|
|
| Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train (1322460) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Thu Nov 6 11:48:57 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by Nilet on Thu Nov 6 00:53:14 2014. Thank you for your detailed post and for elevating the conversation a bit here.So my system is different. That everyone wants to be happy is true, but it is not necessary that a system of morality be based on that statement. As you point out, relying exclusively on that statement causes some outcomes that need correcting (hence your added clauses). But even if I step back and agree that the "pursuit of happiness" is a real thing -- that is, that there actually exists this non-material, non-quantifiable happiness to be pursued, and even go a big step further and say it should be pursued, that still leaves open the question of authority or reasoning for the added clauses. In your first clause, we recognize that the worship of happiness outright without anything else said is unfair for some people and so we need this clause. There is no reason at all why fairness is necessary, unless one recognizes in the individual some supernatural dignity (you can probably tell where I'm going with that). In your second clause, we recognize the need for correction for those who go too far. But who's to say when someone goes so far? Just about everyone's "pursuit of happiness" almost always takes away from my own, right? If I'm in traffic, those other cars are preventing me from where I need to go. But likewise a car can't just deliberately idle in the middle of the road. Who's to say when the line has been crossed though, from pursuing happiness legally to pursuing happiness illegally? Does that just come down to opinion? You mention education, but, for example, why isn't the woman the property of the rapist? Just because we all agree on it? What if a country decides not to agree on it? We may have to go back to that whole individual-dignity-from-above thing to reconcile it all. So you've probably already identified my own moral system, which is heavily related to a dignity that, if you don't want to use the supernatural realm, then at the very least is inherent in our nature. And so we would want to act in accord with that dignity. We would not deliberately take a life because it is not in our authority to determine that a life is worthless. But to avoid recognizing such dignity and instead make the "practical" goal the "pursuit of happiness," you have to come up with amendments that basically assign the dignity I'm starting with people may or may not agree on. I'm basically starting where you're finishing. You begin with happiness and correct it with recognizing the dignity of people. I begin with the dignity of people, and happiness comes after the fact. |
|
|
|