Subject:
|
Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 31 Dec 1999 09:39:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1486 times
|
| |
|
|
I am going to ~try~ to make a sensible post...
John Neal wrote in message <386C54F9.20331CB5@uswest.net>...
>
>
> James Brown wrote:
> > Wow. You have a fairly radical definition of good, it seems. I tend to • think
> > of good as 'not meaning harm', but that's a very loose and general • definition -
> > don't try to pin me to specifics, please. "Good" in my books is almost
> > entirely subjective.
>
> I like a more objective definition because I hate the trend towards • relativism I
> think we are experiencing these days. If a sociopath considers killing • others
> good, is it? But if good is objective, from who's perspective? God, who • is by
> definition, perfect, and therefore the perfect judge of good and evil. • Discerning
> God's perspective of good is another question, but at least the search for • good
> extends beyond our mortal and imperfect selves.
In a huge thread where I debated primarily with David Eaton (when he and
I met, I believe), I tried poorly and without any brevity, to say what you
have said here, John. I like to be objective about good and evil, too, and
think of good as perfect, and evil as imperfect. At the time of that
thread, I didn't need a god (perfect) to compare to man (evil). I just
thought that people were evil, there was no god (and BION! very little
good), and decreasing the amount of evil in the world, by determining some
ultimate moral code, would be a good thing, and could probably only be done
with such a code.
Anyway, I now think there is a higher power, god, probably perfect, and
thus good. Its almost funny to think how far away from goodwe really are.
It seems like some people have been trying forever to know what is good.
Buddha said he found it. Hmm. Anyway, it seems to me, that lots of things
pertaining to humans are evil, like laziness (sloth) and even simple
misteaks (to err is human). I don't find your definition of good to be
radical, but then again, most probably don't find me to be normal. I do
think that doing something that would motivate people not to be lazy or
error prone would be a step in the right direction...
> > I tend to think that (by the above) most people are good, most of the • time.
> > However, I also think most people are lazy, even when it is clearly in • their
> > benefit not to be. This is why I think a Libertarian system would be • doomed to
> > failure - it requires too much effort from the individual.
>
> You make an excellent point here! I also would add that if people were as • good,
> respectful, and responsible as they would need to be to make Libertarianism • work,
> you would *already* have a utopia. Whether it would be 8 wide remains to • be
> seen;-)
You make a very good additional point yourself. And I will add to it.
If people were so good in the first place, then democracy, communism,
feudalism, any of them would work just fine, even anarchy would. But you
know the true case, and must admit that some of those are better than
others. I do object to James' point that you thought was excellent. Since
I believe laziness and making mistakes are evil things, I do think if we had
a system which motivated people to avoid these evils, we would have a better
lives. Libertarianism (although I have never actually endorsed it) seems to
demand more responsibility from individuals, and therefore would be better.
The same reason he says it is doomed to failure is the same reason I say it
would be better. People are lazy because they can be, very few people who
are truly disadvantaged are not using there time in some way to better
themselves. Likewise, if a person has little time to be lazy, he has less
time for making mistakes, and will do better to avoid them knowing that he
would be the person to bear the consequences of his own mistakes
(accountability). I think James would have been more accurate saying
libertarianism is doomed to never get off the ground because people are
inheritantly evil and will never try to make a change ~that much for the
better~. Because they are lazy, and don't want to give up being lazy.
Still, I think Libertarianims does have a chance. Similar to capitolism,
and democracy, a little bit could go a long way. If Libertarianism (or
something similar) gets a foothold somewhere, I think it will catch on, in
time, in a big way.
> -John
> > $0.02
> >
> > James
--
Have fun!
John
The Legos you've been dreaming of...
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/lego
my weird Lego site:
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/
"Censorship is yet another tool in the dumbing-down of America
by a power structure that relies on a populace too lazy or ignorant
to think independently." -Vanessa McGrady
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
188 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
