Subject:
|
Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 31 Jan 2001 02:26:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
346 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> 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.
Go ahead and do so...
> 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.
I am having a lot of trouble with this notion. It smacks of might makes right.
<snip>
> (And didn't you already lose this debate by indirectly bringing the magic
> word into the discussion? :)
Yes, it so much more convenient to already have "lost", don't you think?
++Lar
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
