From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Charity (Re: Ignorance
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:43:47 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.023549.3771@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE) writes:
>>By this logic, what prevents the majority from claiming _any_ topic
>>is a matter of social need, and imposing it on minorities? 30 years
>>ago, in Alabama, a majority of the people felt that keeping
>>blacks out of many places was a "social need." By your logic, wouldn't
>>this morally justify discrimination?

>Good point. But since it was ruled un-Constitutional, it is a moot point.

Not exactly: The many of the provisions of the Constitution are to
prevent exactly the sort of imposition on minorities that I'm talking
about. 

>As for Alabama, nobody tried to argue that this was morally right.

Talk to David Duke... Some people are still arguing this today.

> For instance, the majority 
>now is setting the level of money that is going for building roads and
>bridges. The roads and bridges are for the social good. There is a need
>for them.

However, to do so the government had to get permission from, essentially,
everyone: This is one of Congress' ennumerated powers to which the
people consented when the Constitution was ratified. That is, the
people as a whole formally agreed that this was for the common good,
something the federal government needed to be involved in (if it was
going to work) and sufficiently important to justify the risks of abuse
of power by the majority.

>	There is also a need to help the homeless. It is in the communities
>best interest, both for sanitary reasons as well as keeping the community
>from looking run down.

If we are talking about federal programs, I don't think the above
standards are unreasonable: That the people as a whole (e.g. the overwelming
majority) formally consent to this in the form of an amendment to the
Constitution. This would assure that everyone agrees on the need for
such programs, that the involvement of the federal government is vital
and consents to the administration of the program by the majority (or
possibly places restrictions on the majority: There are such conditions,
for example, on how the army may be funded.) Before someone jumps
on me about how difficult it is to get an amendment ratified, that
is exactly my point: The government should be involved only if there
is a widespread consensus among the people as to the need. If that
consensus doesn't exist then such a program is, in effect, forcing
the views of the majority on a sizeable minority.  

>>No, I'm saying that how much and no under which conditions to give
>>to charity is a question of moral standards and views. To me, there
>>is very little difference between a system of moral standards and
>>views, and a religion. Imposing the moral judgement of the majority
>>is effectively no different than imposing a religion.

>Yet another good point. This moral judgement discussion always borders
>on a fine line. I get very offended (believe it or not) when a religious 
>person tries to impose their values on me too. But let me put it to you
>another way. Would you consider murder as morally wrong? Of course you would.
>Anybody would. That's why it's illegal.

Actually, murder is not a federal offense; nor is it quite so clear
as you might think: Consider, for example, someone who brakes into
your home, trys to attack you and who you shoot and kill. Is this
murder? Here in Colorado, it would probably be legal self-defense. In
Califorina, the question of escape would be relevant: If you could
have left your home and run away, it would probably be considered
second degree murder and not self-defense. There is no national,
widespread, uniform cosensus about such details. This is central
to the federal nature of our government: If there is no overwealming
national agreement on a subject, the national government (in theory) does
not impose the judgement of the majority. Instead, the matter is left
to smaller jurisdictions where (presumably) views are more uniform
and almost everyone agrees on the matter (or, at least, consent to
go along with the majority's decision.)

>	Now would you consider helping your fellow man when he is hurting
>morally right? Of course. So the question isn't whether the morals of the
>majority being imposed on the minority are out of line, the question is
>WHICH morals are and to what degree.

It is certainly a matter of degree, but to goal is (or ought to be) for
such impositions to be of the smallest degree possible. That can be
done by local as opposed to national laws. If the people of Colorado
Springs and of Boulder disagree on what sort of social programs
are proper, they can seperately enact whatever local programs they
consider appropriate, without either imposing their views on the
other. This both reduces the degree to which majoritarian views are
imposed and gives the dissenting minority somewhere to go, if they are
that strongly opposed.

>Imposing a certain level of moral
>standards doesn't necessarily mean religious standards. It takes a 
>certain amount of civility to maintain a society.

Some level of moral standards is required. However, those standards
may take many different forms. I think the government should be
restricted to those standards which "everyone" consents on. This 
eliminates (or greatly reduces) the problem of imposing morality. On the
federal level, this isn't the "certain level" necessary to hold
a society together; but in reality, we aren't one single society.
However, added to this are state laws (on matters which everyone
within the state consents to) and local laws (on matters which
everyone within the city/county/town/whatever consents to). 
Taken together, I think this reaches that necessary level of moral
standards you refer to. It certainly also produces a diversity
of government regulations, but I think that suits a diverse nation
best.

                                             Frank Crary
                                             CU Boulder
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7195 ca.politics:9610