|
Post by rembrandt on Oct 27, 2012 22:16:45 GMT
If we do choose to practice Masonic virtues we do make the world a better place. If we as a group were to comprise 51% how would it be just to impose on others by seizing property and redistributing it?
The concept of social justice is interesting. How is it different from justice?
|
|
|
Post by dioncapra on Oct 27, 2012 23:03:50 GMT
The concept of social justice is interesting. How is it different from justice? The concept itself predates him, but have you ever heard of Father Coughlin? A practitioner, he was a champion and prime example of the hypocrisy endemic in the movement. Fairness, or rather, unfairness ("social injustice"), in particular, with regard to the distribution of wealth.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Oct 28, 2012 0:39:28 GMT
If we do choose to practice Masonic virtues we do make the world a better place. Indeed. If we as a group were to comprise 51% how would it be just to impose on others by seizing property and redistributing it? By observing our masonic virtues in pursuing social justice. Remember, concepts of ownership and theft are socially defined. Social justice may be considered historically rather than just from the view point of who holds what now: For instance, there is the possibility of reparation to descendants of slaves. The concept of social justice is interesting. How is it different from justice? "Social justice" is not distinct from "justice." It is justice in the context of society.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Oct 28, 2012 0:52:28 GMT
First you mention that ownership and theft are socially defined then you explain that social justice is justice in the context of society. So is the term "social justice" a little silly?
If were to determine, with our Masonic virtues, that it is appropriate to take from one (against that person's will) and give to another then we have accepted the morally bankrupt idea that the ends justify the means. As for me, I don't support theft by individuals or large groups regardless of their good intentions with the property that they have taken. This is entirely consistent with Masonry.
I think that it is inappropriate to reduce people to categories. Each person is an individual that should be taken on their own merits or lack thereof.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Oct 28, 2012 2:38:29 GMT
First you mention that ownership and theft are socially defined then you explain that social justice is justice in the context of society. That's just how it is. Laws are man-made (we are, in effect, pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps, refining our Social Contract as we do so). Man is the measure of all things
Protagoras So is the term "social justice" a little silly? "Social justice" is an appropriate, descriptive term. If were to determine, with our Masonic virtues, that it is appropriate to take from one (against that person's will) and give to another then we have accepted the morally bankrupt idea that the ends justify the means. Do you approve of legislation enabling the confiscation of proceeds of crime? Which is the greater crime, to rob a bank or to own one? Bertolt Brecht As for me, I don't support theft by individuals or large groups regardless of their good intentions with the property that they have taken. We are back at the issue as to what constitutes ownership and theft. This is entirely consistent with Masonry. Only in instances where it is consistent with the principles of Brotherly Love, Relief and Truth. I think that it is inappropriate to reduce people to categories. Each person is an individual that should be taken on their own merits or lack thereof. Society generally deems it inappropriate to legislate with regard to particular individuals, just as it generally deems retrospective legislation to be inappropriate.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Oct 28, 2012 4:32:45 GMT
"Social justice" reduces people to categories which is not in line with virtue. Individuals matter.
Laws are man made. Theft is described clearly. The ends do not justify the means. So what is theft? When do you own something? When is government coercive? It is only in line Masonic virtues when it supports your politics?
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Oct 28, 2012 5:37:31 GMT
And all without a labor union. Amazing. So much for your evil capitalism. Is your argument that, because not all individual capitalists had the same exploitative labour strategies or even that some were philanthropists, that their actions overall characterize laissez-faire capitalism? If so it is obviously flawed. BTW, Ford is not a unqualified good example: Ford being awarded the Grand Cross of the German Supreme Order of the Golden Eagle, 1938 Robert Owen might have been a better example. Ford did what he did because it was in his own rational self interest. By doing so, he was able to run three eight hour shifts, increasing productivity. By raising wages, he attracted the best workers, again, acting in his own rational self interest. Such need not be the great evil that you ascribe to it.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Oct 28, 2012 5:38:22 GMT
That Ford was a racist and pro-German are beside the point (cum hoc ergo propter hoc) .
