Doug writes:
> Yeah, I know, the world is imperfect, and universal cushiness
is therefore elusive, maybe even impossible, but what's wrong
with security, comfort, and pleasure as ultimate political goals.
I think security and comfort are fine, but wouldn't it be better to work toward harm-reduction and let pleasure arise out of an environment where people work toward providing security, comfort and a lessening of harm?
> But there seems to be a kind of leftist who's suspicious of
pleasure, who exudes a Calvinist lust for suffering, because it's
somehow ennobling.
I am suspicious of pleasure, but I am not a Calvinist in the least. For me pleasure occurs as the byproduct of human endeavor. The question then becomes what are the proper moral strictures within which human endeavor should occur. Now I now Chuck0 is opposed to moralism, but most people I know have a method -- an operating system if you will -- that allows them to choose between useful and unuseful behavior.
> (A variant: the belief that poverty is ennobling, and wealth
is corrupting. Why would anyone be a redistributionist if that
were true?)
Because it is easier to parrot this statement than delineate what are moral -- immoral/useful -- unuseful uses of money. Most people like one of two extremes: Chuck0's rejection of moralism on the one hand and rigid moral strictures on the other. As always, I think the middle path is best.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Reister