Question #2664
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Rob
May 13, 2009, 7:34:42 PM5/13/09
to AskPhilosophers
Richard Heck replied to my question with the following answer. I felt
that his answer did not adequately address my question. He talks
about how anti-homosexual marriage license clerks cannot *legally*
withhold licenses to gay couples, but he does not talk about whether
it is *moral* or *immoral* to do so (except in his initial
assertion).
His comparison of the problem of inter-racial dating sheds little
light on the subject because it may be moral or immoral for a person
against inter-racial dating to withhold licenses just as well. The
current status of inter-racial marriage doesn't speak to the morality
of the act, only to current laws vs. older laws.
Anyone have insights?
-Rob
Question # 2664
Recently the headlines have reported some clerks of the court refusing
to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in states where same-
sex marriage has been recently legalized. If such a person has strong
beliefs about the immorality of gay marriage, are they acting
ethically if they refuse to issue these licenses?
Richard Heck responds:
No, they are not. They are violating the legitimate rights of the
people who are applying for the license.This is the sort of place that
a comparision to inter-racial marriage is worth making, even though
there are lots of differences between the two cases. It really did
happen that inter-racial couples were denied marriage licenses to
which they were legally entitled, and the clerks who refused to issue
such licenses may well have been, and probably were, acting out of
"strong beliefs about the immorality of [inter-raical] marriage",
beliefs that may, just like some people\'s beliefs about gay marriage,
have been founded on their religious views. Unless we can find some
relevant difference between these cases, then, we shall have to say
the same thing about them.People nowadays seem to me to forget how
widespread opposition to inter-racial marriage once was. States had
and enforced "anti-miscegenation" laws because very large portions of
the populations of those states want!
ed to have such laws. So, again, the comparision between gay marriage
and inter-racial marriage may not be perfect---of course, it isn\'t---
but that does not mean that it cannot be used to throw real light on
the issues involved. In particular, trumpeting this sort of issue as
one of "religious freedom" looks problematic, since such a concern
could have been, and very probably was, raised in the case of inter-
racial marriage, too.That said, there can of course be cases where
conscience dictates that one act in opposition to the law. That is
what civil disobedience is. But it is part of civil disobedience that
one openly acts in violation of the law, and that one is prepared
openly to accept the usual consequences of doing so. If the clerks in
question are prepared to accept being fired or fined for their
actions, as a way of drawing attention to what they regard as unjust
laws, then and only then are their acts ones of civil disobedience.
And, indeed, then, and only then, w!
ould I see what they were doing as honorable, even if based up!
on what
I would regard as unfortunate views.The final thing to say, however,
is that it is very hard to see how forcing a government employee to
issue a marriage license to a gay couple violates any right of the
employee\'s, or even why it makes even a little sense that the
employee should object to being asked to issue such a license. The
fact that the employee wishes the law were different, or thinks the
people to whom s\'he is issuing the license are going to hell, or who
knows what, is no reason at all, so far as I can see.
that his answer did not adequately address my question. He talks
about how anti-homosexual marriage license clerks cannot *legally*
withhold licenses to gay couples, but he does not talk about whether
it is *moral* or *immoral* to do so (except in his initial
assertion).
His comparison of the problem of inter-racial dating sheds little
light on the subject because it may be moral or immoral for a person
against inter-racial dating to withhold licenses just as well. The
current status of inter-racial marriage doesn't speak to the morality
of the act, only to current laws vs. older laws.
Anyone have insights?
-Rob
Question # 2664
Recently the headlines have reported some clerks of the court refusing
to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in states where same-
sex marriage has been recently legalized. If such a person has strong
beliefs about the immorality of gay marriage, are they acting
ethically if they refuse to issue these licenses?
