Is a wealthy government or a poor government more just?

[Avatar]

You might amend the statement to "Might makes the mighty think they are right." It doesn't make everyone agree upon a notion of "rightness."

That's a fair enough point, which goes, I think, to my comment about the differences between moral and practical values of "right".

However, I don't think it can be disputed that the "right" of the state to make laws and enforce them is predicated in their "might." Thier ability to enforce them, and to punish their "breaking."

--A

[Lord Mhoram]

Av,

However, I don't think it can be disputed that the "right" of the state to make laws and enforce them is predicated in their "might." Thier ability to enforce them, and to punish their "breaking."

True. But like you said, does that make it moral?

[Cail]

And "right" is a completely subjective term.....A total construct....As is "moral".

[Avatar]

Oh, it definitely doesn't make it moral. Not necessarily anyway. But then, what I think is moral might not be what you do. Now if only I had a bit of might...

--A

[Lord Mhoram]

Cail,

And "right" is a completely subjective term.....A total construct....As is "moral".

I could never agree with that. I think it's too hasty to say that our concepts of morality, decency, love, and justice are not grounded in "real" or universal truths based upon very real human impulses. I'm not a religious person, but you could even say I simply have faith in those concepts.

[Avatar]

I might not have faith in them, but I do think they're important. At the same time though, I think they're important because they (or some of them) match my ideals.

Universal truths, especially moral / philosophical ones, are damned slippery. As a subjectivist, I don't really believe in any. Which is not to say that some subjective "morals" are bad of course. They're good. I just don't think that they're universal.

--A

[Cail]

And "right" is a completely subjective term.....A total construct....As is "moral".

I could never agree with that. I think it's too hasty to say that our concepts of morality, decency, love, and justice are not grounded in "real" or universal truths based upon very real human impulses. I'm not a religious person, but you could even say I simply have faith in those concepts.

Although with my religiosity I'd love to agree with you, but I can't.

What rights are universal? What morality? Killing's wrong, except there are exceptions. Cannibalism's wrong, except when.... Your right to life isn't respected by nature.

I hate to be the world-weary cynic here, but there are no universal rights, truths, or moralities.

[Lord Mhoram]

Avatar, and also now by extension Cail,

I agree with you both to the extent that, say, "justice" does not mean the same to every culture on earth. But as I said, I think the human notions of justice are based upon some sort of striven-for ideals (to be very Platonic about the whole thing) which human society attempts to reach. I mentioned universal or near-universal human impulses. Empathy is one of those. Others can be found in the near-identical cross-planetary creation myths (see the work of Joseph Campbell). In this respect I think culture almost inhibits human contact, but the similarities between the practices and more importantly the principled goals of human society indicates to me some sort of universality.

[Cail]

See though, those ideals aren't universal.

[Lord Mhoram]

Cail,

Why not? What about, say, maximizing human happiness? Perfect example actually. Of course, "happiness" is a charged, culturally-conditioned, imperfect, often undefined term which frankly means different things to different people in different places. Yet its ideal is undoubtedly universally existent; it is just expressed in different culturally-conditioned ways. Also, see my previous edit.

[Cail]

I'd disagree. There are/have been several governments who quite clearly haven't given two craps about human happiness (even given the monstrous caveat you admit).

What makes you happy isn't what makes me happy, nor is it what necessarily drives either of us.

Look at the "redneck shop" thread. We can't even agree what freedom of speech is. There are no universals. Anything you can possibly claim as an absolute can be refuted by a single objection.

[Lord Mhoram]

Cail,

There are/have been several governments who quite clearly haven't given two craps about human happiness (even given the monstrous caveat you admit).

Every government serves to at the very least benefit itself - the quest for power is a quest for personal happiness or pleasure. More altruistic governments serve to benefit certain classes, certain people, etc. But they always serve somebody.

What makes you happy isn't what makes me happy, nor is it what necessarily drives either of us.

I think the burden of proof falls to you here. I say some notions of happiness or pleasure drives human action. If not that, then what?

There are no universals. Anything you can possibly claim as an absolute can be refuted by a single objection.

