On Monday 11 November 2002 04:43 pm, TMC wrote:
If it makes you feel any better, the gang considers the intact windshields to be the "means of production" through which broken windshields are produced. Because the social class of "car owners" cannot use their ownership of these means of production to exert control over the gang, it is necessary for the gang to take "possession" of the windshields while they put they to the use of being smashed.
That's a bunch of relativistic morality crap. If somebody goes to the effort of building something or working their ass-off to pay for something it is absolutely wrong for somebody else to destroy that. Basic morality 101.
If this is your true position then their is no reason to try and reason with you because your frame of reference is totally unreasonable.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Daniel Mayer wrote:
On Monday 11 November 2002 04:43 pm, TMC wrote:
If it makes you feel any better, the gang considers the intact windshields to be the "means of production" through which broken windshields are produced. Because the social class of "car owners" cannot use their ownership of these means of production to exert control over the gang, it is necessary for the gang to take "possession" of the windshields while they put they to the use of being smashed.
That's a bunch of relativistic morality crap. If somebody goes to the effort of building something or working their ass-off to pay for something it is absolutely wrong for somebody else to destroy that. Basic morality 101.
I think that his argument is related to the economic argument that windshield breakers are creating employment for the windshield repair industry. One well-known enterprise with Italian roots in the insurance industry modified this argument to convince businesses to buy their protection.
Eclecticology
Mav wrote:
TMC wrote:
If it makes you feel any better, the gang considers the intact windshields to be the "means of production" through which broken windshields are produced. Because the social class of "car owners" cannot use their ownership of these means of production to exert control over the gang, it is necessary for the gang to take "possession" of the windshields while they put they to the use of being smashed.
That's a bunch of relativistic morality crap. If somebody goes to the effort of building something or working their ass-off to pay for something it is absolutely wrong for somebody else to destroy that. Basic morality 101.
Absolutely wrong? If you can't imagine situations where destroying something that somebody built is morally justifiable, then I think that you suffer from a lack of imagination. Examples on request.
If this is your true position then there is no reason to try and reason with you because your frame of reference is totally unreasonable.
There is no lack of reason on TMC's part. Logic alone isn't enough to allow you to conclude that any particular ethical stance is correct; you must start with some assumptions. Perhaps there is no reason to try and reason with TMC because he doesn't share any assumptions with you?
-- Toby
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org