Home · Maps · About
Home > SubChat
 

[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[ First in Thread | Next in Thread ]

 

view flat

Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies''

Posted by Nilet on Tue Jul 25 22:09:20 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Jul 25 09:12:55 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
I too believe that rights transcend governments

If rights transcend governments but don't arise from morality, where do they come from?

But I don't believe in any such thing as "basic morality" in a vacuum, so I find that response insufficient.

I'm not sure what you mean "in a vacuum." You would probably assert: "I don't want to be shot." Everyone else on the planet would probably assert: "I don't want to be shot." The best way for each person to guarantee they don't get shot is to impose (and enforce) a universal rule of "no shooting," so we say that "no shooting" is a basic moral rule. Nothing arises out of the vacuum; working for the good of a group that works for the good of the people working for the good of the group is a basic social dynamic that tends to produce the best outcome for the entire group.

That's more a sense of what you yourself think is good for everyone.

If you think even a sizable minority of the Earth's population wants to be shot, you'll need to provide a citation for that.

Gain and harm suggest an absolute good and an absolute evil between which the world (or local government) can oscillate.

Not really. Each person can perceive that they gain from certain things and are harmed by others; taken in aggregate, an action can cause gain (ie, many people say they gain from it) or harm (ie, many people say they're harmed by it) or even both.

Who determines these?

You determine for yourself what you perceive as gain or harm to yourself.

How do you really know what is good and bad for someone?

They tell you.

And don't you think that for just about every right there are at least some who stand to lose out because of it, if we are merely talking about each's own interest?

There will be someone who stands to lose from virtually everything.

However, a system that provides the greatest gain overall statistically benefits everyone; as such, everyone has reason to uphold that system. Even when it acts against your interest, the cost of that harm is always less than the cost of tearing down a system that's to your benefit overall.

Obviously if there was a consensus of basic morality out there, we'd be well on the way to having all governments recognize the same rights.

If people were less ignorant of the facts, there would be less harm arising from ignorance. That says nothing about the legitimacy of the facts, nor the irrationality of any goal which is predicated on falsehood.

The problem is, of course, that people's respective senses of basic morality differ, and such differences exist even among similar intelligence levels and lifestyles.

That a system of rules exist such that following the rules produces the greatest overall gain for those who follow the rules is a fact.

That a person seeking to maximise their personal gain would benefit from the implementation and enforcement of that system is a fact.

That a particular rule is compliant or noncompliant with that system is a fact. (Or, stated another way, whether a particular rule brings us closer to or further from the hypothetical-but-probaby-unattainable perfect system is a fact.)

So if you don't seek to craft rules as close to the perfect system as humanly possible, and ensure widespread enforcement of those rules while remaining constantly vigilant for proposed changes that would make the rules closer to perfection than they already are, then either (a) you're irrational, (b) you're mistaken on a question of fact, or (c) you don't want the things you want, or have confused notions of what you want.

That's an oversimplification to say the least, but the underlying point is that there's no contradiction between a universal morality and the existence of people who disobey it. Intelligence doesn't make you rational, nor does it make you more likely to be correct on questions of fact.

And by the way, I'm a huge fan of democracy, though not all types of it.

Well as they say, democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others we've tried.

Responses

Post a New Response

Your Handle:

Your Password:

E-Mail Address:

Subject:

Message:



Before posting.. think twice!


[ Return to the Message Index ]