: No, it implies a set of activities that we are obliged to engage in ourselves.
: Not really, not turning up to vote counts, sort of, not turning up to a jury just means you're replaced.
You are not, however, replaced by you.
: I would see that beating as a betrayal of we, unles it was carried out by due process, etc.
Whatever the current dubious notion of due process is.
: Yes, thats very consequentialist, and 'coice' theory tends, to be rather intentionalist in outlook.
Its weakened because people say they intend things when actually they do not. Look at almost anyone dieting.
: Barry would be proud....
: But wouldn't such internalisation depend upon an existing external state to impose that sense of fear/guilt?
Dont you bones depend on calcium? Shall we consider the calcium to be the state? Where you gain the things you internalise from is not a factor, that they are internalised by you in your specific indidual way is.
: 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...).
Slavery is, voluntary contract isnt. If the contract represents the best choice in a bad bunch it represents the best choice in a bad bunch.
: 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?
By ensuring that people are not supressed from excercising such rights.
: 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.
Depending on what you mean by social equality (ie opportunity or outcome?) Marvellous when done entirely by voluntary activity. Disastrous when done in any other way.