Most people are pretty sure that Augusta will eventually admit woman. And that gay marriage will be legal. And that animals will be better protected. And that there will be more stringent requiremnts to be a teacher. Just like in 1855 most people knew that slavery would soon be abolished. Or (in 1910) that woman would eventually be allowed to vote

That makes me wonder about those people who agree with these predictions but still take the other side. Does it bother them that history will eventually judge them wrong? Do they think that the future is dumber than they are now. Or possibly that the distant future will reverse things back to their side. What would the CEO of Augusta say?

It's partly about saving face. The CEO of Augusta might say that if/when the club admits woman they will do so on their own terms because they choose to, not because they were forced to. This logic might not apply to slavery or gay marriage as cleanly, but I still think it is at work to some extent.

Public morality is informed more by current optimal economic strategy, and the powerful or the numerous protecting their own, rather than concern for others.

For example, it's easy to look back and see slavery as immoral in an era where each person has dozens of them. It's less easy to make such a determination when your ability to supply basic necessities or comforts for your family, and possibly the very survival of your civilization, depends on keeping slaves.

In some cases it is. I think we are philosophically less sophisticated than the hardened rationalists of the middle of last century. Far less. The people of the dark and early middle ages - 1400 years worth of "the future" - were far less sophisticated than the Greeks.

I know what your saying about looking at the past. It seems so barbaric. For example, medicine. When people look back at our time a thousand years from now, they will think things we did as barbaric. Like when people have cancer they just cut it out. In the future they will have lasers to just remove it.

No. They think the future is less moral than they are now. This has very little to do with intelligence. Predictions about where future generations will stand on moral issues are not very relevant to moral arguments.

A useful guide (along with being an interesting read):

http://www.amazon.com/The-Lessons-Hi...4031925&sr=1-1


-Zeno

Far be it from me to speak for the Augusta National Club, but I'm pretty sure they would say it is our private property and we will accept whom ever we want as members when ever we want. And I don't think they give a sweet rat's petootie what CBS thinks nor Mr. Sklansky.

Augusta not allowing women does not belong with the other things in your OP, David. It is a private club and they have every right to exclude who they want. Like the Boy Scouts not allowing homosexuals...or girls!

Now, if CBS chooses to not show the tournament in a move of solidarity with their female viewers, that is their right, too.

But a private golf club not allowing women and U.S. states forbidding gay marriage are not the same thing.

Why not? Heterosexuals invented the marriage club; if they wish to exclude gays from that club, why shouldn't they, if it's fine according to you for the golf club to exclude women?

And what if you wanted to marry your pet cow/dog/horse/monkey that can communicate its intent via sign language? Who is the state to say "marriage is a between a human and a human". Damned specist bigots.

Any why limit it to one person. That's such an outdated view. If I love two women equally, and they love me, who the **** are you to tell me that your idea of love and marriage is superior to mine? Who are you to tell me that I can only choose one to be recognized as someone I love, and given state privileges? Damned monogamous bigots. It's only love that matters, and your bigotry is hurting me. State favored monogamy is an inequality deep in our society that will one day be purged.

Shall I keep going?

You're posting sarcastically as if what you say isn't completely accurate. Why should the state have a say in how two (or three four five or fifty) consenting adults choose to express their desires? If chimps could 100% clearly give their consent I'd be in favour of people being able to marry them too.

I cannot comment on the entire point, but the bold statement is misleading. It may be accurate if "most" means a simple majority, because the population of the North was greater. However, in the South slavery was viewed as an essential element of a way of life that they were ready to fight to preserve. I am sure that many realized that the war was a forlorn hope, but at the same time they felt that if they fought with courage and commitment they could preserve that way of life. I do not think they felt that slavery would "soon be abolished". They even rejected deals that would have preserved slavery but have prevented it from being allowed in any new states because they realized that would lead to slavery eventually being abolished, even if it was not soon.

Probably a derail since your basic point is still valid. Sorry.

Its the same category because most people would bet that thing will change within thirty years.

Marriage isn't a club, and 'membership' is given by the government, not heterosexuals.

The ability to communicate is not the same as the ability to give consent. Was this a serious post, or did I miss the point?

As long as they thought that eventually the world would deem slavery wrong, the point I was making still applies.

There were a lot of people who went broke shorting the dotcoms back in the 90's. History eventually proved them right as the dotcoms they shorted later on went to zero. But as the saying goes, the market can sometimes stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. Being on the right side of the future can be costly if it puts you badly on the wrong side of the present.



PairTheBoard