Technical Knowledge Reflecting Moral Ignorance

[blancw@pylon.com]

Responding to msg by James A. Donald:

;If we fail to point out that people have a right to 
:privacy,  if we fail to point out the moral and 
:constitutional implications  of coercive inspection, 
:then our enemies win, by citing tax  evaders child 
:pornographers terrorists and pedophiles.

Well, sure, you can always expect that government employees 
should have to know about morality, since they've made 
themselves responsible for things like social welfare and the 
advancement of Great Societies.

But no one else is required to 'behave' that way  -  they only 
need to know that they will suffer the consequences of 
trespassing the lines which divide us. 

:If all morality is relative, then the only possible way 
:for people to live together peaceably is for a single  
:arbitrary  will and to impose that morality by as much 
:violence as  necessary  -- this is the classic argument 
:(Hobbes, Nazis)  for absolutist government.

No one said that morality is or should be relative, nor either 
that they want to live together peaceably.  They did express 
their displeasure at having to read anyone's disapproval on 
particular applications of crypto knowledge.   I myself don't 
think that being able to evaluate human actions in terms of 
their propriety is outside the capacities of technogeeks to 
ponder (don't jump if you don't identify with one).

I agree it is important, especially for those who do expect to 
live in formal societies, to develop a *conscious knowledge* of 
morality, of the meaning of human actions in terms of 'right' 
and 'wrong'.   If we were all properly acquainted with the 
elements of morality it would be easier to identify its place 
in the life of real humans who have values and wish to protect 
them from deliterious, intrusive attacks (from any source).  

A conscious knowledge also makes it possible to present valid 
basis for objecting to the 'evil' which governments will do.   
You said, in reference to ye kings of olde, that "many of the 
actions of the state were unlawful" and that there were those 
who established that the king could not "make law as he 
pleased".    Actually, being a conquering ruler gives a king 
the latitude to make any 'law' that he pleases.   But to free 
themselves from the king's  grasp, the influential philosophers 
of the past took their mind to a consideration of what the 
substance of morality, or  'goodness/badness', means in the 
life of a human being qua the nature of being human.   What 
else could be the basis for the desire to act in freedom & 
liberty from autocratic rule?

Some cpunks don't think it's necessary to indulge in these 
discussions, but individuals always act within the context of 
evaluations upon the implications of their actions.  It doesn't 
go away; it must be dealt with it, especially if what one 
(publicly) contemplates doing is potentially in conflict with 
others' high moral standards.

    ..
Blanc