flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (11/05/83)
Someone took the bait! I just knew it -- old rhetoric dies hard ... Laura Creighton's comments are indented once, previous statements by me are indented twice. [I am not quoting to nitpick, I honestly reply to people this way.] Look, what I am saying is that it is quite possible to resist someone else' attempt to impose beliefs on me without my going about imposing my beliefs on them. And what I am saying is, that is NOT possible. Again, if other people believe that it is OK to impose beliefs, that is their belief. If you use force to prevent them from acting on that belief, you are imposing you contrary belief on them. You are forcing them to abide by *your* belief that imposing beliefs is wrong. You seem to have bought [the pacifist argument] hook line and sinker. No way -- I am not a pacifist. You are so mesmerized by the rhetoric about "imposing beliefs," you can't see that I am denying that imposing beliefs is inherently wrong. I am NOT saying you should never resist with force; I am saying that when you do, you are imposing your beliefs. My point is that if you *really* want to avoid imposing your beliefs, you have to be a pacifist. From that I conclude, since I don't like pacifism, that you should sometimes impose beliefs. Look, if you have a belief X then it has the potential for causing action Y. if I resist the action Y, I may make you miserable, and I am preventing you from attaining the state where action Y has occurred, but in no way need I effect your belief X. This cuts both ways. Suppose my belief X is "premarital sex is great." If Jerry Falwell prevevnts my action Y (premarital sex), isn't that a case of imposing beliefs? Would you excuse Falwell's action if he argued that he was not imposing beliefs, if Falwell pointed to the distinction between beliefs and "actions arriving out of beliefs"? Suppose Falwell says to us, I don't care if you have the belief ... , its just when you get around to putting that belief into an action that I get upset. Would that convince you that he wasn't imposing beliefs, since it's only the action (premarital sex) that he doesn't like? I think not. Yet the above quotation is taken verbatim from you, except that I omitted words that would ruin the contextual fit. What I am objecting to is the notion that "an action that arises out of a belief is only a way of expressing that belief". Then your objection is unsound. ------------------------ Next issue: teaching morals. I think I can anwer the next two questions together. Teaching morality in school is nothing to be ashamed of either, as long as the right guidelines are taught. And who is to say what is the "right guidelines"? With political philosophy as with morals, we just have to fight (with legislation, not fists) to ensure that the right ones are taught and the wrong ones aren't. Same problem. Who picks the right ones? I will! (How does that grab you?) Actually, other viewpoints will have more say than mine will, but as long as the compromise package isn't too far off, I'm game. I don't think that moral guidelines should be taught specifically concerning ... certain ... extremely controversial things, either. Well, now you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. ... How would you avoid teaching such issues if they keep coming up. The reason not to teach certain controversial moral guidelines is that it would create too much hostility. People would overreact. It's not worth the trouble. Teachers should explain that the issue is controversial, and be honest about it and tell them the school doesn't teach a position on the issue for fear of the backlash. And there's another reason to avoid those issues: the goal is to teach basic principles, and use applications to specific cases only for illustration. In illustrative cases the facts should be clear (unlike abortion, which heavily involves scientific and other non-ethical controversies as well as ethical ones). On the other hand, some controversial moral principles are important enough, and the backlash manageable enough, to be worth it. Racial equality, for instance (yes, it IS still controversial in some places). You mentioned Canadian history; I think I'd like to bring up some U.S. history. Six generations ago, the northern part of my country decided to impose its beliefs -- its morality -- on the South. Should that history be taught in a morally neutral manner? Should teachers say "the abolitionists believed that blacks are people not property, but it's up to you what you want to believe"? H*** NO! The North's moral viewpoint was BETTER than the South's, and the North was right to impose its morality, and it should be taught that way. To my mind, anyone that tries to teach 'the right guidelines' is in the same boat... Ah, but there's a totally crucial difference. Some guidelines are RIGHT, and others are WRONG ... And if that doesn't irritate you sufficiently, let me save you the trouble of asking the standard question: "If you have the right to impose your beliefs, why doesn't [some viewpoint I find particularly obnoxious] have the right to impose theirs on you?" Because: I'm RIGHT, and they're WRONG! SUPERNOVA FLAMES! I'll be engulfed in flames, I'll be reading disks full of hate mail, and ... and ... AND: LOVING IT! --Paul Torek, U of MD, College Park ..umcp-cs!flink