From: jbugden@smtplink.alis.ca
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 09:57:06 +0800
To: tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)
Subject: RE: A Libertine Question
Message-ID: <9606298386.AA838689552@smtplink.alis.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


I find it funny that I'm considered Conservative by most people who know me.
Your opinion may vary. ;-)

tcmay@got.net wrote:
>Who takes responsibility when people fail to save enough of their
>paycheck to last them through the month? Who takes responsibility when
>people drink too much, miss work, and are fired? And so on.

One common thread in many of these discussions is the ease with which moral
judgements are made about the situation: "fail to save", "drink too much".

I know the social psychology explanation that people who view the world as
ordered attach these types of judgements to situations which violate their
ordered view of the world. "She was just asking for it dressed like that..."

However, now I'm puzzled. From what I've read of Tim May, he does not hold such
an orderly view of the world. The "rules" of existence may prove to be
deterministic, but the results are chaotic. So Tim, where are these moral
judgments coming from? 

>The issue of "who takes care of" people who can't hold their liquor, or
>who overeat, or who smoke too much, does not enter into the equation. 

Think of how many of our laws are being enacted that tacitly make being  poor or
indigent a crime. Curfews being a recently discussed example. If the equation is
one of economics, then "who takes care of" people does indeed enter the
equation. I suggest that it is more economical to provide for a minimum quality
of life- if only as a form of insurance for myself. Think: Rawls. 

The alternative is to have garbage collectors to "take care of" those that fall
behind. Think: Soylent Green.

Better twisted than bitter, as Tiny Tim Cratchet used to say.

James