From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Thu May 02 2002 - 18:39:47 MDT
Rafal writes
> Lee Corbin 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.
I was NOT talking about your mental state! I was talking
about the freedom your neighbor has against your interference
in his or her affairs. (Affairs, I might add, that have
NOTHING to do with you.)
### 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.
Well, Rafal, the gulf between us is very great. It's so
great that I hope you don't mind some personal questions.
(1) What is your cultural heritage? (2) Have you ever
heard, in childhood perhaps, the saying "Beware the man
coming to do you a favor" or something similar? (It's
quite customary in the U.S., I thought.) (3) Have you
ever heard of the acryonym MYOB?
Under no tradition that I can think of does "moral behavior"
include the clauses that you state. It *never* includes a
willingness to force it on others. "Moral" and "ethical"
behavior *always* applies to one in terms of one's restraint
of one's own actions.
You're perhaps thinking of the traditionally enshrined
dictates against murder, theft, and so on. These arise
quite naturally from other reasons, and have little to
do with morality or ethics, it happens.
### As it happens, my emotional attachment to dogs is
### sufficient to overcome my unwillingness to meddle.
And so what about your neighbor's emotional attachment
to your children, in that he cannot stand to see them
grow up Godless? We quickly degenerate into might makes
right. I hope, by the way, that you obey the law with
respect to what you may and may not do about your
neighbor's dogs.
[Lee wrote sarcastically]
> 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)...
This may explain why a bunch of extropians are about to
invade some grocer's private business and deface his
merchandise. Once one takes *your* axiom for granted,
all is lost. Each of us then is *compelled* to act
in defiance of law and tradition---so long as one's
conscience dictates the action. Today, just as you
say (I'm sorry to report) a "good person" is thought to
be one who feels free to act against anything he or she
finds horrendous. This started with the wisest and best
man who ever lived in the United States, the only one for
whom there is a national holiday: Martin Luther King.
His message was that it's perfectly all right to break
the law, or do any other thing that comes into your head,
so long as your heart is pure. (I.e., so long as you
are following *your* conscience.)
### Now, practically speaking, would you really idly stand
### by, seeing your neighbor drown her five kids in a bathtub?
No, you've got me there: I'd assume that it was an aberration
of some kind. In an emergency, who knows what I'd do? But I
might indeed believe that some temporary insanity was involved
(why would he or she be doing in front of the neighbors, after
all?).
I'm also aware that in my society, the taking of the lives
of one's children is against the law. (I will argue another
time that up to a certain age, parents ought to have the
legal freedom to kill their children, and that there should
be a ceremony denoting the moment that the child becomes a
part of the community. But I don't want to advocate final
states here---only the general direction (freedom) towards
which we should move.)
### 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?
Yes, if this wasn't obviously an aberration of some kind. If
the parents or legal guardians believe that God will do the
right thing, and that God's will be done, I should butt out.
Someday I hope the Scientologists show up in force at your
house and decide that you're abusing your children because
you're neglecting their engrams. After they've got enough
influence and power in society, you know, they'll be able
to get the appropriate laws passed, you know. And then
you'll be hoist by your own petard.
:-) Not really. I hope that you and they lose this battle
of ideas long before that comes to pass.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:47 MST