"Human Dignity" & "Common Good"

There was a discussion group on this site for the book Thinking Points a while ago. If you go to the link below, and look at the lower right side of the page you will see links to the discussion on each chapter. You might want to read through those, as some of your questions might be answered there.

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/thinkingpoints/

And if any staff read this post, those links should still be accessible from the front page here.

You ask
"Who decides what "human dignity" is? Who decides what "the common good" is?"

How about the people? By voting people pick the candidate that, in their mind, best represent values like human dignity and the common good.
People are very good at recognizing values and picking the ones that are important. We are good at seeing if something is just or dignified and that's why it's important for a candidate to connect issues and policies to such values.

Rikard

And the system is already in place...

I know "authority" is supposedly a SF term but that's the word we use when we let someone else (Government/courts/teachers/military) tell us what to do. Progressives (with a capital "P" - or at least as represented in Mr. Lakoff's books) don't seem to be looking back up the chain of authority to see who decides - instead they are unilaterally stating what is "moral," what is "ethical," what is "dignity," what is the "common good," and try to attach legal obligations to their own definitions. (Conservatives try to do that too.) We all agreed to a contract (the Constitution and its supporting body of law) that define our obligations.

There are no other obligations except the ones we explicitly accept upon ourselves.

"And the system is already in place..."

Not "in place". The system is a verb, not a noun.


"I know "authority" is supposedly a SF term but that's the word we use when we let someone else (Government/courts/teachers/military) tell us what to do. Progressives (with a capital "P" - or at least as represented in Mr. Lakoff's books) don't seem to be looking back up the chain of authority to see who decides - instead they are unilaterally stating what is "moral," what is "ethical," what is "dignity," what is the "common good," and try to attach legal obligations to their own definitions. (Conservatives try to do that too.) We all agreed to a contract (the Constitution and its supporting body of law) that define our obligations.
There are no other obligations except the ones we explicitly accept upon ourselves."


We are building a better world and there are different ways of doing that. One way emphasizes values like authority and obligations. Another way emphasizes empathy and responsibility.
Values are lenses through which we interpret and handle the world. They are lenses we use to interpret and handle the environment, violence, the law, health, media, automobiles, movies, Dave Letterman and even God.
In Sweden we don't have your Constitution but we have values that we use to interpret and handle the world. In Ukraine there are values that Ukranians use to interpret and handle the world.
Do you see why values define ideas like the Constitution? Do you see that law is one of many tools that we use to build a better world, not THE tool?

Rikard

>Do you see that law is one of many tools that we use to build a better world,
>not THE tool?

No, I don't. What "tools"? Who picks them? When were they picked? What's a "better" world?

For a iconology built on linguistics, we certainly better submit to some kind of common "authority" so we can all agree on what we're talking about. By definition, that common understanding is the "law."

Martin, I know your choice of words makes my (and I'm sure others) hackles go up. Look at your phrase, "... we certainly better submit to some kind of common "authority"...". It is essentially the antithesis of progressive framing.

The only authority needed is the dictionary and maybe a thesaurus.

This is not a contest to win a court case. This is about getting people to use or turn up the volume on a mindset they likely already have in place. MOST of American and human interaction does not take place in the courtroom. I acknowledge that court proceedings and law legislation has bearing on my life in this country, but I also live in the real world. It really is about winning hearts and minds. The will of the people can do a lot in this country. Right now they are being deluged with a corporate owned/interest mainstream media that will not discuss certain issues and will dramatically play down (or up) any story to suit those 6 or so companies personal agendas http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main . Democracy does not work when the public is not informed. This is why it is super frustrating when news stories or subjects in the mainstream media want to be helpful to progressive causes but use conservative frames. Hence, here we are at Rockridge kicking around ideas to help it.

It's not about scoring points, its about trying to understand one another and then advancing a progressive platform.

As for tools, there are initiatives, there are trends, there are media campaigns of ideas, there are grassroots campaigns, there is music, there is rumor, there are situational economics, there are family beliefs, there are educational techniques, there are boycotts, there are slimy tricks. The list could go on forever in how you go about getting your point across to as many people as possible. The legal ground is there because the values are based on basic Constitutional principles.

I wish there was another word for "authority" because it carries so much emotional baggage... The word "law" has similar preconceptions attached to it.

If we are to operate in a society we must recognize a common adjudicator who bases their judgments on a set of commonly agreed upon priorities. Demonizing this single decision-maker as a "strict father," or dismissing the priorities as a "frame" is polemic.

A judge is our adjudicator who bases their judgments on a set of commonly agreed upon laws. A judge can actually still be a nurturant parent type of judge (say one that leans toward community service, reconciliation attempts and contributions to society).

I don't recall demonizing anything. You seem to be the one that wants to put things into all or nothing camps, not me. I see the whole world as a spectrum between many poles and we can land anywhere (in those spectrums) and we can push others anywhere.

Even aside from the meaning of authority, the attitude of, we had certainly better submit, is the antithesis of progressivism. No, we don't have to submit to anything. We can accept the status quo or work to change it. We have the framework for democratic change regardless of what authority each individual decides to adopt. My authority is my conscience and I was born in America so I work within the American Constitution.

I reject your notion that we all have to assimilate to one system of thinking with one authority; that is an impossible notion. Progressives make room for any system of thinking then try to come to a consensus on how to be effective to put our values into practice. Also, I think I am much more influential in the general population when I relate progressive messages in a natural human interaction sans labels, not when I'm dictating the rules.

A person's heart goes out to a human truly in need no matter what politics got them to that place. My hardcore super religious-conservative-frequently-racist-and misogynistic side of my family has sympathy for a crack baby. It's up to the conversation whether we focus on the mother's lack of responsibility and need to be punished or do we talk about giving the kid a fair shake in the world. The "sin" is done; do we focus on the sin and let the baby slip into a life of no opportunity or do we focus on improving our community situation starting today.

It's always easy to talk about babies because everyone has empathy for them, but I would make the same argument for the drug using mother too.

I think Martin Hash has got it backwards. He's thinking like a conservative here. But you can usually arrive at the progressive view point by just flipping it on its head.

It's not that the people should submit to the law, but rather that the law should reflect the will of the people. After all, who writes the laws? Congress. And who elects lawmakers to Congress? The American people.

I sense this view from him that we all need to submit to an agreed upon authority, the law, or else society falls into chaos. But this is once again the conservative world view, which says that we need laws to make sure people behave. Progressives, on the other hand, believe laws should guarantee people's rights. Which is why when things go wrong, progressives believe the laws are unfair and need to be changed. Conservatives though believe it is because the laws have become too lax.

It is precisely because laws have often been unjust that progressives don't view the law as something we must all submit to. Which is why civil disobedience is a tradition firmly embedded in our world view. Yes, when laws do not reflect the will of the people, that means one does not have to obey them. I can see conservatives screaming at this, fearing this gives permission for anyone to break the law. But I don't think many progressives believe Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr. or Gandhi are criminals. Rather, they are regarded as heroes who fought injustices. Or the Founding Fathers for that matter. They committed the ultimate act of "treason" by rejecting the King's rule.

Laws are often changed to reflect the People's will in just this manner.