| Monday, August 07, 2006 |
| Well... duty or that other thing... lol |
Well, for this particular entry I decided to back it up with a bit of research so I logged on to wikipedia and typed up deontologism. Well, in that same entry, they had a segment on the arguments provided against deontologism. And I would like to note that they were very similar to my arguments... hehe. One was that "... it was essentially a dressed-up version of popular morality, and that the unchanging principles that deontologists attribute to natural law or universal reason are really a matter of subjective opinion" another was that, "deontologists usually fail to specify which principles should take priority when rights and duties conflict, so that deontology cannot offer complete moral guidance."
Well, I stumbled upon these two guys Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill
Aside from agreeing with them on Utilitarianism, I believe that they also happen to share the same quadrant of the political spectrum with me (libertarian left). I agree with them on several counts:
- economic freedom
- separation of church and state
- freedom of expression
- equal rights for women
- animal rights
- the end of slavery
- the right to divorce
- free trade
- in defense of homosexuality
John Stuyart Mill's defense of the harm principle where he said that :"people should be free to engage in whatever behavior they wish as long as it does not harm others, acting in order to prevent the individual from harming himself is not legitimate" Is something I've always said I agreed with. Furthermore, his belief that, "we could never be sure if a silenced opinion did not hold some portion of the truth. Ingeniously he also argued that even false opinions have worth, in that in refuting false opinions the holders of true opinions have their beliefs reaffirmed. Without having to defend one's beliefs, Mill argued, the beliefs would become dead and we would forget why we held them at all. Mill argued that opposing arguments and opinions should be encouraged. The more a position is accepted the more it is important to have an advocate making the best contrary argument against it, and if one did not exist it should even be invented." is something I've always tried to live by. I say that I live by it because I always enjoy playing the "Devil's Advocate". Oftentimes I argue for the sake of arguing and to see how a person defends his/her beliefs. I don't think that my beliefs are superior to anyone else's beliefs. They are simply what I live by and I myself recognize their flaws since I often argue on both sides. I welcome critiques of my beliefs because they help me improve on them. I'm not arrogant enough to think that what I believe is flawless. I'm only human and the things I believe is right might just very well turn out to be wrong.
As John Stuart Mill said:
"Ages are no more infallible than individuals; every age having held many opinions which subsequent ages have deemed not only false but absurd; and it is as certain that many opinions now general will be rejected by future ages, as it is that many, once general, are rejected by the present"
Well, seeing as how one's ethical standpoint is the means by which a person distingushes right from wron it only makes sense that I'd have the same stance as they do on a lot of issues. |
posted by Samantha @ 7:04 PM
 |
|
|
|
|
|
