Even though Ryan hasn’t written back yet, I was thinking over my own post, and it occurs to me that I made a few statements that seem kind of contradictory, and I’d like to clarify those.
The apparently contradictory statements is like this:
It appears that I am against socialism because of the Golden rule, and yet morally okay with imprisonment and even torture in rare circumstances, even though those both violate that rule.
The argument I can anticipate goes something like:
"Since people being able to eat trumps the moral rule of do not steal, it should be okay for socialism to take the money from individuals, and use it to fulfill a higher moral good."
Here is the difference, and this is where the clarification comes:
I believe that moral exceptions are unique, and usually isolated instances.
For instance, stealing food when your family is starving to death, I think in that instance, the stealing would be justified.
But, I don’t think you can make a system of governmental (or patriarchal, etc) rule around a moral exception, nor do I think you can make a system of rule based around a violation of the rule.
It would be akin to legalizing perjury to save someone from imprisonment.
Sorry, I am used to battling myself this way