|
|
| Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train (1322577) | |||
 |
|||
| 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 Fri Nov 7 10:49:05 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by Nilet on Fri Nov 7 04:22:54 2014. Is the system actually different? It seems to me that you've offered a different chain of reasoning that leads to the same outcome.Yes, it's a different system that happens to lead to the same stance on the given issue (the death penalty). I hold that it is necessary to uphold the dignity of the human person over and above "the pursuit of happiness." And therefore, we would not start with happiness and then impose restrictions (represented by clauses) because we "noticed" that human beings have dignity, which is your method. Rather, we would start with human dignity and then explore what options such dignified human beings may have in order to live their lives well and as happily as possible. There is indeed a difference, just not one that affects the death penalty stance. Since happiness is the thing we all want, it seems like that's the thing we should value. Seems like it at first, but not necessarily. It is not intrinsically necessary that whatever is wanted is exactly what should be pursued. Very often something (such as happiness) simply occurs because something else was pursued. In fact, it is ironically very possible that happiness is best "obtained" by avoiding pursuit of it! However, so long as you and I both realize that happiness is an extremely ambiguous term, I'm willing to accept it and move on. There's nothing supernatural about it. If the goal is to increase happiness overall, then fairness is necessary towards that goal. I must disagree. What difference does it make (looking in from the outside) if some people are extremely happy while others are entirely unhappy if you have still increased overall happiness? Why does overall happiness depend on an even spread of it? There is no inherent reason for equality without it coming "from above." Nature in general follows the rule of "survival of the fittest." Why should we be any different as human beings? You absolutely must start with dignity (over and above happiness) in order to reconcile this. A good moral system needs to work for everyone regardless of circumstances because if a large group of people are condemned to poverty by birth alone, they have no incentive to participate in the moral system, and if it is in the rational self-interest of a large group of people to flout a moral system then that system just isn't workable. But then the question arises. . .why have a moral system at all? Is it necessary that we come up with one to begin with? How about just "everybody for themselves?" The very idea of a moral system assumes first and foremost a recognition of a certain dignity that is already there before the moral system is born. I propose using happiness as the value of X because it's the lowest common denominator of human motivation; we all want it, and it's the only thing we want entirely for its own sake. If we agree on that X, then the rest is just science. Does proposing innate human dignity get us closer to X? Yes. So throw it in. That's why I said a supernatural explanation for human dignity is not required— human dignity is an emergent property of our mutual pursuit of happiness, much like how centrifugal force is an emergent property of Newton's laws of motion. I have basic agreement with your treatment of an understanding of science. I do not agree, however, that happiness should be x, for reasons I partially give above. The dignity should be x, and happiness will come along. Human dignity either exists or it doesn't. If it doesn't exist, then why not just go to "survival of the fittest?" The happiness of those who survive will cover for those who don't. If it does exist, then it exists whether we remember to throw it into our moral system or not. In that case, it had to come from without. We need that dignity to tell us why our happiness indeed should be "pursued." Basically, we have dignity, we want happiness. Instead of starting with what we want, which is extremely ambiguous, we should start with what we believe we have, and see if that tells us how to proceed. We must believe in our dignity in order to have this moral system; it is not necessary to believe that happiness exists to be pursued though, in order to follow this system. (Not that we wouldn't be happy in the end). |
|
|
|