Aventine

[pookha]

"Melting pot" implies that those different cultures and nationalities cease to exist and instead change into the dominant Anglo-Saxon culture. I don't think that's the case at all -- Native Americans are still Native Americans; Latinos are still Latino; and goodness knows that numerous European ethnic groups have retained their individual cultures here in the U.S. A quick jaunt through Greektown in Chicago will disabuse you of the notion that Americans of European descent necessarily "melt" into Anglo-Saxon copies.

That's true. The "melting pot" ideal is a relic of a time when assimilation and uniformity were seen as a desirable goal. I like to think of America more as a tossed salad.

i see it more as a stew.
with a stew the pieces that make it up are still identifiable.
but each contributes something to make it something more special and heartier.

 

[Rush Limborg]

I don't believe that rights are a cultural construct. I believe that sapient beings intrinsically have certain fundamental rights, not because of an indulgence from God but because they intrinsically deserve them by virtue of what they are. If a society hasn't yet learned to recognize and acknowledge those rights, it doesn't mean the rights don't exist, just that the society is falsely or ignorantly denying them.

Sure, I could step back and see the merit in the scholarly position that the perception of rights is a cultural construct defined differently by different societies. But that's not what I believe to be ethically true. Rights have to be intrinsic or they aren't really rights at all, just indulgences.

Good man.

As The Philosopher Said:

Whether one believes that man is the product of a Creator or of nature, the issue of man's origin does not alter the fact that he is an entity of a specific kind--a rational being--that he cannot function successfully under coercion, and that rights are a necessary condition of his particular mode of survival.

To suggest otherwise--to deny the inalienability of rights--is, frankly, to justify tyranny. If society gives you rights, it can therefore take rights away.

We take rights away from felons.

Even felons have specific rights, as laid out in Amendments Five, Six and Eight. Hence, the "Miranda Rights", which are derived from these three. (The Right To Remain Silent, for example, is straight out of Amenment Five--and is also in the UFP's Seventh Guarantee.)

 

[Sci]

To suggest otherwise--to deny the inalienability of rights--is, frankly, to justify tyranny.

No, it is to acknowledge that other societies might justify things that we would consider tyranny on the basis of the revocation of rights. It doesn't mean that one thinks it is good to deny someone their rights.

The fact that rights do not empirically or objectively exist does not mean that one should not fight for one's rights. Yes, it means engaging in a certain amount of cultural imperialism -- but I'm perfectly fine with imposing my culture on my fellow Americans if that is the only way to keep them from forcing me to convert to a religion I don't believe in or to end the violations of habeas corpus. Or, for that matter, if it's the only way to prevent some immigrant fathers from engaging in female genital mutilation or honor killings against their daughters.

Sometimes, you have to be willing to say that even if your culture's beliefs in rights is created by your culture rather than possessing some sort of "objective" existence, it's still superior to other cultures' beliefs.

If society gives you rights, it can therefore take rights away.

Again, this is true even if one holds that rights come from God, because it takes human beings to determine which rights God has granted. Hence, for instance, you have some devout Christians who genuinely believe that LGBTs have a God-given right to marry, and some who believe they have a God-given right to prevent LGBTs from marrying.

We take rights away from felons.

Even felons have specific rights, as laid out in Amendments Five, Six and Eight. Hence, the "Miranda Rights", which are derived from these three. (The Right To Remain Silent, for example, is straight out of Amenment Five--and is also in the UFP's Seventh Guarantee.)

That we preserve some rights for felons doesn't change the fact that society does take away many other rights.

 

[Rush Limborg]

To suggest otherwise--to deny the inalienability of rights--is, frankly, to justify tyranny.

No, it is to acknowledge that other societies might justify things that we would consider tyranny on the basis of the revocation of rights. It doesn't mean that one thinks it is good to deny someone their rights.

The fact that rights do not empirically or objectively exist does not mean that one should not fight for one's rights. Yes, it means engaging in a certain amount of cultural imperialism -- but I'm perfectly fine with imposing my culture on my fellow Americans if that is the only way to keep them from forcing me to convert to a religion I don't believe in or to end the violations of habeas corpus. Or, for that matter, if it's the only way to prevent some immigrant fathers from engaging in female genital mutilation or honor killings against their daughters.

Sometimes, you have to be willing to say that even if your culture's beliefs in rights is created by your culture rather than possessing some sort of "objective" existence, it's still superior to other cultures' beliefs.

Yes. And what is it that makes it superior? If there is no objective standard by which to judge, how can one determine which culture is superior?

If society gives you rights, it can therefore take rights away.

Again, this is true even if one holds that rights come from God, because it takes human beings to determine which rights God has granted.

