Subject:
|
Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:18:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
306 times
|
| |
|
|
Snip most, hope to come back later... address a tiny fraction.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> 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.
We differ strongly. I suspect this is moral relativism. I reject that... I
go even farther than rejection. I think there are moral absolutes and no
government, even with the majority of voters saying it's OK, can violate
them and still be a moral government.
I haven't presented a satisfactory demonstration of why these absolutes
exist or what they are, but it's at the crux of my disagreement with the
notion that the unfettered will of the majority is an OK way to make rights
affecting decisions. It's not.
There are inviolate rights that have to be protected. Sometimes they get
stepped on for the greater good or whatever (the "don't steal my gun to stop
the massacre" example) but we have to acknowledge that it's wrong to do so
and that consequences accrue.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
