Subject:
|
Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 1 Feb 2001 17:44:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
592 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> I freely admit I may be digging myself a hole here. And judging morality of
> individuals, in general, isn't what I want to do. Especially as it relates
> to victimless crimes, etc.
>
> Recall that I've said in the past that it is actions that should be judged
> rather than intent. Morals are all about the intent/motivation and not much
> about the action, except as a consequence. So why judge them at all?
Then we agree about (IMHO) the really important part - judging actions not
intent. I highly suspect what we're debating for the rest of it is fluff
and semantics.
<snip examples>
> Every one of these is personal opinion but it's an opinion that has effect
> on others. I'm ready to accept the consequences for my moral judgements.
Good examples, and a solid case for the relevance of judging morals. I
think David's covered that better, asking the next logical question in the
string - what makes your judgement better than someone else's.
> Finally, I'd prefer to live under a government that has embraced an
> objective standard of right and wrong, that recognises individual liberty
> and that is sharply limited in power. When I was little, I thought I did.
Ah. I'll restate that sentence above...'You would prefer to live under a
government that has embraced an ethical standard that closely meshes with
your sense of morality, which closely meshes with libertarian ideals'
I think this is partly where we're stumbling over semantics. "Morality"
IMHO, gets overused well beyond its bounds, and applied to all sorts of
things that aren't people, like governments. An ethical code measures
actions against a set standard, while a moral code measures intent against a
set standard. (which you hold is a universal standard, as yet underived,
and I hold is a subjective standard)
> To reiterate...
>
> Some governments, some societies, and some people are *better* than others.
> Part of why is the morals they embrace. Are my morals "better" than Slobodan
> Milosevic or Saddam Hussein? I think so. But then I make value judgements
> about others. The moral relativist seems to have rejected that.
Hmm. That's not quite accurate. I think David & I (the token relativists)
have shown a willingness & to compare and contrast moral codes against a
variety of metrics (David moreso than I, in recent history), so rejected
seems like too strong a term for me.
Say rather than the moral relativist accepts that moral standards can
differ, and because morality is intent-driven and subjective, a person's
morality can only be accurantly measured against their own moral code.
Further, their moral code, lacking a universal metric, can only be measured
against specific criteria. When you say your moral code is "better" than
Saddam Hussien's, you are (I assume) measuring that against the metric of
libertarian ideology.
Without an external criteria, it's meaningless to compare moral codes. It's
like saying the metric system is better than imperial measurement. No
context, no relevance.
> Hope that helps. Now where did I leave that shovel?
I dunno. Checked your garage?
James
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
36 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
