Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
I don't understand. Why is a person with values set "A" able to imprison or banish person with values set "B"?
... the word may have too wide a meaning to be of much use.
Why are they able? That's quite simple. Because they have the physical strength to do it. The group of people who agree to A are stronger than the individual who promotes B. They're method for trying to stop the dissemination of B is to put the individual in jail.
But I don't think that's what you're asking. I think you're asking for the moral justification. I'll note, first of all, that applying your rapier wit to the situation won't accomplish much. One can philosophize all he wants, but the jail door will remain closed. It is only if the jailer chooses to consider philosophy B that this has any hope of success, hence, the stronger still maintains the discretion of deciding what results in a jail sentence and what doesn't.
they should not stay, demanding satisfaction while refusing to obey.
With respect to the moral justification, I don't think you would allow any. I'm not saying there isn't one, but that you don't seem open to considering it.
For example, you didn't directly address my point about absolutes, but its seem you have tacitly done so. I tried to suggest that we are working with a spectrum, not a true/false dichotomy. Yet you seem to maintain that if even a small amount of self-interest is detected, it is the same as a definitive self-interest that completely rejects any possibility of altruism.
If so, I'll refer back to Reconstructo's point:
Might makes right?
I would have no problem accepting a theory of absolute morality. It would just have to somehow bypass the inherent limitations of the human condition for me to treat it as valid, which is a rather tall order.
Since it seems that all actions are fundamentally in self interest, why should some individuals' goals take precedence over others?
It is my understanding of the terms that by definition, action would have to be either one or the other .
Hmm. Is there an automatic feature for quoting? I cut & pasted for this post, which seems a bit clunky.
go to your preferences http://able2know.org/account/preferences/
say yes to "Show quote button"...
Because the meaning of the representative symbols are completely understood and agreed upon by the parties involved. I'm with you so far.
Let's get rid of a few of the value-laden terms in:"It does not offend my sensibilities to act in self-interest, provided I feel that the act is in accordance with what I consider to be "enlightened self-interest". I consider "enlightened self-interest" to be when the acting party only acts when they are assured that the consequence of said action will advance not only themselves, but myself (or perhaps some unnamed third party) towards our respective goals."..
Is it possible that this might be fallacious reasoning?
My wife told me of a goal she aims for. She urges me to help her get to that goal. Yet I am incapable of perfect knowledge. And yet I do know what the goal of another is. So it certainly is not impossible.
Hence all that ws stated after such a proposition does not logically follow, and may safely be dismissed.
It so happens that my focus in Ethics is on character, not on action. I am skeptical as to what an "act" is. I don't know its boundaries., its limits. The same applies to a "consequence" incidentally.
Social Ethics is indeed concerned with degrees of caring for one's group or groups. It is concerned with the scope of one's ingroup. That is my "Ethical Radius" concept.
We -- all of us -- have a lot to learn.
Happy reading !
"Capitalism - an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth."