Subject:
|
Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 31 Jan 2001 18:58:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
328 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Now back to might makes right... *isn't* moral relativism a kind of "might
> makes right"?
>
> I think it is (without too much, if any, twisting) and that's one of my
> issues with it (but then, what do you expect, I'm a "being human gives us
> natural rights" kind of guy...).
?
Maybe I'm missing the point here, but I don't see that connection-- I.E.
that "might makes right"... What do you mean by "right"? If you mean "moral"
then no. If you mean "not immoral" then yes. But then again, 'weak' would
make right too...
The only preference towards either majority or minority comes from how you
define the good for the system for which it applies (relative to it, and not
valid for others-- how interesting!). In other words, is the system more or
less capable of achieving its goals (G) if X is made a law? In the case of
slavery, if the society is divided on it, then slavery is no more an immoral
law than anti-theft laws. However, I'll argue that most likely, our society
(and probably any human society, but I won't go so far as to say that) will
achieve its goals (G = survival & citizen contentedness & maybe more) better
by banning slavery as well as theft.
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
|
|
|
|
