On Tue, 24 Aug 2004, BklynMagus wrote:
> But wouldn't it be sensible to create a framework that would measure the
> concrete, empirical effects different views have when put into practice?
> Your approach seems an abdication of responsibility. So long as you
> follow procedure, everything is permitted.
It would be nice if it were this easy! Again, you're assuming that the "concrete, empirical effects" would be assessed by everyone the same way you assess them, using your moral standards.
Simple example: view X causes public school funding to dry up. From my point of view, this is really bad. From the point of view of my libertarian father-in-law, this is a positive thing. So is view X good or bad? We need to grapple with the fact that people have wildly different values and thus wildly different assessments of the same "effects".
> To me non-domination consists in not allowing majorities to persecute
> minorities. In the case of same-sex marriage, the decisions about queer
> rights are being made by non-queers. Is that fair? Is that reasonable?
> Same-sex marriage has no effect on the lives of non-queers, and yet they
> are the ones who get to determine its legality. That is domination.
This is a bit facile. The reason why this is such a hot political topic is that it has a huge effect on the lives on non-queers, from their perspective. They really do believe gay marriage is contradicting God's rules and undermining social stability. I disagree with their premises, but let's face it: they're fighting for a way of life that is consistent with their religious beliefs, just like you and I are.
Miles