Richard Heck responds:
No, they are not. They are violating the legitimate rights of the
people who are applying for the license.This is the sort of place that
a comparision to inter-racial marriage is worth making, even though
there are lots of differences between the two cases. It really did
happen that inter-racial couples were denied marriage licenses to
which they were legally entitled, and the clerks who refused to issue
such licenses may well have been, and probably were, acting out of
"strong beliefs about the immorality of [inter-raical] marriage",
beliefs that may, just like some people\'s beliefs about gay marriage,
have been founded on their religious views. Unless we can find some
relevant difference between these cases, then, we shall have to say
the same thing about them.People nowadays seem to me to forget how
widespread opposition to inter-racial marriage once was. States had
and enforced "anti-miscegenation" laws because very large portions of
the populations of those states want!
ed to have such laws. So, again, the comparision between gay marriage
and inter-racial marriage may not be perfect---of course, it isn\'t---
but that does not mean that it cannot be used to throw real light on
the issues involved. In particular, trumpeting this sort of issue as
one of "religious freedom" looks problematic, since such a concern
could have been, and very probably was, raised in the case of inter-
racial marriage, too.That said, there can of course be cases where
conscience dictates that one act in opposition to the law. That is
what civil disobedience is. But it is part of civil disobedience that
one openly acts in violation of the law, and that one is prepared
openly to accept the usual consequences of doing so. If the clerks in
question are prepared to accept being fired or fined for their
actions, as a way of drawing attention to what they regard as unjust
laws, then and only then are their acts ones of civil disobedience.
And, indeed, then, and only then, w!
ould I see what they were doing as honorable, even if based up!
on what
I would regard as unfortunate views.The final thing to say, however,
is that it is very hard to see how forcing a government employee to
issue a marriage license to a gay couple violates any right of the
employee\'s, or even why it makes even a little sense that the
employee should object to being asked to issue such a license. The
fact that the employee wishes the law were different, or thinks the
people to whom s\'he is issuing the license are going to hell, or who
knows what, is no reason at all, so far as I can see.
Prem Das
May 13, 2009, 8:44:05 PM5/13/09
to rob.s...@gmail.com, askphil...@googlegroups.com
Gentlemen, do you think we are overthinking this?
The clerk's attitude to inter-racial marriages, is pure racism and is legally and morally reprehensible. The other is a gray area. These are decadent times. Things that were considered shameful and against the order of nature are now being flounted proudly.
Whatever the case, it is none of the clerks business. He does his job for which he receives a wage, or he quits. His outrage must not be visited on others.
Just my two bit's worth.
Wed, 13 May 2009 16:34:42 -0700
> Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Question #2664
> From: rob.s...@gmail.com
> To: AskPhil...@googlegroups.com
The clerk's attitude to inter-racial marriages, is pure racism and is legally and morally reprehensible. The other is a gray area. These are decadent times. Things that were considered shameful and against the order of nature are now being flounted proudly.
Whatever the case, it is none of the clerks business. He does his job for which he receives a wage, or he quits. His outrage must not be visited on others.
Just my two bit's worth.
Wed, 13 May 2009 16:34:42 -0700
> Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Question #2664
> From: rob.s...@gmail.com
> To: AskPhil...@googlegroups.com
> More than mail–Windows Live™ goes way beyond your inbox.
More than messages
Rob
May 14, 2009, 1:28:57 PM5/14/09
to AskPhilosophers
I don't think it's quite this easy. The clerk is maintaining a
particular moral position about gay marriage. Let's assume that his
morality is a product of Divine Command Theory. The culture at large
maintains a different set of moral principles. He is a member of the
culture, so it *is* his business. Maybe also he believes that it's
his purpose to advocate for his understanding of Divine Command
Theory. So it's even more his business.
I think it's disingenious to mark the clerk's position up to "pure
racism" or "outrage." He may hold his position calmly and
rationally. He may argue that his moral stance, known to him through
divine command, holds greater weight than recognizing the legal rights
of others. Law does not and should not always hold precedence over
morality. The question, then, is, "does his use of position as legal
clerk and his denial of the legal rights of others make immoral what
he regards as an act done in accordance with his moral principles?"
On May 13, 7:44 pm, Prem Das <dasp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Gentlemen, do you think we are overthinking this?
>
> The clerk's attitude to inter-racial marriages, is pure racism and is legally and morally reprehensible. The other is a gray area. These are decadent times. Things that were considered shameful and against the order of nature are now being flounted proudly.
>
> Whatever the case, it is none of the clerks business. He does his job for which he receives a wage, or he quits. His outrage must not be visited on others.
>
> Just my two bit's worth.
