旧浪潮论坛之：关注缅甸（三）

Sapientia:

[To Cho:]
Your comment inspires me of the talk between moral relativism and objectivism. if we hold a libertarian position and claim for state non-interference with private area, surely we assume there is a place that we call private area where state influence must be mitigated to the least level, and this private area might include fundamental freedoms of citizens that are or are not prescribed in the state constitution.

Moral relativism would say: wait a minute, you are too quick to assume this private area is a matter of fact in every society, though I will pay respect to the society where this private area is very much under respect by the state's sovereignty. Moral relativism reject any truth-value statements of moral judgment, for them it is not meaningful to talk about whether abortion is right or wrong objectively. they tends to believe moral judgment is very much regional or agent determined. An possible objection to moral relativism would be moral skepticism, which criticize there is no talk of moral truth in relativist position. Potentially, moral relativism would be challenged for indifference or incapacity to reprimand holocaust or great artificial famine. I used to prove that neither tolerance nor interference is justifiable according to the moral relativism.

So, a moral relativist might be rather withdrawn from emotive condemnation of mass crackdown of demonstration in Burma: I understand Burma's people demand for democracy and respect the choice made by the protesters.

How about moral objectivism? Might be better in case of Burma demonstration. They might argue some moral statement such as "human right is intuitively needed by a rational citizen" or "crackdown is by no means justifiable". the problem with moral objectivism is the question of normatively, since every objective statement of morality always assume some kinds of normative value are more desirable or acceptable, so it is crucial to know where these favored norms come from and why they are more superior than others. Can we find consistence among all of those normative values? If yes, what makes them consistent? If not, how we can be sure any statement of morality is objective?

The reason of human right abuse is what we think justifiable for interference with Burma's crisis, and personally, if I do not confuse myself with those philosophical talk, I think we can do something to show our concern, such as what Yol has suggested. I do not mean to challenge any of your argument, this is merely a bit of reflection.

刘畅：

各位：

大家的意见有的让我大受启发，有的让我迷惑不明。所以，在Yol的提议下，我有在READING WEEK其中（最好是靠前）的某日为此开一个沙龙交流的打算，主题、地点、时间一切待定。期待大家回复发表意见，最终完善我们的沙龙规划：）
以下是我希望在沙龙中涉及的内容：

"知识窗"（实在不知怎么归纳，想了个这词儿）
1、关于缅甸本身，我希望在这方面有了解和认识的同学做一个"常识性普及"教育。这个本身，包括缅甸最近一百年政治、经济、文化和宗教的变迁史。——因为我觉得对于我们分析问题很有必要。补充谈了解和认识。
2、谈谈我们所了解亚洲相关国家和相似国家的民生、政治和人权状况，说说他们的潜在问题，他们是否也存在发生这样事情的可能性，例如柬埔寨、斯里兰卡、马来西亚等等等等。

"我们"
1、关于我们的国家的态度，看法。关于人权和主权、大国外交伦理的问题。
2、我们应该以怎么样的行动声援。。。因为我目前只想到AWARENESS，所以才想了"知识窗"。

"文化"
受《明报》启发，它对僧人为什么成为这场运动的主角做了分析，引出了"入世僧人"的概念，这给我们提出了一个问题：宽范一点就是处于社会不同角色的人以如何不同的姿态为民生争取普世价值的问题。从僧人的举动,联系到当年甘地在印度有印度教哲学风采的不抵抗运动,联系到中国古代的士文化和出世文化(老庄等人.不知道我是不是曲解了 )....对我们来说都是很现实的.这个话题,有助于让一些觉得自己"不关心政治"的人参与起来,发挥作用。

我本人希望这是一个发于缅甸而不拘泥于缅甸的沙龙，它可以带给我们的除了愤慨和谴责，还可以是思考分析得到的血淋淋的现实和认识，也可能是希望和乐观的发现。因此，我希望它是开放式的，可以信马由缰地乱侃。
我也希望它是一个出于声援而不仅是声援的沙龙，因为这样的事今天可能在这个国家发生，也随时可能在具备同样情况下的任何地方发生。我不知道"知道"可以帮些什么，只是希望我能睁着眼睛面对。

以上是我初步的想法，随时接受指正、删减和添加。然而面对的问题是：沙龙的话题可能沉闷而枯燥，而我不希望愤懑成为人们参加沙龙的动力。而沙龙的形式、分工都还需要大家的建议。