[MD] So cometh MOQ, what next?

[Case]

[Case] 
> The only measure of moral rightness is the 
> continuation of the society. Aztec society HAD THE RIGHT to build giant 
> pyramids, march 20,000 people up to the top and rips their hearts out by 
> hand. Various societies across the global have, at one time or another, 
> SEEN IT AS MORALLY RIGHT to feast on their neighbors. 

[Craig]
Notice your shift from HAVING THE RIGHT to SEEING something AS MORALLY
RIGHT.
That some society SEES something AS MORALLY RIGHT doesn't mean it is. 

[Case]
Your question was not about morality it was about whether they could or not.
But if it had been about morality I would still say that societies determine
what is moral within themselves. If some other society comes along and
forces another set of morals on them then I guess the big dog rules. It is
truly sad that in the end might makes right but that has certainly been the
case throughout history. One of the functions of a society is to determine
moral standards. A society that didn't wouldn't last long and could hardly
be called a society at all.
 
[Craig] 
Only a minority (if any) of the framers saw slavery as morally right.  Those
in the South supported
slavery either for economic reasons or because they feared racial
integration.  Those in the North
failed to challenge slavery because they wanted to maintain the union with
the South & did
not see any politically feasible way to end slavery.  (see "Founding
Brothers").

[Case]
Minority or not they signed it and it took 70 years for the civil war to
correct it and several amendments to set the record straight. Some would
argue it still isn't straight.


[Case]    
> When Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence about self
evidence 
> and all men being created equal he was not stating anything like "it is 
> obvious" that all men are created equal, because obviously, they are
not....It is not obvious 
> that all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.

> These rights obviously are alienable. 

[Craig]
You need to stop claiming that your view is obvious & instead provide
reasons for it.

[Case]
Perhaps you haven't noticed but there are males and females, young and old
weak and strong... Even under with regards to equality under the law women,
native Americans and blacks were not given the vote until long after the
union was established. Even today the rich receive justice differently than
the poor. But in the long history of the human race before the enlightenment
even this pretence of equality was rarely made. The king had the right to
deflower brides. Nobles, priests, land and factory owners, Brahmins,
pharaohs and village chieftains have always had different sets of rights
than other members of society. Slavery, and serfdom have been the norms
since the development of agriculture around 12,000 years ago. You have to
look to hunter gather societies to find anything like what we could consider
social equality and even then the demands of child rearing and plain old
sexual dimorphism dictated differences in social status based on sex.

[Craig]
That a person's right is violated does not mean it wasn't his/her right.

[Case]
Fine, but if it is your "right" and I take it from you, knowing that it was
once yours is about all the consolation you are going to get.

[Case]
> But all of this high flown talk about individual rights and the rights of 
> women and immigrants and children and strangers is really a modern luxury.

>...People did not think about what they ought to do 
> so much as what they had to do. 

[Craig]
You are very ignorant of the history of thought on this one.

[Case]
Ignorance would be trying to hold the founding fathers or the pharaohs or
the followers of the caste system in India, or the Aztecs or the Muslims in
the modern world to the same moral standards that we apply ourselves. I am
not doing that I am merely pointing out that in modern times we have created
a society that allows a broader vision of equality and justice. One of the
problems of the modern era is that we have yet to come to terms with our own
ideals of justice and equality. The rapid change in our social understanding
over the past 50 years are nearly unprecedented in all of history and the
consequences of those changes intended and unintended are still playing out.

[Case] 
> Society, whatever that may be, is able to continue to the extent that its 
> members comply with its standards.

[Craig]
This need an argument.  Sounds like a stagnant society to me.

[Case]
You say that like it is a bad thing. Society should be static. Its role is
to make personal relations predictable and to create a stabile environment
for raising families. It provides a sense of identity for its members and
promotes the distribution of goods and services. The Chinese say it is a
curse to live in interesting times precisely because social turmoil produces
uncertainty and anxiety.

[Case]
> I believe that when the members accept 
> social standards willfully and joyfully the society is better able to send

> its seeds into the future. 

[Craig]
So when you reach the top of the stairs of that pyramid, just before your
heart is ripped out, be sure to smile, smile, smile.

[Case]
Been there, done that... I gave up past life regression because it turns out
that for centuries I have either been shoveling horse crap or arguing with
fools. Maybe in my next life I can at least have my shovel back.