>
> Wed, 13 May 2009 16:34:42 -0700
>
>
>
>
>
> > Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Question #2664
> > From: rob.sche...@gmail.com
> _________________________________________________________________
> More than messages–check out the rest of the Windows Live™.http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
particular moral position about gay marriage. Let's assume that his
morality is a product of Divine Command Theory. The culture at large
maintains a different set of moral principles. He is a member of the
culture, so it *is* his business. Maybe also he believes that it's
his purpose to advocate for his understanding of Divine Command
Theory. So it's even more his business.
I think it's disingenious to mark the clerk's position up to "pure
racism" or "outrage." He may hold his position calmly and
rationally. He may argue that his moral stance, known to him through
divine command, holds greater weight than recognizing the legal rights
of others. Law does not and should not always hold precedence over
morality. The question, then, is, "does his use of position as legal
clerk and his denial of the legal rights of others make immoral what
he regards as an act done in accordance with his moral principles?"
On May 13, 7:44 pm, Prem Das <dasp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Gentlemen, do you think we are overthinking this?
>
> The clerk's attitude to inter-racial marriages, is pure racism and is legally and morally reprehensible. The other is a gray area. These are decadent times. Things that were considered shameful and against the order of nature are now being flounted proudly.
>
> Whatever the case, it is none of the clerks business. He does his job for which he receives a wage, or he quits. His outrage must not be visited on others.
>
> Just my two bit's worth.
>
> Wed, 13 May 2009 16:34:42 -0700
>
>
>
>
>
> > Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Question #2664
> More than messages–check out the rest of the Windows Live™.http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Prem Das
May 14, 2009, 7:14:50 PM5/14/09
to rob.s...@gmail.com, askphil...@googlegroups.com
However fluently and elegantly you couch it, the discription of the clerk's position can be covered by just one word. Bigotry.
He hasn't very many options. He can decide to not be part of the problem and quit. The disingeniousness is in his refusal to uphold his part of the contract for which he has received a wage. He does not have the luxury of moral ambiguousness just because of his beliefs in 'Divine Compulsions'.
Maybe I am wrong and I apologise in advance but the question of the difficulty or the ease of this conundrum is how my stance on the subject dovetails with yours. Are you a dog with a bone? NO OFFENCE INTENDED.
> Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 10:28:57 -0700
> Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Re: Question #2664
> From: rob.s...@gmail.com
> To: AskPhil...@googlegroups.com
>
>
He hasn't very many options. He can decide to not be part of the problem and quit. The disingeniousness is in his refusal to uphold his part of the contract for which he has received a wage. He does not have the luxury of moral ambiguousness just because of his beliefs in 'Divine Compulsions'.
Maybe I am wrong and I apologise in advance but the question of the difficulty or the ease of this conundrum is how my stance on the subject dovetails with yours. Are you a dog with a bone? NO OFFENCE INTENDED.
> Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 10:28:57 -0700
> Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Re: Question #2664
> From: rob.s...@gmail.com
> To: AskPhil...@googlegroups.com
>
>
Rob
May 14, 2009, 9:38:21 PM5/14/09
to AskPhilosophers
No bone here. I advocate gay marriage, and proudly live in a state
where it's legal.
My only argument here is that we can't knee-jerkingly respond that the
clerk is acting immorally. Refusing to act according to the law (even
when it affects others) when the law contradicts one's moral
principles is sometimes justified. More importantly, as I've
presented it, the clerk's acting according to his moral principles
does not constitute bigotry.
Was Rosa Parks being a bigot when she undermined the law by sitting at
the front of the bus?
Consider the possibility that you regard the clerk as bigoted but not
Rosa Parks solely because you agree with Rosa Parks' principles.
On May 14, 6:14 pm, Prem Das <dasp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> However fluently and elegantly you couch it, the discription of the clerk's position can be covered by just one word. Bigotry.
>
> He hasn't very many options. He can decide to not be part of the problem and quit. The disingeniousness is in his refusal to uphold his part of the contract for which he has received a wage. He does not have the luxury of moral ambiguousness just because of his beliefs in 'Divine Compulsions'.
>
> Maybe I am wrong and I apologise in advance but the question of the difficulty or the ease of this conundrum is how my stance on the subject dovetails with yours. Are you a dog with a bone? NO OFFENCE INTENDED.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 10:28:57 -0700
> > Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Re: Question #2664
> > From: rob.sche...@gmail.com
> > > More than messages–check out the rest of the Windows Live™.http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/-Hide quoted text -
> See all the ways you can stay connected to friends and familyhttp://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/default.aspx- Hide quoted text -
where it's legal.
