powder Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 Larken Rose has the "government on trial" project going where he is going to send these 5 questions to 200 political philosophy profs. What do you think will be the responses? I can imagine some of the things that most people will say. 1) Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate to someone else the moral right to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right to do themselves?2) Do those who wield political power (presidents, legislators, etc.) have the moral right to do things which most people do not have the moral right to do? If so, from whom and how did they acquire such a right?3) Is there any process (e.g., constitutions, elections, legislation) by which human beings can transform an immoral act into a moral act (without changing the act itself)?4) When law-makers and law-enforcers use coercion and force in the name of law and government, do they bear the same responsibility for their actions that anyone else would who did the same thing on his own?5) When there is a conflict between an individual's own moral conscience, and the commands of a political authority, is the individual morally obligated to do what he personally views as wrong in order to "obey the law"?
labmath2 Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 Here are your answers. Contemplate them before responding. 1. No, You can not delegate to someone else something which you do not have a moral right to do. 2. No, those who wield political power do not have the moral right to do things which most people do not have a moral right to do. 3. No, there is not process by which human beings can transform an immoral act into a moral act without changing the act itself. 4. Yes, lawmakers and enforcers bear the same responsibility for their actions, when they use coercion and force, that anyone else would who did the same thing on their own. 5. When there is a conflict between an individuals's own moral conscience, and the commands of a political authority, then the individual must choose which of his obligations is superior. His contract by birth and citizenship to a society or his obligation to himself in violation of that contract.
powder Posted June 25, 2015 Author Posted June 25, 2015 5. When there is a conflict between an individuals's own moral conscience, and the commands of a political authority, then the individual must choose which of his obligations is superior. His contract by birth and citizenship to a society or his obligation to himself in violation of that contract. what contract? you must have a different definition of what a contract is.
thebeardslastcall Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 5. When there is a conflict between an individuals's own moral conscience, and the commands of a political authority, then the individual must choose which of his obligations is superior. His contract by birth and citizenship to a society or his obligation to himself in violation of that contract. Given that some will give answers like this one, perhaps they need to be asked to define "contract" as well and ask if it's okay for me to enslave or sign a contract for another person. Can I sell my son into slavery? Perhaps worded as something like "Can one person sign a contract obligating another person not signing the contract to service, labor, or debt?" 1
labmath2 Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 You have to realize many of us, including you, grew up in a community where there were already laws, property owners, and cultural practices before we were born. These customs are not arbitrary, they are the result of a system put in place by a group of people at some point defining its members and each member's obligation. So, what is the contract? Citizenship and the constitution outlines the process. The outcome is unfortunately what we end up with. If you disagree, there are ways in which to modify the process already outlined in the process itself. The alternative, overthrow the current system, then replace it with your own (revolutionary war).
powder Posted June 26, 2015 Author Posted June 26, 2015 You have to realize many of us, including you, grew up in a community where there were already laws, property owners, and cultural practices before we were born. These customs are not arbitrary, they are the result of a system put in place by a group of people at some point defining its members and each member's obligation. So, what is the contract? Citizenship and the constitution outlines the process. The outcome is unfortunately what we end up with. If you disagree, there are ways in which to modify the process already outlined in the process itself. The alternative, overthrow the current system, then replace it with your own (revolutionary war). Not saying people don't imagine the illusion of citizenship and social contract exist, but it doesn't, and its immoral. that is what the question is about. Just because something is culturally accepted, institutionalized, and historically persistent, like slavery, does that it is rational or ethical.
labmath2 Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 I imagine no one here is arguing that newborns be exempt from whatever sysyem of law or conflict resolution is in place. If that is the case, then we are simply debating the points. As i stated eatlier, the system can be modified. When people finally realized slavery was immoral, they were able to change the system to reflect this. If however, your argument is that newborns be exempt, then i am open to suggestion of how that will work.
Recommended Posts