Subject:
|
Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 31 Dec 1999 19:55:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1542 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> James Brown wrote:
>
> > Anything based on morals (which "good" typically is) IS subjective, and can
> > never be anything else, at least until God (in whatever guise you like,
> > assuming you believe in Him) provides us with an absolute morality.(1)
> > Neither you nor I can ever be certain how said sociopath is acting in
> > relation to his morality.
> >
> > That being said, however: "Good" can also be a societal (or ethical) term
> > as well. I find good & evil to be too strong to use when trying to define
> > things as a group, though - right and wrong work better. IMHO, calling
> > someone evil is going to get a stronger reaction than calling someone wrong
> > - and it also implies more judgement of person than judgement of action.
>
> We've been around this particular mulberry bush before
Multiple times, I think, although it hasn't always been you on my dance card.
> and I continue to hold with the stance that "good" and "morals" can be
> objective, correct ones are based on life affirmation.
I highly suspect that we are of similar minds on this issue, and just keep
insisting on different definitions. My position in a nutshell,
morals=subjective, ethics=objective, otherwise no discernable difference.
Further, I hold that I can very well label a particular society as evil if it
> is actively engaged in suppressing the rights of some of its citizens or its
> neighbors. Still further, I hold that I can find a particular individual is
> evil or unfit to be a member of a productive society. Yes indeed I just passed
> judgement and yes indeed I expect a rather strong reaction.
You can have whatever opinions you want. It ain't my place (or anyone else's)
to say otherwise. I will also make judgement calls (of others) based on my
moral code - I just won't claim that my judgement (all other things being
equal) is any more valid than someone else's judgement. For all you and I
know, the clams(1) could have the hotline to universal truth <shudder>.
I dunno. Personal experience seems to indicate that whenever someone starts
talking good and evil, they are almost invariably claiming a hotline to Truth,
and that gets under my collar, I admit. IMHO, human understanding is, and
will always be(2), flawed and subjective. This translates into "You don't
know you're right, any more than I do".
> It really ticks people off, but I even take the further step that those
> who think morals are subjective are just a tiny bit flawed in their
> morality themselves. Doesn't mean I can't get along with them, mind you,
> but I have to watch my back as it were.
Why is this, might I ask? The impression I'm getting is that you are equating
subjective with mutable, and it ain't necessarily so.
> People with flawed morals are perfectly welcome in Libertopia, as the law
> there does not judge intent or morals, merely actions. However if their
> morals lead them to usurp the rights of others those folks are going to find
> it a mighty unpleasant place indeed.
I would be quite happy in Libertopia, but I don't really think it's
achievable. I'm a cynic.
> A good question to ask, though, is are we turning up any new sod, or
> just replowing old ground? I dunno. Not my call. But then I love to hear
> myself talk, and I do realise that others may find my stance rather
> strict and judgemental, and myself rather a prig, even. That's fine.
Of course it's fine. Us lowly misteak-ridden types are entitled to opinions
too.
I don't find your stance strict, I just find it idealistic. But that doesn't
stop me from dragging out the plow whenever we come to this field, 'cause I
like to hear myself talk too.
> Now, I gotta go adjust my cummerbund so I am outta here for a bit.
Bah, cummerbund. ;)
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
1:Clams=Scientologists. Operation Clambake: http://www.xenu.net
2:Although I will admit the possibility of evolving to a state beyond this is
a fascinating one that I never tire of exploring (via SciFi)
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