My only argument here is that we can't knee-jerkingly respond that the
clerk is acting immorally. Refusing to act according to the law (even
when it affects others) when the law contradicts one's moral
principles is sometimes justified. More importantly, as I've
presented it, the clerk's acting according to his moral principles
does not constitute bigotry.
Was Rosa Parks being a bigot when she undermined the law by sitting at
the front of the bus?
Consider the possibility that you regard the clerk as bigoted but not
Rosa Parks solely because you agree with Rosa Parks' principles.
On May 14, 6:14 pm, Prem Das <dasp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> However fluently and elegantly you couch it, the discription of the clerk's position can be covered by just one word. Bigotry.
>
> He hasn't very many options. He can decide to not be part of the problem and quit. The disingeniousness is in his refusal to uphold his part of the contract for which he has received a wage. He does not have the luxury of moral ambiguousness just because of his beliefs in 'Divine Compulsions'.
>
> Maybe I am wrong and I apologise in advance but the question of the difficulty or the ease of this conundrum is how my stance on the subject dovetails with yours. Are you a dog with a bone? NO OFFENCE INTENDED.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 10:28:57 -0700
> > Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Re: Question #2664
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> See all the ways you can stay connected to friends and familyhttp://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/default.aspx- Hide quoted text -
Prem Das
May 14, 2009, 9:56:38 PM5/14/09
to rob.s...@gmail.com, askphil...@googlegroups.com
Excuse me, I think you got it backwards. In Rosa Parks case, the bigotry is on the part of the officials who mandated that there were seats not available to people based purely on color. The bigotry is insisting only their beliefs are right.
The clerk is doing the same thing by refusing to fulfill someone's wish, just as the officials refused Rosa's wish to sit where she did. She was righting a wrong.
> Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 18:38:21 -0700
The clerk is doing the same thing by refusing to fulfill someone's wish, just as the officials refused Rosa's wish to sit where she did. She was righting a wrong.
> Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 18:38:21 -0700
> Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Re: Question #2664
Rob
May 15, 2009, 8:12:05 AM5/15/09
to AskPhilosophers
Again, you're prejudicing the matter with your own assumptions about
right and wrong, with your own morality. Open your mind to the
perspective of the clerk.
On May 14, 8:56 pm, Prem Das <dasp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Excuse me, I think you got it backwards. In Rosa Parks case, the bigotry is on the part of the officials who mandated that there were seats not available to people based purely on color. The bigotry is insisting only their beliefs are right.
>
> The clerk is doing the same thing by refusing to fulfill someone's wish, just as the officials refused Rosa's wish to sit where she did. She was righting a wrong.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 18:38:21 -0700
> > Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Re: Question #2664
> > From: rob.sche...@gmail.com
> > > > > More than messages–check out the rest of the Windows Live™.http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/-Hidequoted text -
right and wrong, with your own morality. Open your mind to the
perspective of the clerk.
On May 14, 8:56 pm, Prem Das <dasp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Excuse me, I think you got it backwards. In Rosa Parks case, the bigotry is on the part of the officials who mandated that there were seats not available to people based purely on color. The bigotry is insisting only their beliefs are right.
>
> The clerk is doing the same thing by refusing to fulfill someone's wish, just as the officials refused Rosa's wish to sit where she did. She was righting a wrong.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 18:38:21 -0700
> > Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Re: Question #2664
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > See all the ways you can stay connected to friends and familyhttp://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/default.aspx-Hide quoted text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > _________________________________________________________________
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> More than messages–check out the rest of the Windows Live™.http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/- Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> _________________________________________________________________
Rob
May 15, 2009, 8:18:39 AM5/15/09
to AskPhilosophers
I can't help but notice the irony here of a person with the screen
name "Prem Das" arguing a sort of legal positivism.
Imagine instead that the clerk is not a clerk but a peyote user who
wants to breach the law by selling the drug to others. If I were to
react as knee-jerkingly as you, I would say he's automatically immoral
for trying to pawn off a toxic substance to others. I think you would
then respond, as I have, that there might be a greater morality here
than what is simply legal or illegal/culturally acceptable or not
culturally acceptable.
