From: David G. McDivitt (dmcdivitt@yahoo.com)
Date: Sun Aug 26 2001 - 10:29:38 MDT
I am a bigot sometimes. There's some things I like and some things I
don't like. I do not agree it is necessary to rid the world of all
discrimination, or even bigotry. How does one define bigotry: from the
perspective of the person exhibiting the bigotry or those who don't like
what he says? Any person who expresses an authoritarian position will on
occasion appear as a bigot. I do not agree moral arguments and posturing
made by victims should always and unconditionally be honored.
The world is a giant intellectual delicatessen. There is nothing which
says what a person should think or believe. We each make of it whatever
we want. Rather than say what things should be, I have come to enjoy the
variation I see, and if possible understanding functionality which
supports some of that variation.
If I must choose a single moral premise to advocate it would be to "be
rational" or think, and it would be without qualification what those
thoughts should be as good or evil.
>From: "Lee Corbin" <lcorbin@tsoft.com>
>Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 00:35:35 -0700
>
>David McDivitt (who is the original poster, new to this list)
>writes
>
>> When I have such debates, they sometimes reduce to me asking a person to
>> show why he is not a bigot, authoritarian, or fascist, and him asking me
>> why I refuse to accept certain common values as absolute.
>
>Yes, I'm with you here. I believe that there really are such
>things as bigotry, authoritarianism, harmful condescension,
>collectivism, racism, inconsistency, lack of compassion,
>arrogance, and unfairness, and that they should be exposed
>and demonized. (By the way, I thought you were a nominalist?)
>
>> I agree morality exists. I just do not agree it is always
>> the same, or must always be the same.
>
>No. I can't agree that we should agree to say that morality
>exists---that's really going too far. It clearly all comes
>down to what people approve of and what they don't approve of.
>If we attempt to get precisely factual, we simply cannot appeal
>to "moral laws", or "rights" (except legal ones), or any of
>that stuff unless it's clearly shorthand for "I approve" or
>"I disapprove". The purpose of showing someone that he or
>she is arrogant, or lacks compassion, or is a fascist is to
>make him or her feel bad. By **their** own semantic links
>and real connection to the world and to other individuals
>in the world, and their own conscious (and unconscious) and
>unavoidable judgments of others, if one can show a sufficient
>real similarity, his or her own conscience will be activated.
>
>Lee
-- http://www.geocities.com/dmcdivitt _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:10:07 MST