[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Razor

I think the counter question is where does a society draw the line on acceptable behavior, and who has the authority to draw it? If one of your "groups" from above decides that having children engage in bestiality for entertainment is acceptable, are you arguing that another group has no moral authority to denounce and punish such abhorent behavior? Moral relativism can have frightening consequences.

Razor--

With respect, I think that "moral relativism" does not accurately describe the position from which I'm posing my questions. My concern centers around the potential unintended consequences posed by the intellectual trajectory of the editorial quoted in the OP. This concern is informed by my understanding of American history which is replete with examples of what happens when this group or that group insists that another group does things a specific way...or else.

IMO, key points in your counter question are:

• What and who determines "acceptable behavior"?
• What is the nature of authority in society when it comes to establishing normative practices? Is the authority essentially democratic or hegemonic?
• If, as you suggest, rules of conduct are established by notions of morality, who gets to decide?
• If notions of morality change over time--as they have in American history--what happens to the historical and political legitimacy of those who enforced moral codes that are now outdated?

In regards to your specific example, I propose that we turn it on its head. In addition to proposing a situation that is on the margins of behavior in contemporary America, how about we also consider situations that strike closer to home?

Imagine, if you would, a convergence of circumstances in which many of the concerns voiced on this thread come to pass and the far left solidifies its control of American politics, society, and culture. Imagine, if you would, that as a part of their control of American culture they convinced most Americans to reposition the nation's moral values by re-introducing components of American political philosophy that have been put aside.

In this scenario, they would have the political and moral authority to impose their vision of everyday life on America. But would they have the right to impose their vision of everyday life on us by insisting on any of the following behaviors:

• vegetarianism,
• secularism,
• pacifism (both at home and abroad),
• communitariasm (not socialism or communism),
• Malthusianism,
• environmentalism, and
• urbanism.

My broader point here is that we all have our visions of how America should be. On some points we may agree, on others we may not. While I think Americans have a duty to discuss openly and honestly their views, and to do what they can to show the benefits of these visions, I get a bit nervous--maybe because I live in a very blue state--when my fellow citizens start telling others how things must be done.