tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post113591440890919445..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: The Ten AmmendmentsAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1135994589580866012005-12-30T19:03:00.000-07:002005-12-30T19:03:00.000-07:00On another note, it is perfectly permissable to be...On another note, it is perfectly permissable to be partisan. It is completely moral to buy nicer food than is necessary for one's children even if people are starving elsewhere. That comes from the obligations one assumes with parenthood.<BR/><BR/>Likewise, a political leader owes it to his people to be partisan. If he can save the lives of his people at the expense of others, he owes it to them to do it.<BR/><BR/>The articles in the Bill of Rights are founded on moral principles but they hold different status as parts of the Constitution. As laws, they bind our leaders to certain standards; they are our protection from them. They do not extend this protection to others outside our borders. (I don't even think it's a citizenship thing; I believe you could spy on Americans abroad with impunity.) <BR/><BR/>So a leader must ask himself two questions. The first is "What is best for my people?" The second is "Is this action Constitutionally permissible?" If the answer is yes, he must take that action.<BR/><BR/>Bottom line: Everyone is objectively equal, but certain roles demand that an actor be subjective in certain cases.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1135980387004024052005-12-30T15:06:00.000-07:002005-12-30T15:06:00.000-07:00You've brought up something that's always bothered...You've brought up something that's always bothered me. In TV dramas some tough cop or district attorney tells the bad guy that since he's not a citizen the Bill of Rights does not apply to him. You've said it more eloquently than I have, but I wondered if the Bill of Rights is good enough for America why shouldn't it apply to the citizens of the world?<BR/><BR/>I can't speak to what the framers intended but I'd like to think they created the Bill of Rights with the desire to provide a compass for politcal value(s).<BR/><BR/>I can't state explicitely that the Bill of Rights have a true moral component. Neither do I believe that they are contrived. In today's society however they certainly are treated in a more cavalier manner.<BR/><BR/>The Humanist in me doesn't disagree with your underlying principle: Everyone on the planet is human and is deserving of the same basic respect and dignity.Borthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00957664587803275360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1135973464082117502005-12-30T13:11:00.000-07:002005-12-30T13:11:00.000-07:00>>So, I ask the reader to decide. Is the Bill of R...>>So, I ask the reader to decide. Is the Bill of Rights a political contrivance of no particular significance or value?<<<BR/><BR/>Yes. The only value they have is their value as rules, that secure reasonably good and maximally enjoyable "game of life" for a largest number of people. That, for me, is good enough value. There is no need to invent additional objective values for them.<BR/><BR/>Grahor. (not American)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1135951320647472172005-12-30T07:02:00.000-07:002005-12-30T07:02:00.000-07:00It is true that the Framers recognized rights to b...It is true that the Framers recognized rights to be universal (I derive this from "endowed by their Creator" in the Declaration). But this seems to be an odd position for the pragmatist to take. You have stated before that society defines morality implicitly, ie, by some 'greater good.' This means that inalienable rights cannot exist, since society can always demand they be waived.<BR/><BR/>Surely you would agree that it is better that we not be killed by terrorists than for them to be killed. If so, you should also agree that anything that works to that end is permissible, so long as it actually works. So what if some warrantless searches take place? It's for the greater good.<BR/><BR/>I'm curious if you see it this way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com