like those activities to be illegal given
our context of law. I don't have any room in my heart or mind for the
possibility that it's evil only once you realize that it is. What I do have,
is the ability to get along with people who sometimes do evil things.
> > > This always has to be a consensus of society.
> >
> > No. Bad is bad even if lots of people don't know that it is. We once had a
> > majority that allowed those of African decent to be enslaved by those of
> > European decent. That was bad even then.
>
> Maybe it was bad. To judge with today's value system is historically
> inadequate, though.
What does historically inadequate even mean?
> > If you believe that good and evil are determined by consensus, then you • accept
> > that those attrocities were once good things and only since those times have
> > they become evil. I reject that.
>
> I think I understand your concern. Consensus has to be a bit broader than
> just one country, it seems.
I'm not sure how that matters, actually. I just think that consensus is an
unrealistic goal and we can't wait for paradise to get things done.
> Actually, some of the US' questionable track
> record seems to stem from the fact that they claim to have the only
> acceptable definition of good and bad. And maybe the fact that their
> definition internally is different from their definition used in foreign
> affairs.
Yes, absolutely! One thing that troubles me greatly is that we claim to
believe there are 'rights' which are inalienable and apply to everyone, and
then we help to deny others who happen (arguably) through no fault of their own
not to be US citizens.
> > How would we ever convince evil people that we should eradicate evil?
>
> Not at all, of course. Unless you are willing to start with the dark side of
> the US themselves ...
But if you acknowledge that, then how can you be pro consensus-building? Or do
you really mean just forming a large group of thugs that no one can hurt? To
me, consensus implies universal buy-in.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) Well, open enough for my taste, given the fact there are very few other countries which have that many people per square mile. As far as fair treatment is concerned, I think there is two answers: - On one side, there is the official side of (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
173 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
