If Solon doesn't buy into our view of what society should be like and make a commitment to the accompanying set of moral rules, you have no claim on him
Are my views different then than yours and Neo's? Which ones? It is unfortunate that apple pie arguing techniques have confused what is perhaps the ultimate in simplicity.
This was about individual claims on individuals. Society was never in my argument. How could it be? Society is a conceptual construct representing a consensus (or NOT) of individuals.
I said from square one that I recognize the lawful agreements under which I have agreed to participate in society. I have no idea what the two of you mean by a view of what society "should be like". But I do know that there are millions of people in society, and that two people certainly don't set the benchmark. There are probably only trivial differences in how the three of us think society "should be like", but who knows? My argument was a philosophical rights issue--not a committee one.
"...and make a commitment to the accompanying set of moral rules"
My commitment to freedom is not in any way incompatible with committing to a set of moral rules. That is entirely unfair. I didn't say what moral rules I believe in. I said that I believed a person can choose their values for themself--BY RIGHT. I said that other individuals had no CLAIM on me to demand my values or my thoughts or my behaviour, or to impose their expectations. It just so happens that SOCIETY DOES recognize my right to be free of arrogant and insensitive CLAIMS that might be imposed on its members. Society supports my right to be free of the demands of others. Simple really...
I believe there were some apple pie arguments that, because I believed in freedom--I could not believe in co-operation. But did I say this? Does my RIGHT to exercise my own independent judgement, as regards the thoughts and values of myself and others--mean that I am against values that I do AGREE with??
Because my thoughts and values are FREE--Does it mean they are always DIFFERENT?? And MUST it mean they are WRONG??
I cannot believe I was attacked on such a simple, clear, and accepted statement--a statement in full accord with society's values and laws: to wit--"We are separate persons; You have no claim upon me..."; I can't believe I needed to defend such an obvious fact for so many posts; And I am sorry to need to be defended on red herrings.
You have (as always) been a trooper, Karen! (I've told you that before :))! I take full responsibility for being unable to communicate the simplest and most obvious of arguments to others. Logic has always been the frailest of persuasions, and for that I am culpable. I don't mean this post to be harsh, but it probably sounds that way. When I think I have been misunderstood by those I respect, I need to say so--and that is not a criticism. This is just one of my values...it is not a claim--LOL!!
Internet service off and on all day. There is little I can imagine more aggravating than to be forced away from the middle of ones posts over and over again. Did I say aggravating? It is not entirely what I meant! |
