At 08:16 PM 8/3/2008, Rev. Stewart Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You have a problem with organized religion.
What problem is that, Stewart? Please enlighten me. I happen to ADORE
both the free exercise and establishment clauses of the First Amendment.
Your right and my right to disagree with you.
What, specifically, are you disagreeing with? I don't understand this
sentence at all.
The problem arises when I try and force you to follow my opinion or live
by it. It is also a problem when you try and make me live by your opinion.
I agree, as a general proposition. I have no intention to "make [you]
live by [my] opinion." I haven't tried to make you live by my opinion.
All societies set their own morals/ethics by majority opinion.
No, they don't. Morals, as I said, are always, and exclusively, held
by individuals, regardless of what the majority thinks or wants. And
sometimes ethics are determined by external realities, and may be highly
contextual, again, having nothing to do with the will of the majority. In
other instances, what is acceptable ethically is approved of by only a
distinct minority, but it is permitted because of other factors. Like the
law, for example. The "majority opinion" in this country is that Jesus died
to redeem your sins, and it may be the "majority opinion" that everybody
act in accordance with that article of religious faith. But our laws
prohibit that "majority opinion" being translated into that kind of
behavior. Other times, what is desirable behavior by the majority is
horribly and inexcusably unethical: Just because an overwhelming majority
of Alabamians wanted Rosa Parks to sit in the back of the bus, that didn't
make it ethical to put her there. The civil rights struggle was basically
requiring majorities to deal with the idea that they DIDN'T decide what was
"moral" and what was "ethical." Or, in another view, that what they
understood to be a majority, was just the local picture, and the REAL
majority was the country seen or taken as a whole. And, there, in that
context, the local racist and segregationist behaviors that had, for
centuries, been understood as perfectly acceptable, were now not just
unethical, but criminal, to boot.
Our federal government is supposed to reflect that choice by the laws it
passes. This is not always the case and people may disagree with it.
I disagree with the "supposed to" part. They have a number of
democratic ideals, and a number of constitutional provisions, to answer to,
so, and THOSE take precedence over the opinion of the majority.
You can have your set of morals/ethics by which you operate by which is
OK. The problem will arise when you try and force your morals/ethics upon
someone who disagrees with you. I cannot force you to live by my
ethics/morals anymore than you can force me to live by yours.
You misunderstand, Stewart. Morals are strictly subjective, and
strictly individual, and can't be shared. Therefore, it isn't possible for
someone to force his morals on you. What he can do, however, is attempt the
unethical act (in a democracy, anyway) of getting the state to require you
to behave as he, personally, wants you to behave (as if you were practicing
HIS religion, for example). However, whatever your outward behavior, he
doesn't control, nor is it possible for him ever to control, the nature of
the relationship you have with yourself, which is where your morals are, if
they even exist.
And whatever ethics there are in the society are those to which you
have already, more or less, signed on to, anyway, so there's no need for me
to force you to do anything. We see ourselves as part of the same society,
the same ethos, because we share so many of the same ethical standards. You
behave ethically because you are an ethical person.
You ARE an ethical person, aren't you, Stewart?
As for your last comment it happens in all institutions.
I couldn't agree more. People who live in glass houses, though, is
what I was thinking.
I can only account for myself, not others just as I would expect you to
account for yourself and what you do.
You are entirely right about this. In this culture, in this ethos, we
understand ourselves to be ethical when we take responsibility for
ourselves. To the extent that we have a duty to behave ethically when we
deal with others in this culture, in this ethos, Stewart is responsible for
Stewart, and Bob is responsible for Bob. I don't need to mind your business
or run your life, and you don't need to control mine.
You nailed it, Rev.
Bob
Jaco Pastorius: "Bo be boo bop doo bay."
OK
End
*************************************************************************
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
*************************************************************************
