[MD] for Ham, Arlo interjects

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Ham Part One]
Human morality is not a cosmic law built into the universe, nor is 
man predestined to be a moral creature. ... In a free society, the 
people determine how they want to be governed, including the rights 
they are to enjoy as free citizens.

[Ham Part Two]
America's founders said that all men are endowed with the 
"unalienable" right to Life, Liberty (i.e., Freedom), and the pursuit 
of Happiness.  They recognized these values as innate to man (i.e., 
endowed by their Creator)

[Arlo]
Which is it? Something that people determine? Or something bestowed 
by "God"? You make a pretty firm statement in the former, but then 
seem to nod in aggreement with the latter.

[Ham]
It is man's freedom that allows him to set up the moral code of 
behavior you call "social control".

[Arlo]
Once again, your problem arises from the assumption that "society" 
and the "individual" are either unrelated or uni-directional. Society 
and the individual, as articulated nicely in the article on 
Structuration that Ron circulated, exist dialectially, mutually 
generative and bi-directional. To the extent that man appropriates 
cultural values and norms, adopts a vision guided by the language, 
history, and metaphors of her/his community, man's relationship with 
society is "structurated". To the extent that man is able to act with 
will and change his surroundings, man's relationship with soceity is 
one of agency. But ultimately, both of these are forever intertwined.

To propose that one's only options are the complete subservience to 
"society" or complete autonomy of choice is ridiculous.

[Ham]
Civilization would never have come about if man could not sense the 
value of peaceful coexistence or possess the intelligence to 
implement a social system that would ensure it.

[Arlo]
How true. Although I think that "peace" was not the driving force of 
early community, but "strength in numbers", and the gradual 
recognition that a group could accomplish more than a single person 
(such as dropping a mastadon). Also, given the history of bloodshed 
and war between "group allegiences" (nations, tribes, etc.), not to 
mention the ubiquitous use of slavery, executions, sacrifices and 
violence to uphold community norms and appease "Gods" this statement 
may be over-reaching. Perhaps dropping "peaceful"... "Civilization 
would never have come about if man could not sense the value of 
coexistence". Sounds more accurate, but becomes one of those dreaded 
tautologies, since "civilization" is "coexistence". What you are 
really saying is, "Civilization would never have come about if man 
could not sense the value of civilization". Well, duh. But I digress.