|
|
| Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' (1444558) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Jul 26 08:26:25 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Nilet on Tue Jul 25 22:09:20 2017. If rights transcend governments but don't arise from morality, where do they come from?They are divinely ordered. Such is the only way in which they do not change with the times. Even the most essential rights you can think of and the most basic tenets of "basic morality" can be changed with enough revolution and popular opinion shifts. 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. So morality to you is just a matter of what is found practical given the current climate? So that would be all changeable then, right? There could conceivably arise a situation in which many/most people want to be shot. Would that change "morality?" And at what point would the change be made? 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. Now here morality for you is based strictly on outcome (ends). The goal is a "better group." This again implies that the world is oscillating between absolute good and absolute evil. These terms demand clarification. You determine for yourself what you perceive as gain or harm to yourself. Well yeah, perceptions, but I mean. . .how about reality? They tell you (what is good or bad for them). And who told them? I'm not saying people should not be able to stand up for themselves against the government, but this question needs to be asked if we are to reach any greater understanding of "basic morality." 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. This is not mathematically sound. A system providing the greatest statistical gain still leaves plenty of room for significant amounts of people to be hurt overall by it. Are you advocating utilitarianism? 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. The first, yes. The second, not necessarily. 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. I basically agree. |
|
|
|