Why is chivalry good for anyone?

Post Reply New Topic

"I get what you're saying about your constitution letting the states decide. However, I think some issues are human issues and are open to discussion. It's not so much about telling a state what to do, as it trying to work out the morality of things. For example, if a state decided to legalize public flogging, I would feel that that was wrong. And I am allowed to say so. Morality doesn't depend on where you live - it is universal."

Ann, I'm glad you realize that your position is universalist.

There are actually two basic ways morality can be viewed. Let's take the liberal view first, which comes from Immanuel Kant, the great German philosopher: Kant contended that the proper criterion to determine whether an action is moral is to ask ourselves if the entire world did this action, what would the results be? Would the world be a better place or a worse place?

While it is usually left unsaid, this criterion, called the categorical imperative, informs most liberal thinking on morality to this day. The problem with this view is that it is universalist. It not only provides "moral" justification for colonialism, imperialism, and all kinds of other nasty predatory behaviors, but has a way of making its adherents unhappy since the entire world isn't going to be moral by anybody's standards.

Traditional Western, non-liberal morality--my morality--is the Golden Rule. The problem with this approach is that others aren't necessarily going to want what I want, but the problems resulting from this moral approach are at least localized. Instead of believing we have some kind of right to inflict our views on the entire world, we merely stay away from those who don't play fairly.

Regarding abortion, women have a right to do what they want with their bodies - and before the baby can live outside the mother, it is part of her body and under her control.
I assume you disagree with this. But it brings me to a question I have often pondered; why so much concern over a life that hasn't fully come into being yet and so much disregard for the life of someone who steals $150. (I know I'm mixing threads here.)

As far as abortion goes, down here we think it is wrong because, unlike capital punishment for criminals, aborted life is innocent of any wrongdoing. Preying on innocent people should not be tolerated, as I'm sure you ascertained not only from my posts on that $150 theft, but from likeminded posters. For example--heaven forbid and all--but if I saw you being attacked, I wouldn't think twice about killing those hurting you. I have no sympathy for those who would prey on others, but great sympathy for those who have done no wrong.

II can highly recommend any of the following videos by Jonathan Haidt, a moral psychologist who studies political and religious conflict, and who is actually a liberal himself. I'm guessing you will find them not only interesting, but enlightening as well. I know I did:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... than+haidt

Texas "hell' would smell like Alamo beer and BBQ,not vodka.Or maybe Corona.Never met a Texan that drank vodka,maybe the city folk do.

"Also, the reason I attacked you is the fact that you mentioned "diversity liberal" in a disparaging way. I just find it incredibly annoying how the word "liberal" has become such a slur in the US, and how the label gets thrown at anyone who isn't a conservative Republican or Ron Paul type libertarian"

"Diversity liberal" merely describes current liberal thinking. I didn't intend it in a disparaging way, but rather as an acknowledgement of an existing reality.

As far as liberalism being a slur, it's because of the abominable, predatory, self-righteous, insulting behavior on display on this thread, which is part and parcel of liberalism. When you begin to treat us like human beings with the same rights you have, and deserving of the same courtesy and respect you demand, things just might change.

My only sympathy is for intelligent, respectful liberals like Ann. We can disagree, but still be respectful of each other. I'm not sure why it is too much to ask the same of you.

As far as Ron Paul libertarianism goes, it is the essence of liberalism, and something I reject categorically.

"Kant is way over my head. My step-father is a retired philosophy professor - he specialized in Kant and Hume. This discussion reminds me of my teens. My Mom and he would discuss these things all the time. And when I went to university I studied philosophy, but soon switched to Classics."

Ann, Kant is over everybody's heads:) While I strenuously disagree with Kant, I do admire the incredible nuance and depth of his thought.

What is your degree in?

"True, but it this doesn't mean that the standards don't exist. It's like Plato with the forms. Nothing will meet the standards of the form, but they still exist conceptually."

I understand your position but will respectfully have to disagree. Plato's ideal of the Good and Perfection have never been realized.

