Burningbird: More Voices on Moral Clarity

May 27, 2002

More Voices on Moral Clarity

Two new voices raised on the issue of Moral Clarity:

My friend claims that my demanding of my rights violates his right to what he values most - his safety. I claim that living life is a risk. You could get hit by bus while crossing the street. You could slip on rug and break your neck. You could get on the same plane as a terrorist no matter what safety precautions are put in place, short of requiring everyone to travel naked, with no luggage and no in-flight amenities that might be turned into weapons.

I agree with Kath on the issue of not compromising our freedoms in order to claim a spurious sense of safety. As we have seen recently, you can get killed just crossing a bridge. In life there are no guarantees.

And Jonathon writes:

Moral Clarity, now playing at a multiplex near you. There's the risk of confusing the audience by casting Saudis and Pakistanis as both Arnie's allies and his enemies. But a top-class writer like Bill Bennett should be able to paper over any holes in the storyline.

Viewpoints based on expediency and morality based on oil. Too sadly true. Hypocrisy, moral clarity, and oil. But before we willy nilly slam governments, when was the last time you topped off your tank?

Posted by Bb at May 27, 2002 03:15 PM

Comments

I agree with all that... but...
a friend of mine recently pointed out - much to my surprise - that there is no 'right to privacy' written in the constitution. There are rights that are interpreted that way... just as there is a right to own hand guns that is an interpetation.

Confusing stuff this all is.

Posted by: Karl aka paradox1x on May 27, 2002 05:25 PM

The 4th amendment is considered the right to privacy portion of the Bill of Rights:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Posted by: Bb aka Shelley aka Weblog Bosswoman on May 27, 2002 05:57 PM

please don't take my previous post as in support of or against of a right to privacy.

Posted by: Karl aka paradox1x on May 27, 2002 05:58 PM

Posted by: Bb aka Shelley aka Weblog Bosswoman on May 27, 2002 05:59 PM

I just wanted to bring up that it's an interpretation. Same thing as the 2nd ammendment and the right to own hand guns.

Both interpretations the courts wrestle with the meaning to all the time.

It's not as black and white as the right to free speach or to trial by jury.

Is it 'moral' to ban hand guns? Or to make sure that people pass reasonable security checks to get them?

Well a whole bunch of people find that interpretation incorrect and a violation of their rights.

I'm connecting these two since I believe that most here would find restrictions on guns reasonable, but the FBI being proactive and hunting down these nutcases before they do any harm not.

Just bringing it up to see if anyone makes that connection.

Posted by: Karl aka paradox1x on May 27, 2002 06:07 PM

BTW - I'm most definately for resonable background checks on gun ownership. But again - maybe that's not constitutional and anti-freedom? I don't know.

Posted by: Karl aka paradox1x on May 27, 2002 06:46 PM