Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: The nature of alternative history

Expand Messages
  • lord_of_change2001
    Decreasing freedom within a society is not necessarily immoral if the scoiet in question is likely to collapse without such a curtailment of freedom , leading
    Message 1 of 147 , Aug 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Decreasing freedom within a society is not necessarily immoral if the
      scoiet in question is likely to collapse without such a curtailment
      of freedom , leading to anarchy and a generally worse standard of
      life and array of freedoms for most memebers of that society .

      I would classify murder as immoral . But what is murder ? The
      unjustified and deliberate taking of a human life ! Again what is and
      what isn't justified is dependant on human judgement and will often
      be seen differently by differnet groups within society and by
      differnt societies .

      Aggressive war ? Is their any other kind . By that I take it you mean
      a " war to conquor as oppossed to defend " . In actuality most wars
      contain elements both to defend one or more of the nations involved
      and to subjagate others .

      Genocide , the deliberate attempt to destroy a society and its
      peoples . Historically , I think you'll find that most nations are
      founded on the bones of the peoples who came before the current
      inhabatants .

      Illegal seizure of a state . HMmmm ??! Can't agree with that one .
      And it seems to go against you're own principles that increasing
      freedom is always good . Was the Snakes head plot to kill Hitler and
      replace him with a more moderate regime immoral ? Or any of the
      countless plots to depose Stalin and replace him with a more
      reasonable leader ?
      What about states in which the populace freely elects a government
      which promises to abolish democracy and bring in a fundementalish
      Islamic state which will vastly curtail all freedoms , but the
      military steps in and seizes power to prevent the abolish of the
      system , such as happened in Algeria a few years ago ?

      Theft can be morally justified under certain circumstances .
      I would argue that stealing to feed your family from someone who has
      a surplus of food is justified . It violates the laws of society
      yes , but the overall harm done would be less from performing the
      action than if you hadn't done it and your family had starved to
      death . By doing that you would be efectively ignoring your
      obligation to them , which could hardly be described as in any way
      moral !
      Under UK law it is possible to mitigate a criminal act by proving
      that had you not performed it , the consequence would have been an
      even more serious criminal act or an even greater harm
      (necessity ) . I would argue that the same morality could easily be
      applied to theft .

      Again suppression of free speech and human rights can be justified
      under some circumstances if it prevents societal collapse or if the
      poulation is determined to use those rights in a self destructive way
      to destroy the very rights they are exercising (as in the ALgerian
      example quoted earlier ) .

      Each freedom in the heirarchy of freedoms is necessarily based on the
      simpler rights and freedoms below it . Hence the right to free speech
      or to democratic election , are meaningless to someone who has
      nothing to eat and no roof over their head .
      The fundemental obligation of any society is to provide stability and
      continuity for the mutual advange of the majority . Without that
      there is no reason for any society to exist .

      Again your arguements effectively depend on everybody having the same
      point of view as you .
      As GBS puts it " He is a barbarian . He believes that the customs of
      his tribe are are the laws of nature ." :)

      I would say that there are no good or bad men ,only harmful of
      unharmful actions . Over-simplifying and pidgeonholing people who are
      responsible for terrible acts does no-one any favours .
      " They're mad , or they're bad " is simply a cop-out , and an attempt
      to distance them from ourselves . The sad truth as the Millgram
      experiments showed , is that the Nazi's were essentially no different
      to the average American or the average Britain , and it is only by a
      quirk of historicla fate that the USA or UK did not end up travelling
      along the same dark path as they did .


      LoC

      > Decreasing freedom in a society is immoral.
      > Murder is immoral.
      > Aggressive war is immoral.
      > Genocide is immoral.
      > Illegal seizure of control over a state is immoral.
      > Theft is immoral.
      > Suppression of free speech and other human rights is immoral.
      >
      > Now, my list of Nazi crimes is certainly brief, but we can continue.
      >
      > If you fail to grasop why these actions are immoral, than I am more
      > than glad to hand-hold you though the reasoning to understand. True
      > morality is of such a character that any reasonable person should
      be
      > able to come to aggreement on it...
      >
      > You might call it a categorical imperative. If you catch my Kant...
      >
      > The fact that no one is perfect morally is not an argument against
      > trying to be as moral as possible, promoting an ethical society,
      and
      > censuring or acting against those who are immoral. The perfect must
      > not be the enemy of the good.
      >
      > All that need happen for evil to prevail is for good men to do
      > nothing. By your relatavist ideolology, there are no good and bad
      > men.
      >
      > Clearly not a useful dogma for addressing Nazi's, who were very bad
      > indeed.
      >
    • Thomas Roche
      No you won t. I said I wanted this thread dead *immediately*, and I meant what I said. Anyone who posts on it again will be summarily dismissed from the
      Message 147 of 147 , Aug 5, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        No you won't. I said I wanted this thread dead
        *immediately*, and I meant what I said. Anyone who
        posts on it again will be summarily dismissed from the
        list, joining Mr Ghost.

        --- John Faerseth <edelgris@...> wrote:
        > I will post the necessary statistics a soon as I et
        > home, in about fie hours.
        >
        > -Jf.
        > --- tom_paines_ghost <tom_paines_ghost@...>
        > wrote:
        > > LOC< ccan you give a source supporting your claim
        > > that interracial
        > > mixing is uncommon in the United States? Certainly
        > > all African
        > > Americans have extensive Euro DNA, the heritage of
        > > centuries of rape
        > > and oppression.
        > >
        > > Evidence, please?
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In alternate-history@y...,
        > "lord_of_change2001"
        > > <lord_of_change2001@y...> wrote:
        > > > Well technically I suppose so ! But then 70-80 %
        > > of "White"
        > > americans
        > > > have 1 or more " black" ancestor ! Racial mixing
        > > in the US
        > > > is not particularly pronounced , and the vast
        > > majority
        > > of "whites"
        > > > or "blacks" in the US are predominantly of
        > > European or African
        > > > descent respectively . Situation is far less
        > > pronounced WRT Native
        > > > american descendants .
        > > >
        > > > LoC
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > --- In alternate-history@y..., John Faerseth
        > > <edelgris@y...> wrote:
        > > > > I thought African-Americans were actually of
        > > mixed
        > > > > African, European and American Indian descent?
        > > > >
        > > > > --- lord_of_change2001
        > >
        > >
        >
        >
        > __________________________________________________
        > Do You Yahoo!?
        > Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
        > http://health.yahoo.com
        >


        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
        http://health.yahoo.com
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.