As a philosophy major myself, I have studied one of the godfathers of liberalism, John Stuart Mill. Mill, as you may recall, is most famous for the liberal dictum from "On Liberty" that we should be able to do anything we want, including harm to ourselves, provided we don't directly injure an innocent party.

This part is well-known, and much lauded. What is less widely known is that Mill didn't really believe this. He thought that eventually a consensus on the really important moral issues would be realized, and there would be no more need for liberty, as evidenced by Volume Six of his "Logic".

One problem is that what is right and wrong depends on the society. The Islamists have the same universalist pretensions as liberals. Would you want to be subject to their views wherein you could only be seen in public in a burkha? Or having certain intimate parts of your anatomy circumcised? Or have to get permission from your husband or father to do almost anything? According to Islamist Muslims (though not all Muslims), they are right, and their values should rule the world. Of course not, as all of these are anathema to your liberal sensibilities. And I would sympathize with you resisting such incursions upon your personal autonomy.

One group I greatly admire in this respect is the Chinese. Historically, they haven't tried to force their worldview on others because their worldview is specific rather than universalistic.

All too often thinking we have all the answers is an excuse for forcing our will upon others while feeling good about it.

"I'm not sure that innocence should be the criteria that justifies killing someone. It is too vague. Is anyone truly innocent? Now, obviously a baby in it's mother's womb hasn't crossed into the world of human failings. But I don't think this matters. While it is dependent on it's mother, it is part of her body and it is up to her to decide it's fate."

I would say unborn babies are innocent, even if no one else is.

As far as it being the mother's body, that is certainly true. But, according to Mill's own dictum, the mother's rights to swing her proverbial fist end at the tip of her baby's nose. I disagree that mothers have a right to kill their children, born or unborn.

As far as it not mattering to you, it does matter to conservatives. We are talking about different value systems. While I don't agree with the liberal dictum that all cultures are equal, I do think that all cultures should be allowed to exist, whether they meet my personal standards or not.

"While I appreciate your sentiment, I would not want you to kill my attackers unless my life was in danger. In fact, I would be quite upset about it."

I agree. What's more, Texas law recognizes as much, not to mention traditional morality. We are morally entitled to use the minimum amount of force necessary to stop crimes against persons or property.

Ann, while I do have a minor in philosophy, my actual degree is also very generalized; I studied everything from quantum mechanics to Renaissance poetry. I did this on purpose though, since I thought a rounded approach would serve me well as a librarian. And it has.

"There will probably never be consensus, but the important thing is that the doors of communication remain open."

Amen?

"I think right and wrong exist regardless of society. That is, just because a society says something is right, that doesn't make it so. There are independent standards. For example, female circumcision (or more accurately, castration) is wrong no matter what the society says. And likewise, killing someone over a theft of money is also wrong."

Ann, let me put it this way: As a librarian I see lots and lots of books that need to be banned; they are pure trash. But at the same time, I am thoroughly against banning any books on the grounds that nobody is fit to make such determinations. By the same token, nobody is fit to force their values on others.

The great liberal poet and thinker, T.S. Elliot, expressed a similar sentiment about slavery: Some men are fit only to be slaves, but no man is fit to be a master. By the same token, no group is fit to force their morality on another group.

Nietzsche noted the same thing. He thought that saints were part of the "ubermensch" crowd because they were able to overcome themselves. The superior human being is one who lives his own life instead of trying to live others' lives for them. Trying to live others' lives is a sign of weakness and bad morality, and I think he's right.

Ann, this may be one of those cases where the most we can hope for is clarity rather than agreement.

"I just don't think innocence is a practical way to decide life or death matters. That is, guilt does not amount to a forfeit of the right to life"

That depends on what the crime is. Let me give you an example. Modern liberalism abhors the death penalty. Let me give you a good argument against this:

Imagine a violent murdered is sentenced to life in prison. Once he goes to prison, he then starts murdering other prisoners. What is to be done with somebody like this? Do we take his life, or put our values ahead of other prisoners' rights to live?

I think our disagreement is that I'm guessing you don't think there is any crime that would merit the death penalty while I do.