Furthermore, if you want to maintain that the clerk is actively doing
harm to others, I could argue the same for the peyote dealer, as drugs
are actively harmful to users.
> > > > > > More than messages–check out the rest of the Windows Live™.http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/-Hidequotedtext -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
name "Prem Das" arguing a sort of legal positivism.
Imagine instead that the clerk is not a clerk but a peyote user who
wants to breach the law by selling the drug to others. If I were to
react as knee-jerkingly as you, I would say he's automatically immoral
for trying to pawn off a toxic substance to others. I think you would
then respond, as I have, that there might be a greater morality here
than what is simply legal or illegal/culturally acceptable or not
culturally acceptable.
Furthermore, if you want to maintain that the clerk is actively doing
harm to others, I could argue the same for the peyote dealer, as drugs
are actively harmful to users.
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > > See all the ways you can stay connected to friends and familyhttp://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/default.aspx-Hidequoted text -
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > _________________________________________________________________
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > More than messages–check out the rest of the Windows Live™.http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/-Hide quoted text -
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > _________________________________________________________________
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
David J Bailey
May 15, 2009, 5:17:15 PM5/15/09
to AskPhilosophers
Consider a slightly different case: Suppose a Roman Catholic nurse
applies for a job in an abortion clinic, and then refuses to perform
his duties because he disagrees with abortion. While it's true that,
by his measure of morality, abortion is wrong it's also true that he
has no place working in a job where he MUST refuse to do his duty. You
can surely make an argument that to accept a duty that you cannot
fulfil is to act immorally.
While in the given situation the person is already employed, it is
also true that sometimes the condition of a job changes, and to
continue in a job when you know you can't continue to perform your
duties would be equally immoral.
You can argue that this is perhaps harsh, and that the person has a
right to protest what they consider to be immoral behaviour. But
Richard Heck has a point: If they choose to refuse to the job, as a
form of civil disobedience, and to use this as protest then they
should also be prepared for the consequences. i.e. Being fired for
refusing to do the job for which they are employed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I made a mistake when I first replied and clicked "Reply to author"
instead of simply reply (and sent my reply only to Prem Das instead of
you both.)
> ...
>
> read more »
applies for a job in an abortion clinic, and then refuses to perform
his duties because he disagrees with abortion. While it's true that,
by his measure of morality, abortion is wrong it's also true that he
has no place working in a job where he MUST refuse to do his duty. You
can surely make an argument that to accept a duty that you cannot
fulfil is to act immorally.
While in the given situation the person is already employed, it is
also true that sometimes the condition of a job changes, and to
continue in a job when you know you can't continue to perform your
duties would be equally immoral.
You can argue that this is perhaps harsh, and that the person has a
right to protest what they consider to be immoral behaviour. But
Richard Heck has a point: If they choose to refuse to the job, as a
form of civil disobedience, and to use this as protest then they
should also be prepared for the consequences. i.e. Being fired for
refusing to do the job for which they are employed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I made a mistake when I first replied and clicked "Reply to author"
instead of simply reply (and sent my reply only to Prem Das instead of
you both.)
>
> read more »
Prem Das
May 15, 2009, 7:02:07 PM5/15/09
to davidj...@gmail.com, askphil...@googlegroups.com
Now this person has an opinion on my name. It is the name on my original birth certificate. I suppose, his beef is with my dead father.
I think I shall exercise my right to banish you from my inbox. Go spew your vitriol somewhere else.
> Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 14:17:15 -0700
I think I shall exercise my right to banish you from my inbox. Go spew your vitriol somewhere else.
> Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 14:17:15 -0700
> Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Re: Question #2664
Rob
May 19, 2009, 11:48:51 AM5/19/09
to AskPhilosophers
This is an entirely different case. A Roman Catholic nurse applying
for a job at an abortion clinic is knowingly involving herself in an
occupation that goes against her principles. The clerk received the
job long before there was any consideration of allowing same-sex
marriage. So I don't think your analogy holds.
On May 15, 4:17 pm, David J Bailey <davidjbai...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Consider a slightly different case: Suppose a Roman Catholic nurse
> applies for a job in an abortion clinic, and then refuses to perform
> his duties because he disagrees with abortion. While it's true that,
> by his measure of morality, abortion is wrong it's also true that he
> has no place working in a job where he MUST refuse to do his duty. You
> can surely make an argument that to accept a duty that you cannot
> fulfil is to act immorally.
