Re: Politics and morality

"Lucien Saumur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

> The "dot ca" at the end of my e-mail address stands for Canada which has
something deemed to be a constitution. <

And are you a citizen of Canada, or just visiting?

> The role of the humanist is to help people cope in a society that has
abandoned the religious view of the world. <

Humanism is not about being secular. One can religiously embrace science,
nature, evolution, the cosmos, etc. One can also religiously embrace
humanism. Humanism is a value system. It values human life and all of the
natural world that is its habitat, and all of the philosohical wisdom that
makes life better for everyone.

> Christianity viewed all of mankind as having one overwhelming purpose
which is to achieve salvation in an afterlife. The secular view is that
there is no universal human purpose but that each individual must choose his
own purpose. The role of the humanist is to propose the kind of society that
would best allow the individuals to pursue their personal purposes. <

But there is a universal human purpose: to live, to live well, and to help
others to live well. Life is our purpose.

> Justice is one of the "black-box" words that mean just so much and no
more. The word is often abused by being expected to mean more than it does.
As a consequence, it winds up meaning nothing. <

Justice is easily defined as the optimum balance of rights. Just what that
balance should be is where we often find disagreement. But we may
operationally define Justice as that ideal balancing of rights which
optimizes good for everyone. Good is served by Justice, Love, Courage, and
other virtues.

> One is just when one gives what is owed. <

That is a reasonable subclass of justice. Justice is also correcting harm we
have done. One may say that Justice is setting things right. I suspect that
"rights" derives from the concept of "what is right" or "how things ought to
be".

> ... a thing may be owed for one of two reasons. It may be owed because it
was promised else because another has a right to claim it. <

Okay. 1) Is when I borrow $50 on the promise that I will pay you back
Thursday. 2) Is all conditions under which you have a right to claim
something as owed to you (which actually incorporates 1, so we really have
just one broad statement of principle). There are many different
circumstances in which one comes to owe something to someone else. Rent and
taxes are owed by agreement. Things borrowed are owed by agreement (else
they were stolen). Things promised, like a toy for a child at Christmas, are
also owed. There's probably many other variations.


> Now why would anyone have a right to claim it except that one has the
"power" to claim it? <

That's a little backwards. Power must be made to serve Right. If you steal
my car I still have a rightful claim, even if I am personally powerless to
force you to return it, I can convince others that we each need to protect
each others right to property, and they will help me force you to return my
car. But I can only convince them (have their power added to mine) if they
agree that my claim is right, and that it is right that my car should be
returned. So Power must be made to serve Right.

> And why would anyone give away what one has promised except that another
has the power (in one way or another) to compel one to do so. <

Because of the promise. If the promise is broken, then no further promises
will be trusted. You damage yourself when you break the promise.

> In the end, there is only one reason to be just which is that another has
the power to compel one to be just. <

But how does that other come by the power, if not by convincing others that
his claim is just and right.