jks writes:
> What do you want, a guarantee that nothing can go wrong?
Sheesh! Everyone is so touchy today. Must be the upcoming convention. LOL.
I am just trying understand what you are writing. To say that procedure trumps content takes me a while to understand. The concept seems rather wishy-washy and tepid -- prim to the point of uselessness. It's like: get all your tenses right, dot your i's, cross your t's and if queers are persecuted, so what? You filled out the forms correctly. I think society can do better than this.
> Rawls calls his approach imperfect procedural justice -- because we know
that the outcomes will not always be ideal. The best you can have in advance
is to have fair procedures for resolving disagreements about important
things on which people who may otherwise deeply disagree on fundamentals can
agree.
But can't we also agree on the principle of non-domination? Rawls seems content to settle for freedom as non-interference.
> What alternative do you suggest to fair procedure? Which includes
protections for rights, btw, but as we see, in times of stress, these are
not ironclad. However, what is?
I am wondering if fair procedure is all that can be offered. I am just learning these concepts, so please excuse my questioning.
Charles asks:
> Why would making hay just be wasting a human life?
Because doing so would entail creating suffering for others. Buddhism is not against pleasure or satisfying desires -- it just orders things differently than Western-trained thinkers. In Buddhism, the object is to live mindfully and with compassion (what Marx refers to as living rationally -- at least as I understand it from Ted W.). Doing so will provide countless pleasures as the by-product of a person's actions. By placing the pursuit of desire (in a vain effort to prop up a sense of self) first, Westerners put the cart before the horse and end up creating even more suffering/exploitation -- witness our consumer-crazed, fetishistic culture.
Capitalism is the economic system of a culture that places the satisfaction of desire first. You are not going to get rid of capitalism unless you also get rid of this misplacement. Luke writes:
> Whether not allowing gays to marry counts as persecution is a tougher
question.
Really? My copy of the new leftist dictionary must have gotten delayed in the mail. According the Webster's I am using in the meantime, to persecute means (among other things) "to pursue in a manner to injure, grieve, or afflict." Also, "to harrass, punish, or put to death" Well, we haven't gotten to death yet; it is only Muslims who pursue that course so far.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister