|
|
| Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' (1445032) | |||
 |
|||
| 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 Fri Jul 28 13:39:57 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Nilet on Thu Jul 27 09:53:42 2017. Oh, if only I had the time to type more. :( But thank you for the intellectual engagement.Well, in the simple "world" of the traffic system, what greater good could anyone aspire to? I don't live exclusively in that world. The traffic system has roads leading to and from. Traffic can be stopped earlier on before reaching it if a particular desire is found to be disordered, taking strain off the traffic system. This also means that even the optimal system found for the traffic circle may not be the overall optimal situation for life, because the traffic circle can be patterned differently if there are less conflicts, or more destinations closer to each other instead of in all opposite directions. Yes, this takes a forming/re-forming of humanity, but ultimately could end up the most efficient thing for all! Easier said than done, of course. Main Point: Just keeping the traffic system optimal does not necessary equal everything being optimal. Optimal would be no traffic system necessary. You're just settling for validating everyone's desires because you know they wouldn't like you if you didn't do that. Morality does not need to be liked for it to still exist. that's the part of the world morality is concerned with. I disagree. Why must morality be concerned strictly with desires? That is your definition, and not equivalent to the "right" and "wrong" language of the dictionary. Put another way, why must "right" and "wrong always be based on what people want? Is it just to gain respect for the system. . .that is, is it just that you are sacrificing the optimal for the limited optimal that exists when everyone's desires are treated equally (before arriving at the intersection)? I think the breakdown point is that you're appealing to some objective good that's entirely independent of humanity, but failing to define what that may be. I don't need to because I am not making any positive claim. I am criticizing the idea that "basic morality" and "basic rights" "just exist" in a cloud for governments to reach up and find, or even in the middle of a crowd of people and their desires for governments to sift through. There is no reason for me to believe this and I think one who asserts it should defend it instead of just expecting everyone to accept it on authority. you're not talking about morality; you're just talking about your own desires and what would have fulfilled them. So wait - morality is no longer about (an attempt at) fulfilling the desires of the population (in this case, just me)? What is it for then? I'm trying to get a sense of your underlying beliefs about what morality is. If you think an action that cannot possibly affect other people can still be immoral, then you're working off a very different definition of the term. I stated that I believe morality and rights are divinely ordered. I have neither the time or energy here to substantiate that claim and I admit that. I thus do not impose it on you or anyone for immediate acceptance. what does it mean to make your life "objectively better" or "objectively worse?" How is it measured? Getting closer to the divine will, which purifies our desires to the extent that we have a level of happiness that what we thought we wanted would never have obtained for us. Same disclaimer here as above - no imposition, just telling you what I think. We can probably clarify a whole lot between us if I understand you just on this point: Do you consider morality itself an objective good? Because if it isn't, then there's no objective reason for me to follow it or support it. I can do so if I'm in the mood, but there's no good reason. If it is, then you are declaring the wants of humanity, exclusively, to inform morality, which means that morality will always be changing with the wants. No human desire is permanent, not even the desire to live life as we know it. Is that what you are saying, that "rights" can switch in and out of being fundamentally moral? |
|
|
|