Subject:
|
Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:13:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1133 times
|
| |
|
|
I don't want to dwell on the morality topic, since it seems that it's being
beaten into the ground. But I will say this:
I think that the highest form of morality stems from compassion - the ability
to
experience the suffering of others as if it were your own. Actions which
increase suffering, therefore, are generally immoral, while actions which
decrease suffering are virtuous.
The problem comes when you attempt to bridge the gap between morality an
legality. Compassion is such a maleable, case-specific phenomenon that even if
it were possible to legislate compassion, it might not be desirable.
In the Heinz example, I think the druggist has a MORAL obligation to sell the
drug to Heinz (barring extenuating circumstances), but it would be problematic
to impose a LEGAL obligation, since it would effectively destroy the
profitability of the pharmaceutical/medical profession.
In my opinion, a good government should ensure that even the very poor have
access to basic necessities of life: food, shelter, safe drinking water, health
care, etc (education, too, even though it's not a basic necessity). So the fact
that theft is Heinz' last option to save his wife's life reflects poorly on the
social structure as a whole.
But that's not the same as mandating compassionate behavior, which is kind of
ridiculous.
Here's another tangent:
> Hmm.. another interesting point. I'm not sure that sellers have a right
> to control all the information available to buyers. Would we say that
> Ford was justified if they had managed to somehow prevent (especially if
> they did so by force or fraud...) Consumers Reports from reporting how
> flammable Pinto tanks were? I dare say not, most of us would agree that
> the market as a whole is well served by increased information.
I agree. What do you think about governmentally implemented safety standards
and
labeling requirements? I suspect most Libertarians would suggest that the gov't
has better things to do, but I like to know whether I'm eating carcinogens or
driving a time bomb. And I'm not sure I want to entrust my safety to the
integrity of manufacturers or to the profitability of third party organizations
like Consumer Reports.
Josh Spaulding
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
81 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
