That of course dodged the question and the whole issue. I didnt really expect you to answer it of course because that would be damaging.
I answered it: the analogy is not inappropriate. When you call it an "inappropriate analogy," you're begging a question that you haven't begun to settle with argumentation.
But on that note, where does this "morality" stem from? Why is this morality you've discovered superior to every other morality out there? Why is a state obligated to follow it, or even be moral at all?
I've already answered that question with some specificity, although briefly. There are many approaches to the question of morality, because there is of course no such thing as "objective" morality in the sense that the Greeks or Ayn Rand wished there were.
One approach, which I've already mentioned, is to ask where you get the authority to impose your will on me. "You" here refers to whichever agent of force might be trying to coerce me in some way, but would in principle include you specifically if you attempt to assert that I'm obligated to comply with this or that act of coercion. You'll of course cite some figure higher up the chain of authority, and say, "the Mayor," or "Congress," or "the Constitution," or "the President." I will in turn ask where these agents got the authority that they're delegating to you. You will eventually have no recourse but to reply that might makes right, and that if I don't comply I'll be jailed, or deported, or killed. Most people conclude with a lurid and snide reference to what happens to prisoners, like, "Say hello to your new husband 'Bunk Muffin' for me when you get to Sing-Sing."
The second approach, which I've also mentioned, is to point out that your viewpoint divides mankind into predators and prey. There are those who can command, extort, kill, etc., and those who have no choice but to endure these crimes. My viewpoint applies to everyone equally. In raising this point, I hope that your inborn empathy will remind you that you wouldn't like my aggressing against you if might were on my side, and therefore you might ought to extend the same courtesy to others, and expect the same in return. Specifically, you will not condone anyone's acts of initiated aggression, even when you personally are not the victim. (If you were the victim, then I'm sure we can already count on you to squawk.)
The third approach, which I've
also mentioned, is the utilitarian one: if you genuinely believe that might makes right, then you leave me no choice but to defend myself against your aggression. I cannot expect civilized behavior of you, because you've already informed me that you have no particular intention of respecting my right to be left alone as long as I'm leaving you alone. If that's the case, then I'd still be happy to convince you--but whether or not I convince you, I
will resist you. Since we have no moral common ground, I will not take into account whether you recognize the validity of my position or not.
The utilitarian viewpoint includes other considerations: for example, everyone's wellbeing is maximized in a nonaggressive society (except, by definition, the wellbeing of aggressors, which is only satisfied by depredation). Internal and external conflict as well as oppression are minimized, and economic productivity is maximized. Presumably you'd rather be prosperous, healthy, well-fed and free of fear than the opposite of those things.
Concerning the second approach, which depends on empathy and invokes the principle of reciprocity: I realize that many humans lack empathy in this regard. Conservatives feel oppressed when a liberal is in power and the White House becomes the scene of gay trysts; liberals feel oppressed when the White House hatches corporatist schemes funded by tax dollars. But
both usually only wish for a reversal, so they can have their turn imposing their will on the general populace. Few decide to renounce the machinery of oppression itself.
--Len.