>
> While in the given situation the person is already employed, it is
> also true that sometimes the condition of a job changes, and to
> continue in a job when you know you can't continue to perform your
> duties would be equally immoral.
>
> You can argue that this is perhaps harsh, and that the person has a
> right to protest what they consider to be immoral behaviour. But
> Richard Heck has a point: If they choose to refuse to the job, as a
> form of civil disobedience, and to use this as protest then they
> should also be prepared for the consequences. i.e. Being fired for
> refusing to do the job for which they are employed.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
for a job at an abortion clinic is knowingly involving herself in an
occupation that goes against her principles. The clerk received the
job long before there was any consideration of allowing same-sex
marriage. So I don't think your analogy holds.
On May 15, 4:17 pm, David J Bailey <davidjbai...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Consider a slightly different case: Suppose a Roman Catholic nurse
> applies for a job in an abortion clinic, and then refuses to perform
> his duties because he disagrees with abortion. While it's true that,
> by his measure of morality, abortion is wrong it's also true that he
> has no place working in a job where he MUST refuse to do his duty. You
> can surely make an argument that to accept a duty that you cannot
> fulfil is to act immorally.
>
> While in the given situation the person is already employed, it is
> also true that sometimes the condition of a job changes, and to
> continue in a job when you know you can't continue to perform your
> duties would be equally immoral.
>
> You can argue that this is perhaps harsh, and that the person has a
> right to protest what they consider to be immoral behaviour. But
> Richard Heck has a point: If they choose to refuse to the job, as a
> form of civil disobedience, and to use this as protest then they
> should also be prepared for the consequences. i.e. Being fired for
> refusing to do the job for which they are employed.
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Rob
May 19, 2009, 11:50:52 AM5/19/09
to AskPhilosophers
Relax. I said nothing negative about your name. There was no
personal attack. It's simply an irony because the well-known Prem Das
(apparently your father?) advocated illegal actions on the grounds
that those actions fulfilled a spirtual purpose, much like the clerk
is acting illegally to fulfill a religious duty.
Hardly an ad hominem. Just an appreciation of the irony.
On May 15, 6:02 pm, Prem Das <dasp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Now this person has an opinion on my name. It is the name on my original birth certificate. I suppose, his beef is with my dead father.
>
> I think I shall exercise my right to banish you from my inbox. Go spew your vitriol somewhere else.
>
>
>
> > Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 14:17:15 -0700
> > Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Re: Question #2664
> > From: davidjbai...@gmail.com
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
personal attack. It's simply an irony because the well-known Prem Das
(apparently your father?) advocated illegal actions on the grounds
that those actions fulfilled a spirtual purpose, much like the clerk
is acting illegally to fulfill a religious duty.
Hardly an ad hominem. Just an appreciation of the irony.
On May 15, 6:02 pm, Prem Das <dasp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Now this person has an opinion on my name. It is the name on my original birth certificate. I suppose, his beef is with my dead father.
>
> I think I shall exercise my right to banish you from my inbox. Go spew your vitriol somewhere else.
>
>
>
> > Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 14:17:15 -0700
> > Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Re: Question #2664
> > To: AskPhil...@googlegroups.com
>
> > Consider a slightly different case: Suppose a Roman Catholic nurse
> > applies for a job in an abortion clinic, and then refuses to perform
> > his duties because he disagrees with abortion. While it's true that,
> > by his measure of morality, abortion is wrong it's also true that he
> > has no place working in a job where he MUST refuse to do his duty. You
> > can surely make an argument that to accept a duty that you cannot
> > fulfil is to act immorally.
>
> > While in the given situation the person is already employed, it is
> > also true that sometimes the condition of a job changes, and to
> > continue in a job when you know you can't continue to perform your
> > duties would be equally immoral.
>
> > You can argue that this is perhaps harsh, and that the person has a
> > right to protest what they consider to be immoral behaviour. But
> > Richard Heck has a point: If they choose to refuse to the job, as a
> > form of civil disobedience, and to use this as protest then they
> > should also be prepared for the consequences. i.e. Being fired for
> > refusing to do the job for which they are employed.