Incidentally, Ford Motor Company refused a bail-out from the Obama administration, and are, unlike GM and Chrysler, not a partially owned subsidiary of the US government.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Oct 28, 2012 5:55:26 GMT
"Social justice" reduces people to categories which is not in line with virtue. Stirring stuff: Rand would be proud of you — Pity it is vacuous. 1) Social justice does not create categories: It deals with them. 2) In what sense is social justice not in line with virtue? Justice is one of our four cardinal masonic virtues. Which is why groups, being composed of individuals, also matter. Laws are man made. Theft is described clearly. The ends do not justify the means. So what is theft? When do you own something? Theft is what society defines as such (as is ownership). Taxation is not theft and regulations are not tyranny. When is government coercive? When it capriciously acts contrary to its social mandate. It is only in line Masonic virtues when it supports your politics? Is this a question? Define "It."
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Oct 28, 2012 5:58:07 GMT
Ford did what he did because it was in his own rational self interest. By doing so, he was able to run three eight hour shifts, increasing productivity. By raising wages, he attracted the best workers, again, acting in his own rational self interest. Such need not be the great evil that you ascribe to it. And what of the wider society?
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Oct 28, 2012 18:11:19 GMT
What you rage against is that an individual owns himself. Everybody does not belong to everybody.
Justice is one of the four cardinal virtues, social justice seems to be something else - something in which the ends justify the means.
You return to your notion of a social mandate. Is this again your belief that the majority can do as it wishes to the minority?
Was there ownership before government? From you view point mass murder or any crime would be made okay if a majority simply decided that it was. Is all morality relative for you?
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Oct 28, 2012 20:10:04 GMT
Ford did what he did because it was in his own rational self interest. By doing so, he was able to run three eight hour shifts, increasing productivity. By raising wages, he attracted the best workers, again, acting in his own rational self interest. Such need not be the great evil that you ascribe to it. And what of the wider society? They, too, should do what is in their own rational self interest. We are not cogs in the machine, but individuals, and sovereign in our own right.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Oct 28, 2012 20:56:17 GMT
And what of the wider society? They, too, should do what is in their own rational self interest. We are not cogs in the machine, but individuals, and sovereign in our own right.Witness Dickensian England.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Oct 28, 2012 21:09:09 GMT
What you rage against is that an individual owns himself. Everybody does not belong to everybody. Where people interact they need to do so with regard to each other. Justice is one of the four cardinal virtues, social justice seems to be something else - something in which the ends justify the means. Without social justice “the ends” (who has what now) “justifies the means” (how they came to acquire what they now have or how they came to lose what they had). You return to your notion of a social mandate. Is this again your belief that the majority can do as it wishes to the minority? This is better than a minority doing as it wishes to the majority. Under robust democracies underprivileged minorities tend to be better protected from the overprivileged minorities, who would be tyrants if they could. Was there ownership before government? From you view point mass murder or any crime would be made okay if a majority simply decided that it was. Government, in one form or another, is part of the human condition. Being a product of my age, I would oppose such things as genocide and slavery. In doing so, I would need to be prepared to accept the consequences of my opposition. Is all morality relative for you? Certainly not only relative to my own self-interest.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Oct 28, 2012 23:16:37 GMT
So government is just part of being human, a large complex set of interactions. Being a product of your age though holding beliefs that the majority can do as they wish including genocide and slavery. This does not accord with Masonic virtues that I know of. Under a democracy 51% determines what will happen to 49%. That is (not maybe but is) tyrannical.
