> On Friday, December 26, 2003, at 02:51 PM, Eubulides wrote:
> Why, in history, are there all the various attempts by groups to
> privilege
>
>> their interpretation of reality and society at all and to impose it on
>> others? From what does this 'need' [for lack of a better term due to my
>> own limitations] come?
>
> I think it's due to security concerns: if someone has a different view
> of reality from mine, it's harder for me to predict how she or he will
> act towards me, and I might be harmed by her or him. At least that's
> how the human brain seems to be wired up to react. Of course, if you
> think about it, people with the same religious views, or philosophical
> views, kill, rob, and cheat each other all the time, but we're talking
> about the way the brain works when its thinking apparatus is disengaged.
Good point, and probably not a bad principle to follow. After all, if I want powerful institutions to behave in a more humane manner, it certainly helps if the people who run those institutions share some kind of baseline belief i what's right and wrong.
For example, if EvilCorp invests in slave labor in the Sudan, and I want them to stop, it helps if the CEOs understand in _some_ way that slavery isn't humane. If they didn't share some moral precepts with others, they could simply reply that they just don't see what's _wrong_ with slavery. (Once that happens, then we're left with nothing but force to impose our values upon them-- and vice versa.)
I should mention that Eubulides' comment "Why, in history, are there all the various attempts by groups to privilege their interpretation of reality and society at all and to impose it on others?" bothers me. Maybe it's the overuse of academic-speak ("privilege their interpretation of reality?" Oy.), but it reads as though E's saying that it's just a matter of different "interpretations of reality" and their imposition through power. If one's "interpretation of reality" accepts the use of power to impose moral values, than one can't fault it.