Subject:
|
Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:44:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
274 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > Well, difference of opinion on our parts, I think. By my moral theory,
>
> I noted that you had expressed this moral theory in another thread but I
> didn't backtrack far enough to find it. Can you point me to the post?
Hmm... actually I'm not sure anymore what parts voice it best... I think I
tried to sum it up at the bottomish part of:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=8093
But a lot of that was expounded upon in the (vastly long) thread that
followed... so I don't think it goes into as much detail as it 'should'...
dunno... I should probably create a new thread where that's my only point, I
suppose.
> Does it come down to behavior x is only immoral when those doing the behaving
> think that it is?
Most definitely. Government only becomes moral or immoral when applied to
either the people creating the government, or when applied to its citizens.
A rule in itself is not immoral-- it can only be immoral when applied. But
then again, that's going right back to my moral theory wherein morality is
based on intent. And a rule can't have an intent, therefore it is not
morally judgeable. The creators and followers of the rules, however, DO have
intent.
> What does the phrase "they're fine morally with me" mean?
It means that while I hold that one cannot apply one's own set of moral
rules to others for moral judgement, one CAN hold that other person to their
own set of moral rules, and thereby judge them morally (The problem being
obviously that we CAN'T definitely know someone else's morality). Hence, if
I somehow know that someone is going against their own moral sense, then I
judge them to be in some way immoral.
> > 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?
>
> No.
And (of course) I'll disagree, at least in theory. It is conceivable that
the government (ok, well the enforcers of the government) is not necessarily
morally wrong to punish those who do not adhere to the government's laws.
> So we can morally judge the government that makes slavery legal and the people
> who support it as equally evil.
Yes, but only if we know their intent. If we can guess their intent with
good probability, then we're respectively ok as long as we allow for our own
error. If I'm pretty sure of their intent, and that they're going against
their own morality, I can judge them to be 'most likely immoral' in that
regard. But I of course wouldn't presume to judge absoloutely because I
don't absoloutely know their intent. When we deal with the hypothetical,
though, we can know such things with ease.
> Is there a difference between unjust and wrong in your use?
Umm... honestly I don't think so, and that's a flaw in my wording, I think.
I should try and be more consistant. :)
> > 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.
>
> What other basis would it be?
Wrongful inprisonment because of an error in the adherence to a law. I.E. He
can't complain that the Bobs were erroneous about Joe breaking the law. And
I'll note that I did misspeak up there-- Joe is perfectly within his rights
to say that the law of slavery is immoral for *him*. No doubt I'll have to
bite the bullet for not specifying that when I said it.
> When Joe claims that Bobians are evil for
> slavery and evil for imprisoning him, it not because he's faulting the Bobian
> system's internal consistancy. It's because they're committing attrocities.
> I say that the Bobs are wrong to imprison Joe. But wrong means evil. It
> seems that wrong might mean something else to your story.
Ah, and here's where the distinction I just tried to make comes into play.
Joe is wrong to absolutely morally judge the Bobians for being immoral. If
Joe somehow knows the Bobs' intent, or is pretty sure he knows the Bobs'
intent, then he's in a better position to judge that law (as applied to
those who follow it of course).
> I would say that the fairness of their justice system is based on whether the
> laws are upheld equally and is completely outside the spectrum of right v.
> wrong. So maybe it was fair. But still evil.
Indeed the point I was trying to distinguish in that part. As to the 'evil'
part, well see above :)
> > > Maybe. I suspect many bank robbers know their actions are wrong.
> >
> > Exactly.
>
> I'm not sure. I think more and more, that we (various people) have quite
> different understandings of right and wrong.
And therein is some of the basis for my theory.
> There is pretty good evidence that Thomas Jefferson thought that slavery was
> wrong but just couldn't figure out a way to maintain his lifestyle without
> slaves and he chose to be morally weak.
>
> I suspect that is the case for many other slave owners of the time too. (I
> mean, in addition to refusing to look deeply into the ideas because it was
> scary for them.)
Yep. The point is that most people really do have very similar senses of
morality. Were slave owners aware that they thought they were being immoral?
Or COULD they have explored their morality such that they could have been
aware of such? I think so. But of course, by my theory, I could also be
wrong, and I'll allow for that...
I think basically my theory is a big escape clause that says like most
things examined by the scientific method, that nothing's absolute--
specifically morality (and with the possible exception of mathematics, but
I'd argue that we don't validate math via the scientific theory to begin
with...)
Dave
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
36 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