If all morality is only relative for you, but not only to your own self-interest, a pure democracy is best for you. You may want to pick your fellow citizens carefully, make sure they are the best fit for your self-interest. You may end up in the 49%.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Oct 29, 2012 1:05:10 GMT
So government is just part of being human, a large complex set of interactions. Society is the family writ large: Even families have some form of government. Being a product of your age though holding beliefs that the majority can do as they wish including genocide and slavery. While this is not about me, I said I would oppose genocide and slavery. Had I hypothetically been born in an other age, I hope I would have opposed them then as well. But who can truly say? In former ages both genocide and slavery were sanctioned, even in the Bible (presumably sanctioned not by the victims but by those whose interests were served): Our ethics are evolving memetically, beyond self-interest or narrow group interests, toward encompassing all sentient beings. The intelligence required for the solving of social problems is not a thing of the mere intellect. It must be animated with the religious sentiment and warm with sympathy for human suffer- ing. It must stretch out beyond self-interest, whether it be the self-interest of the few or of the many. It must seek justice. For at the bottom of every social problem we will find a social wrong
Henry George American political economist (Georgism) (Died this day 1897) This does not accord with Masonic virtues that I know of. Under a democracy 51% determines what will happen to 49%. That is (not maybe but is) tyrannical. Do you maintain government of the people, for the people, by the people to be tyrannical!? What is your alternative and how do you propose to enforce it? If all morality is only relative for you, but not only to your own self-interest, a pure democracy is best for you. You may want to pick your fellow citizens carefully, make sure they are the best fit for your self-interest. You may end up in the 49%. Again, while this is not about me, I have often been in the minority and thus far have mostly found my fellow citizens to be reasonable and accommodating. A great change is going on all over the civilized world similar to that infeudation which, in Europe, during the rise of the feudal system, converted free proprietors into vassals, and brought all society into subordination to a hierarchy of wealth and privilege. Whether the new aristocracy is hereditary or not makes little difference. Chance alone may determine who will get the few prizes of a lottery. But it is not the less certain that the vast majority of all who take part in it must draw blanks. The forces of the new era have not yet had time to make status hereditary, but we may clearly see that when the industrial organization compels a thousand workmen to take service under one master, the proportion of masters to men will be but as one to a thousand, though the one may come from the ranks of the thousand. "Master"! We don't like the word. It is not American! But what is the use of objecting to the word when we have the thing? The man who gives me employment, which I must have or suffer, that man is my master, let me call him what I will
Henry George American political economist (Georgism) (Died this day 1897)
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Oct 29, 2012 3:21:45 GMT
I hold that direct democracy is foolish and results only in a tyranny of the majority. That has been known for centuries.
The problems that the world is seeing now, economically and all areas related to it, are the result of socialist ideas. The idea that a person belongs to society, not as a member but as property. As a Mason you are responsible for your life and your own progress. Would it be Masonic to not afford every one else the opportunity to thrive on their own merits? All people do have their own merits.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Oct 29, 2012 9:20:51 GMT
I hold that direct democracy is foolish and results only in a tyranny of the majority. What is your alternative and how do you propose to enforce it? Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time
Winston Churchill That has been known for centuries. Ironically (from your anti-democracy stance), your fallacy is akin to that of Argumentum ad populum[/b] (e.g., "everyone knows that"). The problems that the world is seeing now, economically and all areas related to it, are the result of socialist ideas. Your sweeping, broad generalization does not seem to explain the the relationship of lax enforcement of fiscal regulations to the GFC or why Australia is coping with it better than are other devoloped nations. The idea that a person belongs to society, not as a member but as property. What of it? Who asserts such a thing? Do you? As a Mason you are responsible for your life and your own progress. And to support your Brethren (i.e., the human family). Would it be Masonic to not afford every one else the opportunity to thrive on their own merits? All people do have their own merits. None would thrive without support as an infant. Many still fail to thrive as adults: They at least have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Oct 29, 2012 13:08:31 GMT
They, too, should do what is in their own rational self interest. We are not cogs in the machine, but individuals, and sovereign in our own right. Witness Dickensian England. Witness the United States of America.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Oct 29, 2012 13:27:40 GMT
One's right to life does not give the right to another's life. Liberty is nothing if encroaching on the liberty of another. The pursuit of happiness is indeed a right but there is no promise that one will achieve it.
|
|