macros@deepthot.UUCP (R.) (03/28/88)
The following is a direct quotation from `Democratic Theory'
(essay: Problems of a Non-Market p55) by C.B. MacPherson.
Oxford University Press 1973 (reprint 1984)
"Men's very contentiousness might be attributed to intellectual error
or to scarcity: both condition were assumed to be removable. That men
if freed from scarcity and from intellectual error (i.e. the ideologies
inhereted from ages of scarcity) would live together harmoniously
enough, that their remaining contention would be only creative tension,
cannot be proved or disproved except by trial. But such a proposition
is basic to any demand for or justification of a democratic society.
The case for democratic GOVERNMENT (`one man, one vote') can indeed
be made sufficiently on the opposite assumption: in a thoroughly
contentious society everyone needs the vote as a protection. But the
case for a democratic SOCIETY fails without the assumption of potential
harmony. For what would be the use of trying to provide that everyone
should be able to make the most of himself, which is the idea of a
democratic society, if that were bound to lead to more destructive
contention?"
"It must therefore be a postulate of any fully democratic theory that
the rights or freedoms men need in order to be fully human are not
mutually destructive. To put this another way: it must be asserted
that the rights of any man which are morally justifiable on any
egalitarian principle are only those which allow all others to have
equal effective rights; and that THOSE ARE ENOUGH to allow any man to
be fully human...To translate this from terms of right into terms of
power: the power which a democratic theory requires to be maximized is
the ability of each to use and develop those of his capacities the
use and development of which does not prevent others using and developing
theirs. His HUMAN capacities are taken to be only those; and those -
the non-destructive ones - are taken to be enough to enable him to be
fully human."
Am I jumping to conclusions here or does this imply that it is an
unqualified democratic principle that aggression is to be exterpated
at all costs; to strip men of their CAPABILITY for aggression, their
exercise of any vestigial aggression. And hence, ANY display thereof
is to be treated with contempt and relegated to the domain of
immaturity and inhumanity.
If so, then what if aggression is an inherent human motivator which
energizes man's boldness, inquisitiveness, steadfastness, etc.; does
this not imply the inevitable road to self-contempt, self-loathing,
and self-destruction?
I have cross-posted this to sci.misc in hopes that some psychologist
will be able to shed some light on:
1) The inherentness of human aggression
2) The reliance of man's vitality as a seeker and doer,
upon aggression
Also, how can one be a creator without destroying? (Politically, and
socially, NOT theistically).
Raymond J. Tiggvu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Cliff Joslyn) (03/29/88)
In article <1125@deepthot.UUCP> macros@deepthot.UUCP (R.) writes: > >The following is a direct quotation from `Democratic Theory' >(essay: Problems of a Non-Market p55) by C.B. MacPherson. >Oxford University Press 1973 (reprint 1984) > >"It must therefore be a postulate of any fully democratic theory that > the rights or freedoms men need in order to be fully human are not > mutually destructive. To put this another way: it must be asserted > that the rights of any man which are morally justifiable on any > egalitarian principle are only those which allow all others to have > equal effective rights; and that THOSE ARE ENOUGH to allow any man to > be fully human... Isn't this a restatement of Kant's Categorical Imperative? That is (warning: paraphrase approaching), what is good is defined as that which everyone can do and there still be an everyone (thus killing people is bad, because if everyone killed each other, we would all be dead), and conversely what is bad is that which if everyone does it there can be no everyone. > His HUMAN capacities are taken to be only those; and those - > the non-destructive ones - are taken to be enough to enable him to be > fully human." > >Am I jumping to conclusions here or does this imply that it is an >unqualified democratic principle that aggression is to be exterpated >at all costs; to strip men of their CAPABILITY for aggression, their >exercise of any vestigial aggression. In making this last statement, the author is using "human" not in the sense of being of people, because clearly war is a human trait in that sense, but rather in the sense of rationality and morality as being the truly human charactersitics. Unless I can see some further justification for this use of the word, I'd be inclined to agree with you that he's trying to re-define human as being moral, and further that aggresion is immoral because of the Imperative. Further, it seems clear that many forms of aggresion are moral under the Imperative, in that they do not entail the death of all. In fact, some forms of aggresion are necessary to avoid the death of all. For example, as was noted in rec.food.veg the other day, living (as an animal (I'm not planning on becoming a veg anytime soon)) is eating, and eating is killing (I know this is an extreme example). I suspect you may be right that there are other examples of morally necessary aggression. And of course there are critiques of the Imperative (but I can't remember them!) O----------------------------------------------------------------------> | Cliff Joslyn, Professional Cybernetician | Systems Science Department, SUNY Binghamton, New York | vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu V All the world is biscuit shaped. . .
tonyb@olivej.olivetti.com (Tony Brich) (03/29/88)
in article <1125@deepthot.UUCP>, macros@deepthot.UUCP (R.) says: > Am I jumping to conclusions here or does this imply that it is an > unqualified democratic principle that aggression is to be exterpated > at all costs; to strip men of their CAPABILITY for aggression, their > exercise of any vestigial aggression. And hence, ANY display thereof > is to be treated with contempt and relegated to the domain of > immaturity and inhumanity. > > If so, then what if aggression is an inherent human motivator which > energizes man's boldness, inquisitiveness, steadfastness, etc.; does > this not imply the inevitable road to self-contempt, self-loathing, > and self-destruction? In Ernest Callenbach's "Ecotopia", aggression was understood as a real motivator, or at least as a real behavior deriving from powerful passions, and thus was honored in a series of ritual wargames played mostly by men (as we seem to be innately more aggressive, at least in Callenbach's view) and honored by the society with victory and victim celebrations, etc. The great thing about the ritualizing was that is was participatory, not spectator. I personally think that if people need to be aggressive, it is best that they get hurt, physically, in the acting out of the aggression, else we tend to learn a danger- ously incomplete lesson from aggressive behaviour: you don't bleed and possibly die from watching, but you very well might when you really play. And also, I think that it is important not to deny the aggressive tendencies if in fact they are real, and I think there is case for that belief. Tony Brich. > Also, how can one be a creator without destroying? (Politically, and > socially, NOT theistically). > > Raymond J. Tigg
laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) (03/30/88)
One man's meat is another man's poison. I have a friend who refuses to learn to play bridge. She thinks that there is something wrong with doing something in order to ``defeat'' your ``opponents''. I think that she thinks there is something wrong with the entire idea of competition as well. I hope that she doesn't get to do the defining of what constitutes ``destructive agresssion''. -- The universe is expanding, but I still can't find a parking space. Laura Creighton uunet!hoptoad!laura utzoo!hoptoad!laura sun!hoptoad!laura toad@toad.com