From: Smigrodzki, Rafal (SmigrodzkiR@msx.upmc.edu)
Date: Thu May 02 2002 - 07:52:02 MDT
Lee Corbin [mailto:lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Wrote:
It takes some time to get used to: imagine your neighbor
engaged
in any kind of activity whatsoever behind his or her own
closed
doors that doesn't affect you. Believe it or not, "freedom"
dictates that you mind your own affairs and make no attempt
to
interfere by force NO MATTER HOW DISGUSTING OR REVOLUTIONARY
THAT
ACTIVITY IS.
### No, you are referring to "indifference", not freedom.
-------------
Thus in the modern view, everything of which one strongly
enough disapproves of is one's affair.
### I have to disagree with you here. An essential aspect of
"morality" is, and for thousands of years has been, a willingness to have it
forced on others, whether they like it or not (as opposed to matters of
taste, which are a private matter). That we call murder immoral is just a
preamble to the threat of violence against the perpetrator.
Indeed, if anything, it is the modern view that matters of
morality need to be limited to the most important issues, leaving as much as
possible to taste and decorum. As it happens, my emotional attachment to
dogs is sufficient to overcome my unwillingness to meddle.
-------
What we do, you see,
is democratically vote on it. If enough of us think that
something, e.g. homosexuality, is bad, then we ban it. If
enough of us think that cloning is bad, then we ban it.
If we conclude that our neighbor should be taking his
children to the doctor but isn't, then we take them by
force
### Exactly. If you truly believe that a phenomenon is bad
(as in immoral, maleficent, evil, horrendous, etc) it is incumbent on you to
do something against it (if you want to call yourself a good person), and
the more people share your ideas, the more likely they are to be enshrined
in law. This might be a problem if enough people are mistaken (because of
insufficient information or early indoctrination they are unable to shrug
off), but is it still better than a world of total indifference (which is
not to be confused with tolerance), ultimately leading to a loss of freedom
and life.
Now, practically speaking, would you really idly stand by,
seeing your neighbor drown her five kids in a bathtub? How about a neighbor
letting her hemophiliac child bleed to death after a minor injury, rather
than have the child infused with the appropriate clotting factors ? Would
you really?
.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:46 MST