Subject:
|
Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:57:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
413 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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.
Ah-- then we shall certainly have differences. My own moral theory arrives
at the conclusion that there are no absolutes in morality.
> 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.
And I'd argue that it CAN be. Not necessarily that it's EVER actually BEEN
ok, but that the possibility exists. And just to clarify further, by my
morality, it can be ok for one person to enslave another, and it's also
still perfectly ok if that other believes that his/her slavery is immoral.
The problem is when either party assumes that what is immoral for them
applies to the other person. In other words, the slave shouldn't say "It is
necessarily morally wrong for you to keep me as a slave", and the slave
'owner' shouldn't say "It is necessarily immoral for you to try to escape as
my property".
> 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.
Ah, and here we get to an interesting part of my theory. 99% of human morals
agree. 99% of all humans (if not more) agree that property rights are good.
99% of all humans (if not more) think that killing an equal is wrong. Etc.
Take the 10 commandments. In general, most of them are pretty darn good for
a general set of human morals (Ok, maybe not the 'thou shalt not carve
graven images' one, but I'm sure you know what I'm getting at). Basically my
theory says that it's CONCEIVABLE that moralities can differ ridiculously
from that which we see, and as such we cannot absoloutely judge people
morally. BUT, to the best of my knowledge, human morality has not exceeded
the confines of X, hence X is generally a good judge of morality in people
that I am likely to meet.
Anyway, back to what you say above. ARE there certain rights that MUST be
protected by government? Not by my theory. But before we go into that, I
have to ask, in order for what? What happens if the government does not
protect those rights? Certainly you would judge it to be immoral. And I
would only agree depending on the people it governed's opinions on morality.
But the apart from that, one test of how 'good' it is is whether that
government will remain intact. If people in the society think it's immoral,
then they'll revolt against the society. If it's something simple, they'll
probably just try and adjust and tweak the system accordingly. But if it's
something major, they might try an open revolt. Applied here, how likely is
it that a government which violated those rights of which you speak would
survive? If you lived in a society where slavery was commonplace, would you
revolt against it? Do you think others would? Would you help them?
Especially if you thought you were in the majority? (I.E. one might argue
that you wouldn't because you lacked the strength to make any difference
[you'd be a coward]-- hence, if you're also in the majority, you have much
less excuse).
(And didn't you already lose this debate by indirectly bringing the magic
word into the discussion? :)
DaveE
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
