I love how my last entry had 21 views and only 3 comments. sweatdrop And M-chan I don't know how you did it, but you got me sick from all the way in Rock Hill. xp Nah, I kid. It was probably just another one of those random world goes spinny and black and then walking becomes a problem. I'm pretty sure it has a lot to do with my work-load. I didn't get much sleep this week, and had tons of homework. Oh well. Scott and Dorreen aren't mad that I skipped class. Especially Dorreen since I had that extra absence saved up for going to class in a tornado. sweatdrop
So right now I'm sitting listening to sappy love songs that Tyler gave to me. I love this man. I kinda want to cry....In other news Tyler is dressing me up on gaia, which I think is incredibly sweet. But it also means that you won't be seeing my avi that I designed for a while....oh well. There's time for that later.
So classes are going well, especially Comm Law and Ethics (though I haven't done ANY of the reading for ANY of them....) Anywho, we were discussing tolerance in class last night and I determined, or rather I stole the idea from one of my new favorite philosophers that tolerance was inherently a bad thing. I can see your faces, they probably look a bit like eek but give me a second to explain.
This old guy Walzer explained that tolerance is contrary to the first amendment, yet it's what the constitution is based on...you see tolerance is an inherently power-driven relationship. There has to be someone "on top" in order to bestow tolerance on others. Think about it in the terms of a school playground. The kids that are "different" are always subject to the good graces of the biggest kid on the playground, or the most popular kid. It's almost like saying "I tolerate your face." and that's rather mean.
Wouldn't acceptance be a better strategy? However, like the rest of our legal system we operate on a very minimalistic attitude. It's kinda like our government said "what's the least I can do to make sure these people don't kill each other?" However, though this approach lacks substantive morals, goals and attributes, it does support and foster this idea of freedom. We're free to tolerate, free to our own opinions, we're also free to discriminate to an extent. The law wasn't designed to make everyone a substantive, decent person, but rather to give everyone the freedom to decide what a "decent person" is....to define their own "happiness."
Sorry about my rant, I've just been so engrossed in this idea lately. Well really since last night. Ag, I can't stop thinking about it. What do you guys think? *runs screaming back to her interp*
beautifuldream Community Member 
|
|
Community Member
You're treading on a very touchy subject when you start talking about legislating morality. The question is whose morality should be enforced? I doubt you'll ever get a very comprehensive list of moral codes that everyone can agree to, I mean come on, we can't even agree that killing unborn babies is a bad idea. I think the minimalist approach to morality is by far the safest route (by that I mean the one least likely to cause riots) until Christ returns and puts things back into their proper place.