> --- David Hobby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If everyone saw them the same way, they would not
> > be "issues"
> > since there would be little contention. Please
> > accept that good
> > people can disagree with you on your black-and-white
> > issues, and
> > that like it or not, compromise is the best
> > solution, which happens
> > to be gray.
> > What you say is true, about you. The contentious
> > issues that
> > one sees in black-and-white are those where one is
> > prepared to fight
> > the hardest.
> > ---David
> >
> > It is bad. The world is usually not simply
> > black-or-white, and
> > it is simple-minded to pretend that there is no
> > middle ground.
Sorry, maybe I jumped into this discussion without
knowing the background? I said that contentious issues are
seldom just black or white, and got a back a bunch of examples
where almost everyone agrees that things are wrong. (Where
most of those not agreeing are those that directly benefit!)
I was thinking of the moral stand taking by a
DISINTERESTED party, since that would be more objective.
> The argument that everyone doesn't see things the same
> way doesn't make things any less black or white (in
> some instances). All too often let me suggest that
> the claim that things "aren't black or white" is a
> sign of moral laziness - the unwillingness to make a
> judgment, either because judgment itself is considered
> to be a bad thing, or because making the (obvious)
> judgment would require action.
To me, they are separate. It's certainly possible
to condemn something on moral grounds, and not be able to
do much about it for practical reasons.
What is "moral laziness"? I believe in "physical
laziness", since that means that one is not prepared to make
a physical effort. Does moral laziness mean that one is not
prepared to make a moral effort? It seems to me that it takes
much more work to try to see both sides of a moral issue and
wrestle with it, than it takes to immediately jump on one side
or the other of it. So "moral laziness" should mean that one
makes snap judgements, without really working through the issues
involved?
> There are a few examples from very recent history.
> Let's ignore the obvious of 9/11. How about the
> genocide in Rwanda?
Obviously bad. Find anyone who was not Hutu who
supported it. (This does not count standing by while it
happens.)
> Yet clearly some people (the people
> committing the acts, after all) disagreed.
But they're biased. Was anyone ELSE for it?
> How about North Korea? It's fairly common to hear
> people say that the North Korean situation isn't black
> and white. That's bullshit. Nothing more than moral
> cowardice from people who don't want to face what's
> actually happening in that country.
Now "moral cowardice" I'll believe in.
Understand that there is one moral principle that argues
against running into North Korea and overturning the
dictatorship. That is the principle that countries should
be able to select there own laws and government. So the
argument would be that the people did not select their
government, so the principle should not apply. In the
case of North Korea, this is easy. But if you move over
to a less-repressive government, as in Iran, things do get
pretty gray.
> Gautam Mukunda
And now for Dan M.:
> Compromise is often the best solution, but is is always? There are
> historical situations where, in hindsight, it would have been best to
> compromise, and situations where no compromise was the best thing possible.
> Two classical examples are compromising on allowing the South to break the
> union in order to guarantee slavery and compromising with the Nazi movement
> to take over Europe and slaughter those races they felt were either lesser
> or in competition with them.
Sure compromise is possible. Reconstruction WAS a compromise, where
racism was not stamped out as well as it should have been. : )
> Genocide is evil. I don't see why, even though a number of people may
> support it, that the best thing to do is to compromise on the extent of
> acceptable genocide.
Of course not. This is not a good example of what I was talking
about. Again, sorry if I barged in without following the context
you had built up.
---David
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
