I made the point that the murder in The Lottery is equivalent to our current
societal abattoir.
Dan Plante accepted my premise and than ably summarizes Thoreau's Civil
Disobedience:
You didn't withhold your taxes from this "callous and immoral"
state, you
paid them.... Tacitly or overtly, directly or indirectly, you
participate
in doing the exact same thing. You can /say/ you don't approve, but
talk
is cheap, isn't it? ...
The assumption that I approve or disapprove is incorrect .. and that is the
crux of my argument for moral relativism ... it promotes "moral
chameleonism" which I <AND WHO ELSE MATTERS TO A TRUE MORAL CHAMELEON>
consider a good thing.
Dan then goes on to say:
"Moral chameleonism", "moral judgements" and "laissez-faire" imply
/some/
contemplation along moral lines, and I sensed none of that in the
essay.
The only impression I got regarding the reactions of the students
was
brain-stem, knee-jerk regurgitation of some variation of the current
PC
paradigm, which includes cultural relativism.
As if the previous reactions were less reflexive? The essayist said that
over the years my students have pushed moral boundaries, but they always
reacted to The Lottery. Now they don't react to The Lottery. She asserts
this lack of affect is a "bad thing" since it refuses to acknowledge
"absolute evil".
The teacher, while thinking about morality and ethics, let a
negative
visceral reaction, which was a product of her upbringing, shape her
conclusions; she didn't think things /through/. The students, on the
other
hand, didn't seem to think at all. Ill-considered and unconsidered.
OK, Dan, How many angels may dance on the head of a pin? Which is moving
the wind or the flag? What is the sound of one hand clapping? etc. I
contend that your statement "the students didn't seem to thing at all" is
based on your preconceived notions. The teacher didn't complain about the
quality of the student's work vis a vis previous classes, and she didn't
complain about the GENERAL level of participation, only that they didn't get
upset when they were SUPPOSED TO.
I hope someone reacted as I did: I don't mind if you try to
manipulate me.
I don't even mind if you bore me. Just don't vote.
Actually Dan, you probably resent the way I vote ... I take a Hegelian
approach and always vote for the most distasteful/repressive candidates I
can find on the ballot. If you are familiar with the fable of the "King of
the Frogs" ... I like to consider myself a turtle who goads the frogs into
requesting more leadership ...
My reasoning is that:
A) All social systems have costs.
B) These costs will be distributed to least disturb the system ... all
taxes are ultimately regressive vis a vis the tax collectors; all laws are
least repressive vis a vis the lawmakers.
C) The most efficient way I can evaluate a social system is "tit for
tat" - the golden rule,
D) So when I find something morally repugnant I need to examine where
that thing is vis a vis the social system. If it is a cost that "disturbs"
the system I simply need to point out the thing exists and the system will
take care of it. If it is a cost that "supports" the system than I need to
amplify the thing until the thing itself disturbs the remainder of the
system.
E) The best case study I can provide would be the civil right's
movement ... where in the South the institutions of segregation were
destroyed, in the north the more subtle mechanisms of "class distinctions"
have been preserved.
Thus, "moral chameleonism" seems eminently rational to me ... it allows you
to maximize your moral utility while minimizing your costs. Of course your
problem now is to determine if I'm sincere in this post ... or if I'm a
moral absolutist trying to buttress his agenda by subverting what is
ostensibly just a little more than the best possible amount of moral
relativism.