SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Neocon who wrote (77466)10/13/2003 1:31:29 PM
From: one_less  Read Replies (1) of 82486
 
The claim of "freedom of Conscience," as I have understood it is only qualified when the claimant is referencing an ethical concern that, at some level, society already references as valid.

Non-violence, sexual abuse/exploitation, dishonesty, etc.

The person claiming 'freedom of Conscience' would have to identify a more conservative standard that is founded on his or her general world view and can be demonstrated over time and in various settings of the claimant's experience.

The question of how this can harm other's is an interesting topic. I have seen some examples here, but they require some extrapolation that effectively demonizes the claimant and reduces him to unethical (rather than more ethical) treatment of others (I have addressed these in the mojo scenario). The other examples I can imagine is when the state has some claim on the citizen like in defending the country. The state can claim that the country is harmed if left undefended and that the idea engenders that potential.

Or in the case of public policy, the state can claim a standard, that is the status quo, has been compromised. One claim is that some insidious harm is transported to the general community by allowing the idea to be manifest into practice. This is the same argument used by the 'family values' politicians. This argument is not permitted in the case of people practicing alternative life styles. So, I fail to see why it would have validity in this case.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News