that we fulfill ourselves within the context of an articulated society, thus having a stake in those rules which tend to lead to social order and development.
We already have that, and I'm part of it.
I am happy enough to say that at this level of moral grounding, there is not an obligation to participate, rather, there is a stake, a strong motive. However, once conceding the stake, there are rules which one must generally follow both to uphold human dignity and to contribute and profit from society. It is those that I refer to as duties or obligations, although they admit of exceptions depending upon exigent circumstances. They are necessitated by the stakes we have already acknowledged.
Most social groups use their freedom to AVOID one another. The ones I avoid the most are gangs. Most individuals also choose to be fairly impersonal with one another, and to avoid intimacy. My relationships outside of society's rules are not based on claims or demands, but on shared values. I cannot demand anyone's loyalty, or caring, or respect--or anything else. I could--but FORCE is not one of my values. But I can recognize it, and I can respond to it. Certainly, when you throw in your ante, you play by the rules; But the rules should not limit how good you can become--only how bad you are allowed to be.
Rules (however agreed to) that bind people by claims for respect, loyalty or any other desired values are childish attempts at control. My stake is not in a society of gangs nor of tiny groups believing in the value of "claims". My stake is in the value of shared values--outside of any claims or demands--where all interaction is voluntary and genuine. This, of course, is an ideal--not a realistic expectation as of yet.
I have said it before in different words: In which instance is my courtesy, respect, and sincerity most significant? When it is demanded? Or when it is freely offered as a value judgement and accepted? Any value given in any condition less than absolute freedom is a sham, and is certainly not trustworthy. This hardly seems worth the comment, but it is precisely the position that others are presenting an opposition to. It makes me laugh and cry about equally.
All "oughts" relate to a goal. This is the whole point of morality and moral agency. The question is: What goal? In the case of society--what is your goal? This will determine your "ought". Do you wish to trust your relationships and alliances...or do you wish to coerce them?
In summary, Neo and I agreed, as I understood it, on the above general vision of society. That gives both of us a stake in the outcome, so we voluntarily agree to follow certain rules required to effect that society
Your private vision of the outcome doesn't give you any more of a "stake" than the millions of other people that have tea, go to bed, and turn over rocks. Society has already fashioned the rules that apply to all its members for preserving order, stability, peace, etc. But society is careful not to create demands that interfere with the rights of individuals and groups to do their own thing to better their environment.
I don't agree with Neo's ideas of claims as a positive on society. I see it as going in the other direction. However, arguments aside, I think both of you are fine people; I think "claims" are fine when we are knee deep in the mud of agreements to control the immorality and distrust around us. They keep the lawyers busy protecting us from one anothers shallow values. However, in a philosophical discussion about social and human ideals--and higher values--you must excuse me if I take the high road, and leave other people to their (justified) suspicions of one another.
I think that you would buy into our general view of society, acknowledge your stake in it, and agree with the rules. But until you affirmatively do that, I don't think he has any claim on you.
We have that society, and I follow the rules. In the society that I would prefer, nobody would demand anything that was unearned or undeserved (but that does not mean they wouldn't get it). If one needs to use force to get anything, however, then someone is being used.
I certainly don't see the point in adding another layer to the consensus of values that decent people already have. The values of sincerity, honesty, fairness, compassion, etc. are values that are diminished and destroyed by demands and claims, for the simple reason that demanding, claiming, controlling, and forcing...are values that belong to a harsh and untrusting world.
The daily news (you've quoted it) shows us where one side of this picture leads. And most of us probably can think of examples of people that practiced higher values...precisely because they moved beyond the "you owe me" paradigm where the participants keep track of every kindness or fault and tally up 3 times a month!
Finally, let us be very clear on the difference between a mutual agreement...and a one-sided CLAIM against a free and moral agent. |
