[MD] for Ham, Arlo interjects

[Ham Priday]

Hi Arlo --


> [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.

Both.  Freedom is the ability to choose one's values and act upon them, 
without regard to .  necessity, coercion, or restraint by others.  This 
capacity, like reason, is intrinsic to man -- hence, the phrase "endowed by 
their Creator" -- and it reflects the autonomous nature of human beingness.

 [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.

Once again, I remind you that existence is a relational system in which 
unity is absent and "multi-directionality" is the norm.  Since everything is 
relative, in order to live harmoniously in a collective society, the 
individual must adapt to the morality of that society.  This in itself is 
not a constraint on his freedom, for he can choose to isolate himself by 
living as hermit or moving to another society.  I have no idea what Ron 
means by "structurated".  It sounds like G.W. Bush newspeak 
("strategiory"?).  Certainly a society is more effective when its 
individuals are in concert with its values.  The historical success of a 
society that favors individual freedom over tyranny proves that this is 
achievable.

I take issue with the statement that man's vision is "guided by language" 
and "metaphors".  Language is only a tool of communication.  Mankind is 
guided by concepts which, in turn, express his values, whether they are set 
in writing, spoken as clichés, or accepted as  universal principles.

[Ham, previously]:
> 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). ...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".

Fair enough.  Peace, coexistence, and individual freedom are all consistent 
with the Western world's idea of civilization.

Regards,
Ham