Subject:
|
Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 1 Feb 2001 00:02:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
459 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > If so we can throw out the 'might makes right' issue, I think, only because
> > it's simply further derived from relative morality. In essence, I have to
> > ask, if you DID accept relative morality, would you STILL disagree with a
> > government's decision to choose slavery as valid when 99% of its members
> > thought it was moral (not simply not immoral, but moral)?
>
> I can't accurately answer that hypothetical. It's indeterminate since I
> don't accept the premise and have so much trouble trying to hypothetically
> accept it that it clouds any possible analysis I could do. I would tend to
> say no, the 1%stops it (but I am measuring against a non relative standard
> there, and further, if you turn the example around a bit you get an outcome
> where you can't stop bank robbery because 1% of the population finds it
> acceptable, which is a screwy outcome). Some hypotheticals are fundamentally
> flawed??
I guess what I'm stumbling over is trying to figure out why you think/feel
that morality has significance beyond a personal level. What is the
justification/point/meaning of you judging me (or my morals)? Whether it's
a personal standard or an as-yet-unspecified universal standard, how can
judging someone morally contribute to anything beyond personal opinion?
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
|
|
|
|
