Is there any moral common ground?

[marjaerwin]

No.

There is no moral common ground with those who think that subordination and supremacy are good, for these are evil. There is no moral common ground with those who think morality means obedience to some pseudo-legitimate authoritae. There is no moral common ground with those who think morality means loyalty to one's country or one's skin-privilege. There is no moral common ground with those who think that patriotism, nationalism, war and slaughter - for all these are different names for the same evil - are good, for these are evil. There is no moral common ground with those who think they are better because they were born of noble blood or born on Amerikkkan soil. There is no moral common ground with those who think that retribution, punishment, revenge are good, for these are evil. There is no moral common ground for those who think that good means loyalty to kings, loyalty to countries, loyalty to oaths, loyalty to EVIL.

When people choose evil and call it good - when people blindly do so, and believe that the evil is indeed good, and denounce those who call it out for the evil it is - I wonder, what room is left for persuasion.

I hope that the good yet cries out from within them: The recognition that we are to love ourselves, to treat others as our equals, and loving ourselves, to love others. The recognition that oppression is wrong, that murder is wrong, and then the realisation that it is just as wrong when the state does it, to realise that the state is no good but is another evil...

Comments

[ravinwrites.livejournal.com]

There are necessary evils. Is loyalty to be just thrown out the window? For me the oath is a central notion in ethics and morality--but oaths should not be taken lightly, nor to those undeserving. Yet if we break them, what good is the reputation or the word of the individual?

It seems to me you define a good deal of things as evil. Personally, I don't believe in good and evil as absolute terms. There are two sides to every story and shades of grey in every situation. One can be both a traitor and a hero. The Universal Soldier is a political necessity, but so is the Fourth Estate and the whistleblower. Moral absolutes are sandcastles. In the end, the tides of history wash them away and all that are left are human beings trying to find ways to get along on a very crowded planet. Maybe someday we'll find a way to do that without our social compacts placing the authority for governing the masses in the hands of a select few.

[marjaerwin]

I hope to get back to you when I am feeling better and thinking more clearly. But, for starters, I tend to associate oaths with the trope of the ill-founded and ill-fated oath: e.g. the unifying story arc of the Silmarillion. There are historical examples as well as mythic/literary examples. I think the mythic examples might be the closest to common ground.

[ravinwrites.livejournal.com]

I see such examples as warnings against making ill-founded oaths, as well as illustrations of how we construct our own fates.
I'm curious on what fundamental foundation you'd construct an anarchist society. But I know you're going through a rough patch, so not picking an argument or anything.

Incidentally, Feanor was on the short list of possible names for my son. My husband vetoed it as too dark, though we did go with a Tolkien name--the final choice came from LOTR. My daughter has a name out of the Silmarillion, though. I know, completely off topic.