Greetings Craig, Marsha, David --
On 9/28 Marsha, challenging my morality of "rational self-interest", said: > There is the obvious problem [with the Golden Rule], the sadomasochist. In defense of "rational self-interest", Craig said: > The sadomasochist is not an exception to the Golden Rule. > They would have you physically harm them when they want you to, > so they should only physically harm you when you want them to. Thanks, Craig, but I think your conclusion is insupportable. I could be wrong, but I believe a sadomasochist will inflict harm when HE wants to, whether his victim (participant?) "wants" it or not. Marsha's point was that the value here is simply the pleasure of causing and/or receiving pain, which is a psycho-pathological abnormality. It is also irrational behavior by any standard. What Marsha, and now David, are asking me is: How can society expect human beings to behave rationally? [Marsha]: > By rational, do you mean 'whatever you think'? Because it seems to > me that humans are comprised of very different patterns of thought. [David M]: > We need some way to live together given these different values. > I want people to consider my values when dealing with me and > vice versa. I don't want them treating me according to their values > and telling me to put up with it because that is how they would > want to be treated. The golden rule fails to deal with our plural reality > and crushes individuality too. I am sure Stalin could have made good > use of this rule. Life is much more complicated than this rule can handle. I defined my morality to Marsha as contingent upon "a free society", which assumes a code of rational conduct established by that society. Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Saddam Hussein were dictators who committed genocide, not because they took pleasure in killing but because they exercised absolute control over their subjects, and found it convenient to be rid of certain people. Hussein at his trial argued the "rationality" of such atrocities by claiming the victims were enemies of the people. Given the opportunity, I suspect the other leaders would have made the same claim. But tyranny itself is immoral, in that it violates man's innate freedom, and subjects of tyranny are incapable of exercising free choice, unless they can overcome their fear and revolt against the tyrant. Implicit in my "rational self-interest" morality is that values ARE considered, but no one's values are imposed on anyone else. Since it is behavior, not proprietary values, that can offend or harm others, civilized nations have found it expedient to codify their social values as the rule of law. This serves a rational end: i.e., human survival under a collective morality that optimimizes individual freedom. With certain exceptions (which I'll refrain from citing because of their political implications) I would argue that this is essentially the moral system enjoyed by U.S. citizens. Thanks for your interest and comments. Essentially yours, Ham Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