At the very least, I believe that human emotion crosses cultural, historical, and geographical boundaries in certain fundamental ways. Contrary to what you say, I cannot agree that everything is socially or culturally constructed. The very pervasiveness of certain principles says to me that even culturally-constructed notions are grounded in some sort of "human nature" which I think is a very real and tangible thing. Not something to be merely scoffed at.

You alluded to this earlier, Cail, but I must admit I am surprised to see you taking such a subjectivist stance, being an admittedly religious person. How do you reconcile what you must see as an amoral and shifting world on the one hand, and a faith in God on the other? A converse question could be asked of me; I don't see a belief in God as necessary for propping up human nature. Rather, I see it as a pure human accomplishment.

[Avatar]

If there are exceptions, doesn't that by definition mean it isn't universal?

I agree with Cail, the universe couldn't give a good damn whether you, (me), as individuals, live or die. Not even if we as a species live or die. The universe will keep ticking merrily along without us, entropy will increase, and I guess one day it'll hit that inevitable heat death. Regardless of you or I.

I think that the pervasiveness of certain principles are a testimony to their success or usefulness in the continuance of the species, or at least, the society, which is largely an integral part thereof lately.

Human nature is a real and tangible thing, but human nature includes everything from sacrificing yourself for your friends or family to the molestation of children and the torture and murder of innocents. It is a grand thing, a terrible thing, a tragi-comic thing.

Everything that a human can do or imagine is part of human nature, from the greatest to the basest.

Nothing stands outside ourselves and dictates a certain way of life or action. No, the direction comes only from within for good or ill.

Emotion may well cross boundaries. But not only the good emotions. Like I said, it's all human nature.

Good posts guys.

--A

[emotional leper]

See. This is what shotguns are for.

[Cail]

LM, there are certain ideas that cross geographic and cultural boundaries, but they're not universal.

Happiness may drive some people, but not all. But more importantly, we can't agree on what happiness is. To use Av's example, happiness to me is doing for my daughter. For others, it might mean doing my daughter. Which POV is valid, just, right, or moral? I know what the answer is for me, but does that make it so for you?

Same goes with my religion. My beliefs are right for me. I don't presume to tell others what they should or shouldn't believe. I may think that they're silly or wrong, but I can't in good conscience tell them that they can't have those beliefs.

[storm]

Excellent thread...I don't have much more to add than the opinion that universals don't apply when it comes to morality. I tend to hold to the Natural Rights doctrine of John Locke, we all have inalienable god given rights to live free (this could of course bring about another debate on what is truly freedom). Moral universalism or moral relativism is by nature biased to the opinions of those who can dictate what is moral. Religiosity has often played the part of defining the landscape of moral behavior. As societies evolved, people in power would often be overthrown because successions could be seen as nothing more than an accident of birth. If a religious institution by which all the people in an area ascribed to defined moral behavior or consecrated the ruling parties as willed by God, people would fall in line because of their fear of God's wrath. The world is more secular than it once was, laws may define conduct, but the world is a lot more about personal good that it is about common good...common good is essentially why "truths" were considered universal.

[Avatar]

...I tend to hold to the Natural Rights doctrine of John Locke, we all have inalienable god given rights to live free (this could of course bring about another debate on what is truly freedom).

Or of course on whether there is a god to grant those rights. So I believe we should be free, but I don't think the universe cares whether you are.

Good post. I agree with Cail's sig...there's only one right: That to do as you damn well please, and suffer the consequences.

--A

[emotional leper]

...I tend to hold to the Natural Rights doctrine of John Locke, we all have inalienable god given rights to live free (this could of course bring about another debate on what is truly freedom).

Or of course on whether there is a god to grant those rights. So I believe we should be free, but I don't think the universe cares whether you are.

Good post. I agree with Cail's sig...there's only one right: That to do as you damn well please, and suffer the consequences.

--A

Unfortunately, it seems more and more that people are unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions.

[Avatar]

Agreed. In this age of victimhood it's like its inconceivable that you personally could have been at fault. It must be because of somebody or something else. Everybody is innocent.

--A

[Cail]

These threads could all be merged......

By removing the concept of shame from our cultural lexicon, we've made it oh so easy to sidestep personal responsibility.