On Fri, 17 May 1996 ccw94@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Hugh
Dave.
>
> Well yes, , exactly, then one has to act. Existence is not purely
> contemplative. One acts in the light of one's (in)decision. Hence, although
> one does not think one has an overall position on them, through one's action
> one does indeed have one.
But Quetzil's position was that he didn't know enough about adult-child
sex or clitoridectomy to act either to promote those customs or to
suppress them. To say that he's acting by his 'inaction' - i.e. he's
allowing these practices to continue - is true. But he is not actively
supporting them. >
> >This is a default position (in terms of action) but it isn't a 'pro'
> >position. Such a position would involve, for example, campaigning for
> >legal recognition of adult-child sexual relationships. Most people have a
> >default 'indifference' position in terms of action for 99% of the issues
> >around. How could it be otherwise?
>
> Well, I simply disagree with your reading of what a 'pro' position would
> involve. It quite nicely elides responsiblity for many of the worlds ills. I
> am not responsible for global environmental degradation, global
> inequalities, for example, simply because I personally failed to say yes to
> these things.
This is not what I was saying. Of course if you are rich you are in a
position to prevent other people's poverty, and if you fail to do so then
that is your action. But this is not analogous to preventing
clitoridectomy or murder, both of which are intentional acts done by
other people.
Sins of omission are still sins. Is there not a rather nice
> story about Jews in Nazi Germany, that puts the point well?
Although those who failed to prevent the holocaust might have been able
to had they tried, those who actively took part in it were those who made
it happen. If you believe in a notion of right and wrong
that is logically coherent and ethically imperative, which I don't, you
would probably describe the concentration camp guards as more guilty than
the rest of the population.
Also, how can
> you have a default 'indifference' position in terms of action? In this case
> why would you do some acts and not others? Put this way the notion of choice
> becomes obsure to say the least. I could have just misundertood your point
> however. Still, I maintain my assertion that Quetzil's basic position is
> status-quoist.
By default indifference position I mean that most people do not make
conscious efforts to influence the course of the majority of the world's
events. For example, I have done nothing to discourage the conflict in
the former Yugoslavia, nor have I attempted to stop the building of the
Newbury bypass. The list even of political events that I have not tried
to influence is endless. However there are two or three sets of events
that I have tried to affect.
I do not mean that I feel indifferent to any of these events, or that I
have chosen the events which I did try to affect randomly, nor that I
have not affected many events by the side-effects of actions which had
totally different purposes, such as buying a packet of cigarettes.
As for Quetzil being status-quoist, I think he would dispute that.
Dave Hugh-Jones So what's it all about Alfie? Have you ever seen the
dash2@xxxxxxxxx moon? It's a little whitish bluish thing that floats
about the sky. It's very very round and "they" say
that man invented the wheel.
Homeless person, 1995
> Hugh
Dave.
>
> Well yes, , exactly, then one has to act. Existence is not purely
> contemplative. One acts in the light of one's (in)decision. Hence, although
> one does not think one has an overall position on them, through one's action
> one does indeed have one.
But Quetzil's position was that he didn't know enough about adult-child
sex or clitoridectomy to act either to promote those customs or to
suppress them. To say that he's acting by his 'inaction' - i.e. he's
allowing these practices to continue - is true. But he is not actively
supporting them. >
> >This is a default position (in terms of action) but it isn't a 'pro'
> >position. Such a position would involve, for example, campaigning for
> >legal recognition of adult-child sexual relationships. Most people have a
> >default 'indifference' position in terms of action for 99% of the issues
> >around. How could it be otherwise?
>
> Well, I simply disagree with your reading of what a 'pro' position would
> involve. It quite nicely elides responsiblity for many of the worlds ills. I
> am not responsible for global environmental degradation, global
> inequalities, for example, simply because I personally failed to say yes to
> these things.
This is not what I was saying. Of course if you are rich you are in a
position to prevent other people's poverty, and if you fail to do so then
that is your action. But this is not analogous to preventing
clitoridectomy or murder, both of which are intentional acts done by
other people.
Sins of omission are still sins. Is there not a rather nice
> story about Jews in Nazi Germany, that puts the point well?
Although those who failed to prevent the holocaust might have been able
to had they tried, those who actively took part in it were those who made
it happen. If you believe in a notion of right and wrong
that is logically coherent and ethically imperative, which I don't, you
would probably describe the concentration camp guards as more guilty than
the rest of the population.
Also, how can
> you have a default 'indifference' position in terms of action? In this case
> why would you do some acts and not others? Put this way the notion of choice
> becomes obsure to say the least. I could have just misundertood your point
> however. Still, I maintain my assertion that Quetzil's basic position is
> status-quoist.
By default indifference position I mean that most people do not make
conscious efforts to influence the course of the majority of the world's
events. For example, I have done nothing to discourage the conflict in
the former Yugoslavia, nor have I attempted to stop the building of the
Newbury bypass. The list even of political events that I have not tried
to influence is endless. However there are two or three sets of events
that I have tried to affect.
I do not mean that I feel indifferent to any of these events, or that I
have chosen the events which I did try to affect randomly, nor that I
have not affected many events by the side-effects of actions which had
totally different purposes, such as buying a packet of cigarettes.
As for Quetzil being status-quoist, I think he would dispute that.
Dave Hugh-Jones So what's it all about Alfie? Have you ever seen the
dash2@xxxxxxxxx moon? It's a little whitish bluish thing that floats
about the sky. It's very very round and "they" say
that man invented the wheel.
Homeless person, 1995