The following exchange is from Dialogue Group 3, Thread 24.

149. Marlyn
Wed, Feb 3, 1999 - 2:36 AM/EST
Chuck

You don't seem to notice that we have come a long way on this issue in society. You refer to PUBLIC issues. Please notice that it's my money too that you want spent...I don't want to pay for things I think are not moral. When you talk about compromise, it seems that the compromise of which you speak is compromise by me, not those with whom I disagree.

How, in any rational philosophy does one compromise one's principles, and retain any integrity? That is the question which is the very essence of my concerns.

You (meaning the universal you, not the specific, Marlyn) seem unwilling to accept anything less than my acquiesence to your goals, and on top of that, you want to send me the bill!

If tax dollars means subsidizing a lifestyle, I don't think so. I've said it before...I already have a full partner in my business. Federal and State governments confiscate over half of every dollar of profit I create...yet they do not have to put anything in if I have losses, and they didn't put up one dime in funding the business, and noone has ever come in to the office and said, I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you in return for all the money we take from you.

I really don't think I get very much for the money as it is, and now you want me to pay to subsidize something I think is morally wrong.

151. More about comprimises
Wed, Feb 3, 1999 - 11:59 AM/EST
Marlyn

Chuck --

My response is that there is and must be a place where one separates one's principles from personal application in one's life and the general welfare of society as a whole -- if, for no other reason, that imposition of one set of personal principles upon a disbelieving and unwilling other is not application of integrity, but oppresive imposition and moral/ethical rape. Sorry for the strong language here, but no other words do. To have the un-Christ-like Christian consideration of how to deal with one's fellow man when one disagrees with THAT man's principles written into law and enforced upon ALL the people is an unspeakable obscenity.

And, before you begin to complain about my use of "rape" and all the connotations thereof, allow me to tell you that my personal private history GIVES me the right to use the word "rape" with full and complete knowledge of what it is, what it is to experience it, and what it does to its victims afterwards -- and I think that's 'nuff said on that score!

You said, "You (meaning the universal you, not the specific, Marlyn) seem unwilling to accept anything less than my acquiesence to your goals, and on top of that, you want to send me the bill!"

With respect, you (universal you, not specific Chuck) seem to be oblivious to the fact that by being unwilling to give an inch on public policy matters, you are in essence obliging me and all others who disagree with you to CONTINUE to acquiesce to YOUR goals -- and send US the bill.

And yet you bemoan the inability to comprimise...

Chuck, this doesn't have to be an either/or issue. You personally do NOT pay anything -- it doesn't come anywhere near to coming out of YOUR pocket at all -- to remove the statutes that prevent committed couples, regardless of sexual orientation, from being able to enjoy insurance benefits their mates wish them to receive or to receive social security/pension benefits in equal portion that any other committed straight spouse would receive upon the death of *their* mate. Actually, to deny those benefits is to allow a corporation or the government reap rewards to which one is NOT entitled, IMO.

The point, to me, is that if society is going to put itself in a position where it PUBLICALLY writes policy on *P*R*I*V*A*T*E* matters, then that policy should and must be impartial and objective in all respects -- and NOT discriminate against any group of people it affects at all for any reason, up to and including religious ones.

Namaste!

Marlyn

153. Trying to find a door through which more of us can pass
Wed, Feb 3, 1999 - 5:13 PM/EST
Chuck

Can we back up and try starting from another place?

Question: Is there such a thing as right and wrong? If so, how do we decide who gets to make the call on what we define as right and wrong? And if in matters of conscience, some don't agree, do we applaud the protestors, as in the olden days of civil rights sit-ins, or do we persecute the protestors, as in the trial which (however repugnant you may find the defendants) has resulted in the RICO statutes being used to take away the first amendment rights of anti-abortion web-site sponsors?

I find myself arguing with the same people about opposite ends of the political and philisophical spectrum, and wonder whether a consistent philosophy is just MY foible.

154. Chuck & Marlyn
Wed, Feb 3, 1999 - 11:40 PM/EST
Mark

This is wonderful stuff. This is political science & public policy heaven. Passion with respect for the person with whom one disagrees will work in a democratic society with a functioning system of universal education, where policy proceeds from collections of ideas and not just collections of dollars. You both give me great hope.

156. Starting over
Thu, Feb 4, 1999 - 11:11 AM/EST
Marlyn

Chuck --

You said, "Can we back up and try starting from another place?"

If you think it would help, lets go for it. I'll let you lead with what you wrote after that:

"Question: Is there such a thing as right and wrong?"

