: You accept then that goal decides work, that you cannot simply choose to do anything where the goal is personal survival or communal survival.
No, as in I have specific work to be getting on with and if I don't it won't be done on time.
: Should or does? Should implies some kind of action that others are obliged to undertake on your behalf.
No, it implies a set of activities that we are obliged to engage in ourselves.
: Saying "not guilty" is part of being in the system. Being absent is a sign of no trust in it.
Not really, not turning up to vote counts, sort of, not turning up to a jury just means you're replaced.
: 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 would see that beating as a betrayal of we, unles it was carried out by due process, etc.
: 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!
Well, its more a 'historical circumatances' thing- his example is Cæsar, but he means Napoleon, one man fulfilling his selfish ambitions co-incidentally fulfills a world-historical shift. Marx changed that to class interest for his theories (thus the self interest of teh working class, etc.).
: 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.
Yes, thats very consequentialist, and 'coice' theory tends, to be rather intentionalist in outlook.
: 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?
Barry would be proud....
: 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.
But wouldn't such internalisation depend upon an existing external state to impose that sense of fear/guilt?
: 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.
Indee, how Kantian ;) Kant reckoned people ought to be tret as an end in themselves (intrigueingly this becomes a devastating critique of waged labour, which treats people as means to ends...).
: 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.
Rights are meaningless without a means to exercise them. And any right that is not exercised does not really exist (a proper materialist consequentialist understanding would say), so surely we as a community must ensure teh existence fo rights?
: 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.
Indeed, and I owuld say that the best way to ensure them is to ensure social equality, and to actively assist, rather than passively allow.