Subject:
|
Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 31 Jan 2001 14:34:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
323 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > 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...
Well, obviously you won't take too keenly to the theory to begin with, BUT,
since you asked :) Let's look at our society. Take theft for example.
Suppose there was someone who didn't believe in the right to own physical
property. He couldn't comprehend why in the world anyone would want
something of 'their own' or why anyone would try and prevent someone else
from using some physical thing. It just didn't make sense to him at all. As
a result, he'd go around taking other people's things without thinking twice
about it, innocently not caring whether or not people owned these things.
Is he morally wrong to do so? By my theory, no (There may be other moral
issues that this guy has, but they're not important for the example).
Meanwhile, society probably sees this guy as a complete jerk. But are they
following an immoral law (I.E. the right to physical property?) I don't
think so-- because applied to them it IS moral. It's just when applied to
this OTHER guy that it becomes an immoral law (again, by my theory).
So, with respect to that, what should the society say about this law
(theft)? Should they abandon the law because it was immoral for one person?
I don't think so-- chances are the society would do better WITH that law.
The issue I want to address with the theory is moral judgement. Is that one
guy immoral? No. Are the other members of society? No. Do they disagree?
Yes. But you're asking about the 'morality' of societal laws. So let's
modify the example.
This guy (heck, let's call him Joe again) thinks that laws against theft are
grossly immoral, just like you would probably think that laws promoting
slavery are also immoral. He KNOWS the law, so what should he do? Should he
break the law? Should you in the case of slavery? Sure. It doesn't make him
immoral to do so. And similarly, it doesn't make his captors immoral to
punish him for his crimes.
> > 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.
I admit I'm having wording difficulty, but assuming you mean "might makes
moral", then no. Strength in numbers only means that it is a better choice
for the government (better insofar as their system will survive better than
doing the opposite), not morally 'right'.
> > (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?
Yeah, takes the pressure off :)
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
36 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