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Consider a slightly different case: Suppose a Roman Catholic nurse
> > applies for a job in an abortion clinic, and then refuses to perform
> > his duties because he disagrees with abortion. While it's true that,
> > by his measure of morality, abortion is wrong it's also true that he
> > has no place working in a job where he MUST refuse to do his duty. You
> > can surely make an argument that to accept a duty that you cannot
> > fulfil is to act immorally.
>
> > While in the given situation the person is already employed, it is
> > also true that sometimes the condition of a job changes, and to
> > continue in a job when you know you can't continue to perform your
> > duties would be equally immoral.
>
> > You can argue that this is perhaps harsh, and that the person has a
> > right to protest what they consider to be immoral behaviour. But
> > Richard Heck has a point: If they choose to refuse to the job, as a
> > form of civil disobedience, and to use this as protest then they
> > should also be prepared for the consequences. i.e. Being fired for
> > refusing to do the job for which they are employed.
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
David J Bailey
May 20, 2009, 4:19:13 AM5/20/09
to AskPhilosophers
I admit the analogy is imperfect, but I still maintain that it's not
exactly a completely different case. The conditions of jobs change all
the time, we don't generally agree that people should be able to stick
to old conditions based on personal beliefs - moral or otherwise.
As an example: my father once worked in a chemical plant where they
instituted a rule that all on-site workers need to be clean- or close-
shaven; in the case of a leak they would need to wear gas masks, and
the mask required a tight seal. An islamic co-worker whose religious
beliefs held that he needed to wear a beard of at least a certain
length was unable to comply. As a result he was offered the choice of
paying out-of-pocket the extra for a full head gas-mask and carrying
it at all times, or switching to a desk job. (This was a few years
ago, today the company might not be able to afford the latter offer.)
I maintain that THIS example is similar to the one you proposed, and
that certainly you cannot argue that the alternatives provided were
unreasonable (or if you do, I'd be interested to hear how.) If a clerk
find that the conditions of their job changes such that they can no
longer perform their duties in good conscience then it would be up to
them to either find acceptable alternatives or to resign.
> ...
>
> read more »
exactly a completely different case. The conditions of jobs change all
the time, we don't generally agree that people should be able to stick
to old conditions based on personal beliefs - moral or otherwise.
As an example: my father once worked in a chemical plant where they
instituted a rule that all on-site workers need to be clean- or close-
shaven; in the case of a leak they would need to wear gas masks, and
the mask required a tight seal. An islamic co-worker whose religious
beliefs held that he needed to wear a beard of at least a certain
length was unable to comply. As a result he was offered the choice of
paying out-of-pocket the extra for a full head gas-mask and carrying
it at all times, or switching to a desk job. (This was a few years
ago, today the company might not be able to afford the latter offer.)
I maintain that THIS example is similar to the one you proposed, and
that certainly you cannot argue that the alternatives provided were
unreasonable (or if you do, I'd be interested to hear how.) If a clerk
find that the conditions of their job changes such that they can no
longer perform their duties in good conscience then it would be up to
them to either find acceptable alternatives or to resign.
>
> read more »
Prem Das
May 20, 2009, 7:11:45 AM5/20/09
to davidj...@gmail.com, askphil...@googlegroups.com
I think it is an exercise in futility arguing back and forth. The core issue here is whether an individual's rights are based on fact or if it is just an illusion.
The funny thing about rights are, you do not have them unless someone is willing to grant them. In a court of law, the clerk's chances are next to non-existent. Society's collective rights will always trump an individual's. The clerk is a bottleneck in the smooth running of services demanded for by society. The clerk will be trampled underfoot.
This is reality. The philosophical debate can go till the cows come home but it would be just academic. Just agree to disagree and be finished.
> Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 01:19:13 -0700
The funny thing about rights are, you do not have them unless someone is willing to grant them. In a court of law, the clerk's chances are next to non-existent. Society's collective rights will always trump an individual's. The clerk is a bottleneck in the smooth running of services demanded for by society. The clerk will be trampled underfoot.
This is reality. The philosophical debate can go till the cows come home but it would be just academic. Just agree to disagree and be finished.
> Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 01:19:13 -0700
> Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Re: Question #2664
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages