it has laws that ban acts that in the majority of people's opinions, are
immoral. So, it could be said that a citizen is justified in expecting
their subjective moral rights to be protected or garanteed. Of course, this
doesn't mean that they are - but it's a reasonable assumption.
~Simon
Simon Horwith
CTO, Etrilogy Ltd.
Member of Team Macromedia
Macromedia Certified Instructor
Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer
Certified Flash MX Developer
CFDJList - List Administrator
http://www.how2cf.com/
-----Original Message-----
From: Haggerty, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 07 January 2004 21:09
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: More Breaking News
Simon -
I think the argument you were pursuing was that there is a moral right
to expect certain conditions to exist, and that this was backed up by
our Constitution.
The point I was making is that no absolute moral rights exist in law,
and that our own Constitution provides for a framework for administering
government within certain boundaries. Regardless of our ideas about how
government should be, nothing ever happens without people's personal
commitment to a cause. On the other hand, all the 'ideals' you have
mentioned are achieveable if you want them to be.
This is the secret that makes America great.
M
-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Horwith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 3:52 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: More Breaking News
you left out "the pursuit of happiness". I'm not trying to give you a
hard
time, and for the record I am very familiar with the difference between
ethics and morals (and mores, etc.).
I believe that the government has an obligation to give the people what
they
need and what they want (or to strive to achieve this for as many people
as
possible). Not necessarily a legal one - but that is it's purpose. I
don't
know whether or not that is an idealistic view. I happen to think that
any
government that you cannot have idealistic expectations of is a poor
government.
I studied political philosophy for a while when I was a philosophy major
in
college. I even thought about specializing in it - I ended up
specializing
in another realm of philosophy. The primary reason that I abandoned
focus
on political philosophy studies is that so much of it is about
government,
and while political theory is interesting, it never seems to be put into
practice properly. Man takes what he wants from these ideologies and
makes
the rest up to suit his own needs. No government is perfect, no man is
perfect, hell, no political philosophy is perfect (though in theory some
are
close). I have no faith in any government nor in any one political
system.
I choose to view the government as another corporation - one that we all
hold stock in and that we are all clients of. Historically, the only
way to
get anything from the government is to expect it... and most political
systems now recognize that in order to be succesful they must give the
people what they expect (or convince them that they want something
else). I
believe in the individual's responsibility to society. Only when people
know how to govern their own life and have compassion for everything
around
them, will a government exist that I have faith in. So - wanna guess
what
branch of philosophy I did end up focussing on?
Anyway - this is a bit off-track - and there's no reason for this to be
anything but a simple discussion. The reality is that there are laws
governing what employers can and cannot do. If these laws were not
there,
companies would most likely take advantage of employees, employees would
become outraged, and the laws would be changed.
~Simon
Simon Horwith
CTO, Etrilogy Ltd.
Member of Team Macromedia
Macromedia Certified Instructor
Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer
Certified Flash MX Developer
CFDJList - List Administrator
http://www.how2cf.com/
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
