Hondo:
1. "Well, a long time ago I made me a rule. I let people do what they want to do."
The Shootist:
2. “I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted. I won't be laid a-hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.”
I had two rules for my son, too, when he was coming up. They were easier to remember.
1. No whining.
2. Grow stronger.
Maybe it's helpful if an ethical code is distilled.
19 comments:
Maybe it's helpful if an ethical code is distilled.
Lots of folks do seem to need bumper stickers more than thought. Those do seem excessively distilled, though.
Eric Hines
The bumper stickers, or the John Wayne quotes?
Jesus distilled the law down to two rules, as I recall. Having both the full thing and the in-the-moment distillation is probably useful. Which you need depends on what you're doing.
The bumper stickers.
Eric Hines
Jesus’ are probably better than mine. I meant this as descriptive rather than prescriptive; this is just how I do behave, not probably how I ought to. But that’s what confession is for.
Just noting another correlation of 2-rule distillation, not making qualitative judgments.
No. 1 is reasonably easy to implement, as it is one's own actions that need to be controlled..
No. 2 is a lot different- the vast majority of getting "messed with" comes not from an individual or small group, easy to identify and respond too, but from a miasma of bureaucratic petty tyrants all hiding one behind the other in a fortress of regulatory edicts- for which they will most definitely throw your ass in jail for , or kill you if you resist.
Whatever it costs is what it costs.
Whatever it costs is what it costs.
What if the cost is borne not just by you (me) but by others. For example, I have a close relative who works for a government contractor. Am I justified in resisting bureaucratic edicts if my resistance will cost him his job?
That question is immediately relevant to today's post on the EN, Elise. It is a question of honor versus justice.
In general I think it is reasonable to take other people into consideration; but also that a system that would punish others for things they didn't themselves do is unreasonable, unjust, and immoral. (As Aristotle said, ethical questions are voluntary; if someone else made the decision and took the action, it wasn't a voluntary act of your own that you ought to pay for.) At some point one has to resist such systems if they aren't to become permanent features of our reality; at some point it is doing good to your close relative to help them break out of such a system.
It is not bearing the cost, but the focus- who in the fog, bears the responsibility for oppression when it becomes systematic?
The two rules "Let people do what they want" and "Don't tolerate certain behavior from people" points up the libertarian's dilemma. If you believe in a duty to protect innocents it gets even harder to reconcile the two.
It's hard to find an innocent. They're thin on the ground these days.
That said, I usually resolve the tension between the principles by leaving others free right up until they are running up against me and mine. You can do what you want; but you can't hurt my wife or my son or my dog. You can do what you want; but the motorcycle with the pirate flag on the derby cover belongs to me. You can do what you want, but stay off my property after dark.
I would feel a duty to intervene to protect even a strange child threatened with maiming or killing. By extension I support laws to do the same, even though that means not letting people do what they want. I try to limit this principle, but I'm OK with laws that deter fraud, theft, and unjustified violence.
Every rule has a breaking point. Grim's included.
"The code is more what you'd call guidelines."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9ojK9Q_ARE
Really, however, these rules establish a tension between them that has to be negotiated practically. You've got to find the right place between them in each case. In that way, they're brackets for working out the virtues rather than laws that must be obeyed.
Tex, when you say 'I support laws' that also contains an ambiguity. It could mean that you support laws that allow responsible persons to step in and intervene in bad situations where they are willing to get involved personally, and contribute personal resources -- as indeed you just did yourself recently.
Or it could mean you support laws that establish agencies that act 'on society's behalf,' using other people's money 'to do good' on behalf of people we never even really see. That's not the same thing at all. I don't support giving agencies of the state the right to break up families they don't approve of, for reasons that I might not agree with (e.g. 'the father won't give his consent to have his sons castrated as part of the state-recommended "gender affirming" care').
I have no problem stepping up to support people in the first case, and it may be that there needs to be some legal accommodation for such things sometimes. I don't think I support state agencies using taxpayer money to do it, which is a source of more evil than it prevents. Where a responsible individual is willing to personally shoulder the responsibility, that's another thing entirely.
Having though about your reply, Grim, this seems to me another area where a tension must be negotiated practically, as you say below. How much harm would I be doing; e.g., is my relative the sole support of an ailing parent, spouse, child? How important is the issue I'm resisting; e.g., inappropriate books versus abortion at 9 months? How crucial is my voice; am I one of a chorus of thousands or one of the few? (I do understand about slippery slopes and preference cascades, and am aware that it's always tempting to justify the easier path.)
Post a Comment