it is obvious that the secondary definition of stewardship was the one most relevant to our discussion:
No. The one most relevent to our discussion is the one that denotes control. My position has always been the RIGHT to freedom from the CONTROL or STEWARDSHIP of others. Of course, I don't mean freedom from the rules that society enacts to respect my freedom from others.
especially : the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one's care <stewardship of our natural resources>
I very much respect the environment, probably far more than most people. But I have no idea who you are talking about as having "entrusted" it to you? Perhaps you would care to share? As I don't believe I have any claim to information or anything else from you.
Whether brees mislead or not, I cannot say
Well, I can--and I did.
Guiding behaviour is just another, gentler, way of saying one tries to control it. Since I already said that human beings deserve respect, and that "dominion" was too strong a term for even a relationship of guardianship, I do not know what horse you are flogging.
If you felt flogging--perhaps I was flogging you. Clearly, I was making a distinction between the harsher overtones of your "seek" ing to "control", and the gentler overtones of guiding the behaviour of a minor in your care. Apparently you picked up on it, so we are perhaps getting somewhere.
I deny your assertion that we have no claims upon one another. I guess we are at an impasse.
No. Your denial doesn't change the fact that you are incapable of imposing a moral claim upon me (and I am not talking about the rules of social behaviour that I have freely agreed to, nor of your ability to shoot me, so that is not a way out for you).
If one's moral obligation is to one's own nature, and one's nature is to be a busybody, than since there is no objective moral order, you have no claim to be left alone. Since there is no inherent moral obligation to let you follow your bliss, if I want to make what you do my business, well, tough. You are, in fact, assuming a claim upon me, a right to be left alone. It must be grounded in some moral order, or it is bogus and cannot be usefully asserted.
Your arguments are deteriorating. I have a RIGHT to be left alone. THAT does not mean that a busybody will respect it. I don't care where you derive your moral philosophy from, RIGHTS do not come with warranties or guarantees.
As far as where I derive my moral philosophy from, I don't think it is relevent to this. As a courtesy to you I will tell you that it begins with the nature of people as being separate and free to think, and of these being requirements for all moral concepts such as responsibility, accountability, etc. I will leave it at that. You're welcome to keep the origin of your moral beliefs private if you wish.
We are "expected" to behave in various ways by society, and the moral teachings inculcated in us from infancy. We may meet those expectations, rebel against them, or critically refine them, but they are always the starting point
You would hardly expect anyone to argue against such common knowledge.
we do not, as individuals, make up values in a vacuum, but in reaction to the society in which we were brought up
Who we become is often more than a reaction: It may be a reasoned response to information.
In order to internalize and own values, one must have thoughts--true.
Your autonomy is never absolute.
To an imperfect mind which is less than the whole, there can be no recogition of absolute, so it is irrelevent. I believe that my RIGHT to autonomy is as absolute as my reason can justify it. Why wouldn't it be. If there was anything in the world that you felt you could morally take from me by force, then I would question your basis for morality--whatever it may be.
By the way, I did not anywhere claim to be your steward, nor that you were mine
I claimed that you weren't--in response to something you said. I don't need to look it up. It is not important. I have a right to assert my own facts.
Nice talking to you. I'm going out now for the day. |