But again, these God-given rights are thus determined through an analysis of the nature of man.

As The Philosopher also Said:

Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on Earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgement [hence, freedom of speech, press, assembly], it is right to work for his values [freedom of religion, the pursuit of happiness, etc.] and to keep the product of his work [private property]. If life on Earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids the irrational.

That we preserve some rights for felons doesn't change the fact that society does take away many other rights.

Yes. And indeed, this is for the simple reason that that felon has infringed upon the rights of others. To allow this felon to be released would thus be to allow a continuation of the infringement of those rights.

 

[Steve Roby]

To suggest otherwise--to deny the inalienability of rights--is, frankly, to justify tyranny. If society gives you rights, it can therefore take rights away.

There's something almost charmingly ironic about an American conservative in 2010 worrying that someone might take rights away from other people.

 

[Rush Limborg]

To suggest otherwise--to deny the inalienability of rights--is, frankly, to justify tyranny. If society gives you rights, it can therefore take rights away.

There's something almost charmingly ironic about an American conservative in 2010 worrying that someone might take rights away from other people.

Oh?

 

[Steve Roby]

We're offtopic here and bound to be called on it by a mod, but: Guantanamo Bay. My last word on this for now.

 

[Sci]

Yes. And what is it that makes it superior? If there is no objective standard by which to judge, how can one determine which culture is superior?

You can't. All you can do is decide what you believe in, try to persuade others to believe as you do, fight for your beliefs, and hope for the best. There are no guarantees.

But again, these God-given rights are thus determined through an analysis of the nature of man.

And what guarantee is there that that analysis is accurate? By what objective standard do we determine what God has given us?

Again, I point to gay marriage. Supports and detractors alike claim that they're acting to protect their God-given rights. Same thing with abortion.

The situation is exactly the same as in what I'm talking about, except I don't try to pretend that God is on my side and I can't possibly be wrong.

That we preserve some rights for felons doesn't change the fact that society does take away many other rights.

Yes. And indeed, this is for the simple reason that that felon has infringed upon the rights of others.

No, it is because he has been found guilty in a court of law of having violated the law. Not all laws that have been instituted in history have actually acted to protect people's rights -- some have been explicitly designed to restrict people's rights. And not all people found guilty of a crime in a court of law actually were guilty -- there is a such thing as a false conviction.

 

[snakespeare]

It is unfortunate that people are afraid to be alone in the universe. We aren't born with rights, we are born with a degree of power. As we grow we get stronger. We trade power to create rights. This is what really happens, from my perspective. We make our rights every moment. If we are not vigilant, we lose them. There are no gifts. It's not inherent or intrinsic. They must be created and defended. To hand them over in exchange for the comfort of lotus eaters is a choice easily made.

I can only repeat what I said before. The Tories believed in God, King, and country, in that order. The revolutionaries had to write the Declaration appealing to the highest authority because the common man is unable to accept existence without outside blessings, and that meant they would go Tory unless you could frame the Declaration as sanctified. They had to play to the dominant paradigm. It was politics.

 

[Rush Limborg]

We're offtopic here and bound to be called on it by a mod, but: Guantanamo Bay. My last word on this for now.

I see.

So as not to drag this into complete political savagery, I will allow it to effectively be the last word. However, there is a justification, I assure you, involving the fact that it is the duty of government to protect the rights of its citizens.

 

[Sci]

We're offtopic here and bound to be called on it by a mod, but: Guantanamo Bay. My last word on this for now.

I see.

So as not to drag this into complete political savagery, I will allow it to effectively be the last word. However, there is a justification, I assure you, involving the fact that it is the duty of government to protect the rights of its citizens.

So even you concede that society may take away someone's rights when it wants to.

 

[seigezunt]

See, this is kinda why I don't like it so much when Treklit gets into the politics of the Federation and Earth. We all have very different ideas on how to reach utopia. TOS had the best idea when they purposefully never showed Earth, and avoided the issue. That way, we can come together, and overlook the fact that to some, salvation comes by way of torture.

 

[Sci]

See, this is kinda why I don't like it so much when Treklit gets into the politics of the Federation and Earth. We all have very different ideas on how to reach utopia. TOS had the best idea when they purposefully never showed Earth, and avoided the issue. That way, we can come together, and overlook the fact that to some, salvation comes by way of torture.

Is that really what a show that's supposed to be about a more humane, egalitarian, liberated future ought to do? Just declare it done and avoid talking about how it happens and how people can make their society a genuinely better place?

Or does a work of art advocating for a more humane future have a moral obligation to actually take some stances and say that something things are incompatible with that better way of life?

