nineplus said:
I'm not sure agreement is possible...
It's not-- at least not to the level that you're thinking about. However, it is necessary to have some agreement, and it is always desirable to seek more.
nineplus said:
Do I even want to live in such a world? While it sounds simpler, it lacks the beauty of individual sight.
Honestly, I could not imagine living in such a world either. Luckily, it's not a possible world.
This world, for all of its flaws, its conflicts, and its sheer stupid arbitrariness...
suits me. I would rather live in a world with something worth fighting against than a world in which I would serve no purpose.
Besides, it is not perfection itself which is desirable, but the struggle towards it.
nineplus said:
But in keeping with the last part of your quote, how does a society legally remain flexibility where moral opinions are so clearly split into two inflexible camps?
Honestly, if you look at "normal" people, and even some of the political types on this forum, you can tell that mainstream moral opinions aren't nearly as divided or as inflexible as the pro-life and pro-choice camps would have you believe.
Most people want legal abortion, but they don't like mid-term abortions, they don't like casual abortions, and they don't like multiple abortions. People who believe that abortion is murder and people like me-- who support euthanasia and abortion-on-demand until the 26th week-- are the
exceptions, the radical fringe of the debate.
If you moved the deadline back to the 16th week or the 12th-- with exceptions for trauma and the mother's health-- this issue would die. There would be the fringes, like me and my opponents, but there would be no political leverage for either side to change the law.
Despite my own preferences in this matter, it would be more desirable for the law to fit that compromise than my own position-- unless public opinion shifted significantly in my favor in the near future.
nineplus said:
Each camp can firmly stand on a moral high ground...
Everyone does. Everyone
always does. I think the world would be a better place if more people understood this.
To our enemies-- whoever our enemies are--
we are the villains and they are only fighting to defend themselves against our egregious assaults on truth and justice. And, if you pay attention to their arguments, most of the time you realize that they are standing firm on high moral principles.
But if your positions are mutually exclusive, one of you still has to win. You still have to fight for what you believe in.
nineplus said:
I don't think it's the place of a government or a society to strive for all of our guts to match kwim?
You can't have a society or a government in which everyone hates everyone else's guts-- and the only way we can ever appreciate our neighbor's guts is by comparing them to our own.