[lit-ideas] Re: the standard for higher standards

Eric Yost wrote:

"If X and Y are fighting, and X is following a higher standard of fighting
while Y is following a lower standard of fighting, how does X's higher
standard convince others to get along?"


My point is related to the comments Simon recently made.  However, while
Simon's point was primarily political i.e., 'How can we bring a halt to the
fighting?', I want to focus on the moral aspect.

As Simon noted, how we act impacts the actions of those who disagree with
us.  What I want to suggest is that operating with as a high a standard as
is reasonable requires those who disagree with us to either embrace those
high standards, as common standards, or reject the whole discussion of
standards for some other grounds.  If we treat enemy soldiers with the
highest reasonable standard, then the enemy will either agree that this is
how the enemy should be treated (hence the Geneva Convention), or the enemy
will claim that morality is irrelevant in light of, for example, religious
beliefs.  Now, there will always be people who claim that religious belief
trumps moral discourse, and there is little one can do in this case.
However, when one lowers one's standards, the danger is that it soon becomes
a race to the bottom of the well.  After all, if there is something other
than moral considerations that requires one to lower one's standards, there
is no reason to stop short of the bottom of the well.

So, either one believes that morality calls for us and others to have the
highest reasonable standards, or its a race to the bottom.  It seems to me
that the reasonable thing is to claim that morality requires all people to
adopt the highest possible standard.


Sincerely,

Phil Enns
Glen Haven, NS
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: