Subject:
|
Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 30 Jan 2001 13:53:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
294 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > Hmm.. not necessarily, but most probably. Mostly it's to say that I don't
> > have a problem with you breaking the law, so long as you don't put moral
> > fault on the government for punishing your lack of adherence to it.
> > Basically, should those who helped the underground railroad in the late
> > 1700's and early 1800's have necessarily volunteered themselves as having
> > broken the law? No. Should they have said "you are wrong to imprison me"?
> > No.
>
> Can you elaborate on this? Slavery is morally wrong and it doesn't matter to
> me what the law says about it. A government that abides it (yes, even the US
> government of the time) doesn't have consent of the governed in that area,
> right?
>
> So why do you say that it's OK for the government to oppress?
Well, difference of opinion on our parts, I think. By my moral theory,
slavery is not necessarily morally wrong. Is that to say that I think
slavery in the US wasn't wrong? No. In fact, I'm pretty sure it WAS wrong.
Basically, my morality triest to judge via intent-- so if a particular set
of people all thought slavery was great (not just not bad, but good) then
they're fine morally with me. Does that mean I agree with them? No. Does
that mean I have to defend their cause? No. Does it mean that the governing
body is more equipped to survive than one without slavery? No.
> The abolitionists knew that there was a downside for their moral stance if
> they got caught. That's different than saying that the government was right
> to punish them.
Here's where we get to one issue I was trying to get at a little more
cleanly. Is the government right to punish them? Well, let's be more
specific, because it's tough to morally judge 'a government', because it's
really the people that define it. Don't ask me why, but I'll use my classic
little Bob and Joe routine.
Bob is a regular citizen of Bobia, the country of Bobs, where everyone
really honestly loves slavery. They think slavery's nifty keen. Now Joe
comes in. Joe hates slavery. He thinks that the laws about slavery are
unjust. So what does Joe do? He tries to steal slaves and release them to
Bobia's neighboring country Joeia, where slavery is illegal. Now Bob catches
Joe, and along with all his other Bob-friends, they all put Joe in jail
because Joe broke the law of Bobia.
Now, by my philosophy, Joe is perfectly within his rights to say that the
LAW of slavery is unjust and immoral. But he CAN'T say that Bob(s) were
wrong to imprison him, unless his only basis for saying such is based on the
law being immoral. And to give a better idea of that, I'm saying that Joe
was punished fairly, but immorally (by his own standard). Does that help at all?
> Maybe. I suspect many bank robbers know their actions are wrong.
Exactly. And similarly for slave owners in the US. Did they honestly think
that slavery was good? Probably not. But who am I to say? My guess is that
they just never thought about it-- and when they try to, their decision will
either be that slavery IS unjust (immoral), OR their own personal emotions
will 'get in the way' of that decision. Basically I'm saying that I think
all humans are capable of understanding that slavery is wrong (even if
subconsiously they can't come to that decision), but that slavery itself is
not necessarily wrong-- it just happens to be so for everyone I've ever met,
and I imagine that it shall be so for everyone I WILL meet.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
36 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
|
|
|
|
