Miles writes:
Do you see the ethnocentrism of your claim?
It is not ethnocentric, it is Buddhist and rational. The basis of my claim is centered neither on my race nor my ethnicity.
> "They should live by my beliefs because my beliefs are
superior to theirs."
Not because they are superior, but because they result in less suffering, which to me is a reliable and communicable basis for action.
At base, every human being must choose a basis for acting in the world. It is the original bias. I have chosen the bias of acting with the intent of reducing suffering. Suffering is something that can be quantified and the desire to reduce suffering can be communicated and understood through rational discourse. What is the basis upon which you ground your actions?
> Your point of view is more or less the same as any slaveholder
who argues that we can ignores the wishes and interests of the
slaves because we know what's best for them.
I have never said I know what is best for anyone. What I maintain is that some standard for moral action is necessary if people are to live together in society. (If you deny this premise then there is no point in you reading any further).
I propose that the reduction of suffering be used as the moral measure of actions committed. What do you propose?
> Hey, I agree, it's ugly. I just don't see how we are morally justified
in imposing our way of thinking on them.
And yet you defend their right to impose their way of thinking on queers? I am confused (nothing new there LOL). If you could explain the basis for your belief I would appreciate it.
Also, I am not demanding that they agree with me and view same-sex marriage as okay. I am just saying that they have failed to advocate a rational reason why same-sex marriage should be illegal (God doesn't approve is NOT a rational reason). The only justification they offer is that the majority thinks such marriages are wrong. To me that is not enough of a justification, while for you it is sufficient. I believe that sound judgements are based on rationality and not numerical superiority.
> I think the problem is that you perceive your own moral standards
as the ones that any reasonable person should live by, and if people
don't, we can ignore their voices.
The same is true of any set of moral standards. What set of moral standards do you propose and what is your defense of them?
Also, you have now shifted the terms of your disagreement from ethnocentrism to standards of reasonableness. Again, I am confused by your argument.
> Yes, because I believe in democracy.
What you believe in is unfettered majority rule. Are you also comfortable with its consequences: the enactment of prejudice into law with the consequent suffering such enactment mandates? For example, would you be okay with the suffering women endured if abortion was made illegal through a majorty vote of the population?
> If you're making me choose between supporting gay marriage and
supporting democracy, I'm in favor of democracy.
I understand, but it seems a contradiction to me to claim to be a leftist and also be comfortable with the suffering inherent in pure democracy.
> This is a bit slippery.
So is most of life. What of it? Do we refrain from making moral choices and setting moral standards because it is an arduous task fraught with uncertainty?
The majoritarian plateau you advocate, while much simpler than life on the slippery slopes of reality, is, to me, a morally inferior choice. You disagree. What are the moral advantages you see in majoritarian rule?
> Who gets to decide what "persecution of others" is?
I think rational and observable standards can be devised. Of course these standards must be constantly reviewed and amended as necessary -- what Buddhists call living in the moment. Such a life cannot be lived on the majoritarian plateau.
> Opponents of affirmative action claim AA is "persecution of whites".
To claim something is not to prove it. You seem to accept claims as proof, e.g., those who say same-sex marriage harms them. In neither of your posts have you elucidated the exact nature of this harm and how same-sex marriage acts as its direct antecendant. It would help if you could flesh out the nature of this harm (And please Miles, if you can, do not argue along the lines: "Well, I myself see no harm in same-sex marriage, but if others . . . ." If you are arguing for the validity of the banning of gay marriage on the basis the harm it will cause, then you should be able to describe the harm and how it is engendered by the advent of same-sex marriage).
Also, I do not fetishize the individiual since I am not promoting an individual standard. I am advocating a rational one available to all human beings (who possess the capacity for rationality whether or not they exercise it). What you are advocating for is the enshrinement of personal beliefs which may not (and in practice almost never are) shared by all human beings. What is your rationale for arguing for the morality of a system where the idiosyncratic, fetishistic beliefs of a segment of poulation are made binding on the entire population simply because that segment of the population happens to be in the majority?
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister