Subject:
|
Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 31 Jan 2001 17:30:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
315 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes: • <snip>
> > 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.
It could be twisted into meaning that, I suppose, but just about anything
can be twisted around until it supports a 'might makes right' mindset.
It boils down to relative morality. When David talks about someone acting
morally (or immorally), he is making that call in relation to their own
moral code. If someone has no moral objection to keeping slaves, they are
moral to do so; by the same lights, if someone has a moral objection to
being kept as a slave, they are moral to try and escape.
Since you reject moral relativism, obviously you disagree.
James
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
