: You are, according to you
Wrong work :(
You accept then that goal decides work, that you cannot simply choose to do anything where the goal is personal survival or communal survival.
: We co-create our identities from our envirobnment, and our environment should contain should structures as to facilitate and help in self-creation.
Should or does? Should implies some kind of action that others are obliged to undertake on your behalf.
: No, because in court you have the option of Saying 'Not Guilty' if you have no faith in the system.
Saying "not guilty" is part of being in the system. Being absent is a sign of no trust in it.
: Then I accept that, but I can have faith that overall *we* are in control, and decisions are subject to *our* reason and values.
I would never perceive that in a positive light, any more than I would suggest that being beaten up by 10 people at least suggested "we" were generally acting for the beating.
: I agree, representative democracy suck Goats (some theorists of representative democracy think they're self-interest is a Good thing, certainly hegel thunked that...).
Thats because Hegel seems to believe that we all share self interest really deep down kinda sorta. Incidently I suspect some representatives would not be averse to sucking goats!
: No, I haven't chosen anything, I act in accordance with my weltangshauung and personality, but sometimes events happen faster than choices- and I never choose not to waggle my willy...
The point was that the action is yours, that you cannot have as post event excuse "but I didnt mean it" even if you on reflection didnt.
: It remains mine, but the illusion of a rational self activating, selecting choices, etc, is still an ilusion.
The rationality of it is secondary to the ownership of the action by you. Are you seeing how encompassing and downright 'not fair!' my definition of choice is?
: If we were to take a classic liberal individualist appraoch, we'd have to ask if it were in the self inetrest of the individual to stop and help (a rule-utilitarian would be needed here).
Oh JS Mill and his Father! That is how you decide. "Is it worth me stopping to help?" Youre answers, wordlessly, might be yes for various reasons - "I value other people", "Im afraid of living with guilt if he dies", "Im afraid of the punitive Law" (The latter if you live in France). For most its the first. The morals are a reflection of your values, if you dont value others and are guiltless about allowing bad things to happen when simple action could have helped then you walk by. Any 'state' internalised is in keeping with the non-aggression principle and the Mill-like individualism.
: and not the sole justification, the end in itself of my values.
I would argue that a person can only their own end, they cannot actually be an end for others - the only mechanism to break this is force.
: Then, following the logic of a non-aggresion principle being necessary to personal liberty a
victim may freely and rightly seek to preserve that liberty by shooting you.
: And if they don't have a gun, are we down to simple might equals right now?
The right remains true even if the victim is true. The right to your own life does not render you impervious to force (sadly!). To protect such liberty requires action. It does in every kind of social set up whether coerced or not. It is not the might that makes it right.
: I don't expect total uniformity (Bob forbid!), but I do suggest that a core set of values can be found that work...given teh right social structure...
There are values shared by a great many people. captured neatly in the largely ignored phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are the values most people seek to enhance and maintain. Our discussion are primarily concerned with how the greatest opportunities for such can be generated.