Aswad
Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kittinSol Whilst it's very possible for an individual to remain free within themselves even after they have been enslaved, there is no denying that their physical freedom has been taken away from them. Captivity is nothing unusual. The law employs it extensively. That said, most people will surrender themselves and thus go from captivity to enslavement. quote:
I see that you are arguing from the point of view of spirituality. Not really. I'm arguing from philosophy, psychology, aesthetics and morality. quote:
I am arguing from a perspective of law and justice. If you give me a definition of justice, I can constrain my participation to that definition. There have been many over the years. Genocide for an individual insult has been justice in some cultures. Equal violence has been justice in some cultures. Some cultures would see it as justice for a man who has killed his neighbour's son to have his own son executed. Some cultures see justice as ostracizing people who violate social norms. Vengeance seems to be the most common definition of justice at a personal level. Retribution seems to be the most common one at a societal level, sometimes coupled with restitution of some sort (usually tied to vengeance). We would see many of these as unjust today. Modern definitions of justice will be seen as unjust in the future. Without any definition of justice, it is pretty much an empty word, in that it can mean anything you want it to. I do not argue from the perspective of law, as laws are mutable and can be basically anything. The laws in Iran probably don't seem very desireable to you. Similarly, I am not aware of any country whose laws I find conscienable, admirable or tolerable. From the perspective of law, there are places where ... ahem ... young girls can legally work in brothels, or even be sold to one. That doesn't make it inherently right. From the perspective of law, there was a time (not long ago) when you couldn't wash a restaurant kitchen in Chicago (IIRC) without having to choose which law to break. And international law allows US atrocities to go by with no issue. It also disallows human rights to be exercised in a manner that is contrary to the goals and opinions of the UN. Hardly a standard I'd care to adhere to. Arguing from a moral perspective works for me. The question being: which morals, how strictly applied, and with how much integrity? Don't get me wrong, I'd as soon run over these guys as talk to them, and I don't dispute how this shit works. Health, al-Aswad.
_____________________________
"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind. From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way. We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.
|