 

[Arpy]

See, this is kinda why I don't like it so much when Treklit gets into the politics of the Federation and Earth. We all have very different ideas on how to reach utopia. TOS had the best idea when they purposefully never showed Earth, and avoided the issue. That way, we can come together, and overlook the fact that to some, salvation comes by way of torture.

Is that really what a show that's supposed to be about a more humane, egalitarian, liberated future ought to do? Just declare it done and avoid talking about how it happens and how people can make their society a genuinely better place?

Or does a work of art advocating for a more humane future have a moral obligation to actually take some stances and say that something things are incompatible with that better way of life?

If you can say that "sometimes you have to be willing to say that your culture is superior to an other's," then at other times you have to be willing to admit that you don't know who's culture, or who's ideas on how to develop a better culture, are superior. Sometimes you have to willing to simply entertain the idea of an even better one than either of you will ever consider.

TOS suggested a better culture than any in the world at the time, or any anyone knew how to get to. Its simple indulgence of saying "that we don't know what this is or how we got there, but it's better," drew people together to enjoy it and each other, and gave them a little bit of perspective for what their efforts are all for in the first place.

 

[seigezunt]

That's kind of what I was thinking, put more eloquently. I will admit that I never quite understand how Trek's utopian vision can sit with fans of a right-wing bent, but that's a discussion better left elsewhere.

 

[snakespeare]

See, this is kinda why I don't like it so much when Treklit gets into the politics of the Federation and Earth. We all have very different ideas on how to reach utopia. TOS had the best idea when they purposefully never showed Earth, and avoided the issue. That way, we can come together, and overlook the fact that to some, salvation comes by way of torture.

Is that really what a show that's supposed to be about a more humane, egalitarian, liberated future ought to do? Just declare it done and avoid talking about how it happens and how people can make their society a genuinely better place?

Or does a work of art advocating for a more humane future have a moral obligation to actually take some stances and say that something things are incompatible with that better way of life?

Sci, you are very knowledgeable about Political Science, to be sure, but your idea about the purpose of Art makes me wonder how much you got to study it.

Art does not exist to serve the state, to serve humanity, or any other therapeutic reason. Art is simply expression, and it refelcts the mind of the artist. Some artists do serve their state, some criticize their states, and some are totally apolitical.

The worth of a work of art to other people is clearly different than the worth to the artist. To the latter, the value exists a priori. And vice versa, to the former the value is a posteriori.

How that works with Trek would go like this: beforehand Roddenberry gets an idea (not just a thought, but a full idea bursts across his mind containing images, sounds, feelings, and it happens instantaneously), he then focuses on the execution of his idea. If he stops to ask, what is the social ramification, how am I doing what Aristotle thinks I am supposed to do, can my artwork make this world a better place, he will ruin it. I am speaking partly from my reading because I'm a lousy writer, but I am also somewhat speaking from experience. I think it was Twain who said something like, no man who ever set out to write a book to convince other people of anything was ever successful. You can't. Who reads Juvenal anymore? Who would want to? Even the Divine Comedy suffers from this mistake, as we can no longer read it without a roadmap. The artist is first concerned with execution and then by publicization.

Afterwards, the public has its opinions. And tied in with those opinions are all the personal things that each different person brings to the work, making it so we each actually conceive as we perceive. Picard's desk comes from the old homestead. KRAD writes that, and we each see a different desk. Some may feel different feelings about their big brother, a family member who is dead, a nephew, or maybe skip right over it. The Federation does not use money. Some want it explained, asking how can this possibly be? But that was never the point. The idea he got hit by, that he had to bring into the world, was a "what if", not a "how", and it is only those who themselves bring their own ideas about money to the show who get distracted from appreciating what he did make and focus on the feasibility of the premise.

Which is totally fine, for them. For me, appreciation of art involves understanding the artist, his motives, and trying to see out his eyes, and that means letting go of my own ego sometimes, which is why I like Art so much. But to others, they are in a dialogue with the artists, and they don't want to let go of their own egos, so they criticize and either extol the virtues of those they agree with, or condemn those who don't agree with them. That's OK. It's just reality. It's the environment an artist lives within.

So, no. Artists have no special moral obligations whatsoever beyond the ordinary moral obligations of all of us. Especially since we generally abuse the best of them, unfortunately.

All that artists do is execute their visions to the best of their ability.

Let That Be Your Last Battlefield... it's about racism, right? Or is that just what we bring to it? These two guys are like starbelly sneeches. Clearly Roddenbarry and Suess had ulterior motives, right? Well, yes, the visions they had included the idea of starbellies and moon cookie faces, and the stupidity of superficial responses, but they didn't get that from moral obligations. It just happened to ring true to them, and therefore they needed to make it real.

