From: Damien Broderick (d.broderick@english.unimelb.edu.au)
Date: Wed May 29 2002 - 08:17:53 MDT
At 06:55 AM 5/29/02 -0700, Brian D Williams wrote:
>A society where individual choice is the excepted norm vs a society
>"where the greatest good for the greatest number and to hell with
>the individual" are two completely different societies.
How on earth can individual choice be an `excepted norm'? A norm can't be
derived from an exception. A *goal* or *ideal* might be, but then your two
examples collapse into one. Oh, hang on--did you mean `accepted'? If so,
the dichotomy is absurdly restrictive, and describes nothing in the real
mixed-economy world. I might as well (and perhaps with better reason)
describe what you recommend as "a society where the greatest good [is] for
the least number and to hell with anyone except *those* individuals". There
have indeed been such societies, and they were often gaudy, beautiful in
their palaces, vilely cruel and morally disgusting. But outside Ayn Rand
novels and romantic bodice-busters about the French Revolution, the choice
is never that stark. Luckily.
>You are mixing several separate threads together in your summation
>and condemnation here. I would appreciate not having my name being
>associated with this witches brew. I have refused to participate in
>those other threads.
I do tend to see what I regard as `antihumanist' declarations having
certain aspects in common, even if different people voice them and except
themselves from some such views. Brian, as I have noted previously, your
declared view of capitalist society as a (desirable) war of all against all
is Hobbesian, and I find that hard to reconcile with many gentler
statements you've made in other posts.
Damien Broderick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:28 MST