Luv, between the two of us, this is probably one of the major underlying philosophical differences that spawns our resulting superficial politial and policy differences. Essentially, this goes to the heart of many of the issues we've tried to hash out between us, founded in our basic understanding of the "givens" of our world.

You're asking a Buddhist if she believes in absolutes. I don't know how much you've learned about my faith, but my answer is "no", I do not believe there is such a thing as an absolute right vs an absolute wrong. To me, all actions must be assessed with respect to the conditions and circumstances from which they arose.

The example I tend to use to illustrate what I mean in this case: murder is generally accepted as "wrong", neh? However, if a person had a 100% true sense of clairvoyance, and in 1938 had had the opportunity to murder Hitler (knowing the evil he was about to spread across the globe via the Holocaust), would murdering him to prevent him from killing 6 million plus have been "wrong"? See what I mean? Like Mark says, and I agree with his viewpoint: "The devil's in the details." In my opinion, staying focussed ONLY on the generalities makes it all too easy (and sometimes convenient) to FORGET or IGNORE the details.

To continue with your thoughts: "If so, how do we decide who gets to make the call on what we define as right and wrong?"

Well, because you now know that I *don't* believe that there is any absolutes in the case of right vs wrong, perhaps now you'll understand now why I rile so when ANYBODY attempts to usurp the authority to "make the call" for anybody else -- at least in the public policy arena? I honestly believe that each issue as evoked in each particular case should be evaluated individually -- that no set "this is/this isn't" be used to paint with a broad, unforgiving brush.

You said: "And if in matters of conscience, some don't agree, do we applaud the protestors, as in the olden days of civil rights sit-ins, or do we persecute the protestors, as in the trial which (however repugnant you may find the defendants) has resulted in the RICO statutes being used to take away the first amendment rights of anti-abortion web-site sponsors?"

I'm going to start a new thread on that one, despite our pending G3 demise. Perhaps this is another discussion we can move over to J2's Delphi site -- or bounce among the three of us in an impromptu listserv. I think this is an important issue -- both the Free Speech angle of the anti-abortion web-site, as well as where Free Speech ends and another's Right to Privacy begins... If you don't mind, that is...

Finally: "I find myself arguing with the same people about opposite ends of the political and philisophical spectrum, and wonder whether a consistent philosophy is just MY foible."

I think, my friend, that yours is not the only consistent philosophy. There is a consistency to relativism too, you know -- its just a little hard to demonstrate to one who believes in absolutes. Something about paradigm-specific perceptions never fails to get in the way...

Namaste!

Marlyn

157. Absolute Right and Absolute Wrong
Thu, Feb 4, 1999 - 11:34 AM/EST
shuar

Perhaps strangely to Chuck, I find myself, it seems midway between his position and that which (according to my interpretation after a skim reading) Marlyn espoused in her recent posting. I too don't believe in absolutes, but certain behaviors drive me to the point where I want to bring back the punishments of my puritan ancestors in New England, ie, public humiliation in the stocks and pillory in the public square.

However, for me the true sins have to do with dishonesty, corruption, theft (unless there are truly pressing circumstances such as one's children starving), violence enacted against otheres, and other human behaviors having to do with not possessing integrity in one's dealings with others. Those are the real sins which I believe constantly undermine community. One's sexual inclinations develop usually during childhood. Despite what some conservatives like to believe about choice of one's sexual leanings, the fact is that people develop either as straight, homosexual, or bisexual. You are your experience, and the data suggest that those who try to "go straight" usually stray back into their former activities.

I guess that in Chuck's scheme of things I would be called an immoralist on the sexuality issue, because I believe that morality has no place in the issue except in so far as one might treat dishonestly in one's relationships whichever type they might be, gay, straight, or bisexual.

158. I don't feel too good about our progress
Fri, Feb 5, 1999 - /EST
Chuck

You know, I find moral relativism a difficult concept. I believe context can make a difference, i.e., stealing food when starving...but that is not much of a guideline. How do we teach an alien with no prior knowledge or prejudices how to respond on this new planet...what are the tools, the benchmarks he can use to determine right and wrong. Assume he is a blank slate, and wants only a method of reasoning to assure he doesn't do wrong.

Please take a whack at this...because I think there must be some reality...and there must be some way of determining right and wrong that can be a useful, if not universal definition. Even if you think of situational ethics, something is telling you that what is normally wrong is right. How do (did) you know that it was right or wrong under the circumstance? Why was it wrong in "a vacuum"?