I am just totally lost here... I think I wrote myself into a corner... what was I trying to say?

Yeah, that there may seem to be some sense of noblesse oblige going on here, but it's not from a sense of moral obligation to society, as Aristotle claimed, but from a personal need. Plato knew this. That's why he wanted to exile them.

In the end, yes, we do end up pointing to some works after-the-fact and saying that they had a positive impact on their society, but it has been shown many times that if you set out to accomplish that, you will certainly fail. All you can do is write within your own sense of right and wrong.

I doubt that David Mack, with Destiny, was writing a morality tale to encourage people to learn to know their enemies, and that only one who fully understood them could finally defeat the Borg. Perhaps that idea does exist in his mind. It's in The Art of War. But I doubt that was his intent. He probably "saw" the whole story in a glimpse, then watched it develop in his mind, and felt compelled to propose it to Marco because it tugged at his brain.

(I can already hear the writers jumping in to tell me how far off my guesses are! LOL!)

OK... I'm out of steam...

 

[Rush Limborg]

We're offtopic here and bound to be called on it by a mod, but: Guantanamo Bay. My last word on this for now.

I see.

So as not to drag this into complete political savagery, I will allow it to effectively be the last word. However, there is a justification, I assure you, involving the fact that it is the duty of government to protect the rights of its citizens.

So even you concede that society may take away someone's rights when it wants to.

If doing otherwise would mean allowing said person to infringe on the rights of others--yes.

I guess you could say, in this case, "The needs of the many...."

 

[Rush Limborg]

That's kind of what I was thinking, put more eloquently. I will admit that I never quite understand how Trek's utopian vision can sit with fans of a right-wing bent, but that's a discussion better left elsewhere.

It's basically--a right-wing utopia is based on Liberty above all else, rather than Equality above all else.

 

[Thestral]

Well, I think that's sort of the point. The flag is the artistic representation of those ideas and principles: Pledging allegiance to the flag is pledging allegiance to those principles.

Not always. When politicians looking for an easy way to boost their popularity call for a ban on flag-burning, they're trampling the principles of free expression and dissent that America embodies in order to protect a piece of cloth that means nothing without those principles. So they're placing their allegiance to the material symbol above their allegiance to its meaning, and that's missing the whole point. It's the same when people try to erode American liberties and rights in the name of protecting America from its enemies. It's putting blind patriotism as an end in itself over allegiance to the core principles that define America. That's why I think indoctrinating schoolchildren to pledge allegiance to a physical symbol of the country, rather than instilling a respect for its principles, is missing the point. (For that matter, the whole idea of making children stand up and make a pledge of allegiance by rote, without necessarily understanding what it means, is ethically questionable. Allegiance should be an informed choice.)

I just wanted to quote (and bold) this because I think Chris is Absolutely Right (TM), and I think what he describes would happen in the Federation as well.

Yep. And that's why I support the repeal of "under God" from the Pledge, and other references to God from the currency or other government documents or acts. The United States is not under any god. It is under the people of the United States, from whose authority its right to exist and govern derives.

As a Christian, I find reciting the Pledge to be repugnant whether or not the "under God" is in there. Take it out, leave it, it's still a ritualistic relic of Nationalism from a state that thinks too highly of itself. So I'm afraid I'm not particularly bothered by it, but I'm cool with taking it out.

"Melting pot" implies that those different cultures and nationalities cease to exist and instead change into the dominant Anglo-Saxon culture. I don't think that's the case at all -- Native Americans are still Native Americans; Latinos are still Latino; and goodness knows that numerous European ethnic groups have retained their individual cultures here in the U.S. A quick jaunt through Greektown in Chicago will disabuse you of the notion that Americans of European descent necessarily "melt" into Anglo-Saxon copies.

That's true. The "melting pot" ideal is a relic of a time when assimilation and uniformity were seen as a desirable goal. I like to think of America more as a tossed salad.

You all must be thinking of "melting pot" differently than I am. Or at least Sci is. When you melt things together in a pot, they don't suddenly all take on the flavor of just one ingredient, but become combined into a whole that's more than a sum of it's parts. So it's not about melting into the Dreaded Anglo-Saxon Spectre That Hates Non-White People, but e pluribus unum, as it were. You've got a point though about assimilation and uniformity, since cultures don't actually melt together (and shouldn't have to), so tossed salad is a better image, yeah.

 

[Christopher]

^Actually it's quite natural and routine for cultures to melt together to some extent. They retain their distinctness, but borrow from and influence each other through their interaction. That's an integral part of any culture's development, a source of innovation and dynamism. (Which is why it's so stupid when characters invoking the Prime Directive assume that any outside influence on a culture constitutes "contamination" or an unnatural disruption.)