🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6gfokd$b7$1@usenet87.supernews.com>, HiThere@outtatown.com
(HiThere) wrote:

> Norm Gall wrote:

> >Some price.  The cost should be far more dear for what the bigot does is
> >deny someone's humanity.

> You see the denying of a person's humanity as being a severe crime. I'll 
> agree. What I don't understand is how you could minimize the defensive and 
> retaliatory granting of the person's terms to the point you don't see it
as an 
> adequate punishment. The bigot denies the individual's humanity (severe) and 
> gets exactly that back (equally severe...and severe _multiplied_ by each 
> person that joins the boycott). 

However, this then places the burden of moral disapprobation in the hands
of people who actually care. While we probably both think that everyne
*should* care, I think that this is too egregious an infraction to entrust
to the masses.

> This solution (other than allowing the 
> defensive act--but not penalizing those who do not join the boycott) places 
> few if any demands on the State while allowing individuals, in a very passive 
> manner, to exact (and possibly later withdraw) a sanction that we both see as 
> _very_dear_. In a sense (although I don't think this attribute necesarily 
> makes it a better choice of sanction) it's the classic *eye for an eye* with 
> the added finesse of not requiring the boycotter or the State to initiate 
> force. There is no positive obligation on _anyone_.


But again, I don't see the lack of an obligation as a virtue.  We *do*
have positive oligations and it is immoral to shirk them.  The seriousness
of the moral infraction is the guide to whether the State should become
involved. In this case I think it passes the test.

Norm Gall

-- 
"A man cannot be too careful in his choice of enemies." Oscar Wilde