Am 20.01.2014 05:35, schrieb Jim Henderson:
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 01:20:06 +0100, clipka wrote:
>
>> => §1.4: Allow yourself and anyone else to freely and without shame or
>> fear follow any rules they derive from their personal and current belief
>> re the supreme something's existence or nature, within the limits
>> imposed by §1.1 to §1.4 (sic!).
>
> You had me up to this point, and only not here in a nuanced way.
>
> I'm happy to let anyone follow any rules they derive from their personal
> and current belief, so long as they don't try to impose those on others
> ability to do the same - or if by doing so they put people in harm's way.

Hence the explicit limitation of §1.4 not only to the confines of §1.1 
to §1.3, but also of §1.4 itself.

> And also:  Texas Board of Education.  If the individuals want to cripple
> their own childrens' understanding of science and handicap them in the
> real world, that's less a decision I feel I should get involved in.  When
> they use their influence to cram religious dogma into the public schools
> in ways that affect the entire country - no, they're not permitted to do
> that.

And why do you feel like that?

I guess it's because it interferes with the rules you yourself derive 
from whatever world view you have - in this particular case it might be 
something like "strive to let future generations make educated, unbiased 
choices which religion or other world view to follow".

So, here's a conflict between what two people derive from their personal 
convictions, and consequently neither can claim the right to invoke §1.4 
- the matter needs to be settled on other, more specific moral rules, 
not derived from the generic agnostic point of view but from whatever 
flavor of it you lean towards.

Post a reply to this message