|
|
| Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' (1445089) | |||
 |
|||
| 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 21:07:11 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Nilet on Fri Jul 28 18:11:56 2017. The whole point of the analogy is that the traffic system is everything; there is nothing but the traffic system in existence.So the traffic system processes zero cars per time-unit, because the system is all that exists, leaving no room for the cars' existence. Such a system has no application. You cannot ignore the question of the origins and destinations of the cars, which are necessarily outside the system. a moral system can only work on a largely-voluntary basis; it doesn't require literally every person on the planet to agree to it, but it requires a large enough supermajority that the handful of holdouts are forced into going along lest they be cut off completely. Right, this is all to make a moral system "work" in the sense of gain basic respect by its adherents, but not at all to prove that we "should" have this moral system, or that the system is the "right" one. morality exists to mediate between people with conflicting desires As defined by you, a definition accepted by those who have no other way of understanding right and wrong. Can I get the rules directly from God? If I must get the rules from some other source, can I ask God to authenticate them? Even if God personally vouches that I have the correct copy of the rules, why should I accept them? You yourself denigrate the idea of accepting a moral system on authority. Fair questions. The rules have to be derived from recognition of the divine ordering made known by a mediation that essentially "demands" (not in the sense of being bossy, but in the sense of a sort of irresistible courtship that makes one just "know") acknowledgement and commitment. It is only such a mediation, and not a mere human person like you or I, that can pose morality authoritatively. One of our differences is that you define right or wrong as whether or not you are helping the traffic circle, which I hold does not, and cannot, be exclusively representative of the world, while I define right and wrong as whether or not my action in and of itself is an ultimately good one, in accordance with what can lead to the highest possible fulfillment, even if the traffic circle doesn't approve. Before we go any further with this, just to be clear, I do not support theocracy or the like -- please do not think that this is a political commentary. It's not. I'm stating an ideal as I see it, one that cannot be actualized by any form of government. the rational choice is to implement the system Even if so, this still would not make it the correct one. Rationalism is not a viable philosophy. If you want things and morality gives you the best shot at them, that is an objective reason to support it. It's motivation for my animalistic instinct. I don't see it as an objective reason. Another way of putting it is: is morality (as you define it) moral? And yes, this question deserves addressing. Just as rationalism is not rational, so it's quite possible (not that I say so definitively) that your moral system is itself not moral. Well, some human desires are rather thoroughly entrenched. The desire for autonomy, the desire for survival while healthy, the desire to avoid pain and oppression and deprivation, have been with us since we existed and will never go away. Rights arise from these universals. The rights don't change because the universals don't either. Still not sure I'm following. Nobody wants to pay taxes. Should we have a right to evade taxation? You may say, no, taxes are part of the system so that we can ideally gain overall by partaking in the services that the taxes pay for, but then such a cost-benefit analysis can be applied to even the more entrenched desires you mention above. Why, as you see it, should a murder, especially a painless one, not take place if a great number of other people stand to benefit from it? I would say that not paying taxes is a pretty entrenching desire. I don't expect too soon in the future anyone to say "Oh boy! Tax time! I can't wait to pay!" (discounting those getting refunds and related cases) |
|
|
|