Re: Money, argument, logic
May 27, 1997 10:16 AM
by Tom Robertson
On Tue, 27 May 1997 10:18:00 -0400 (EDT) "K. Paul Johnson"
>According to email@example.com:
(I believe Bart wrote this:)
>> I am being told that charging money is automatically morally wrong, >>
and no justification is needed to prove that it is morally wrong, and >>
that the burden of proof is on me to prove that it is not morally
>Nobody said that as I recall. I certainly have no objection to
>charging for classes, or catered dinners, or conferences. My
>sole objection is to charging admission to public lectures.
>And have never indicated that I expect you to prove that it is
>not morally wrong. Just gave my opinion, and tried to explain
>it when asked. I also said that I would not participate in a
>lodge that did so, or one that excluded the public from all
>meetings, which is *far* worse. That's my choice to make.
I am unclear about the difference between saying that charging of money
is automatically morally wrong and saying that one would boycott a lodge
which charges money. Boycotts are motivated, generally, if not always,
by moral disapproval of the object of the boycott. Or might the
difference lie in the distinction you make between saying that charging
is wrong and that charging for public lectures is wrong, one being more
general than the other?
>There is no way to logically prove a moral principle.
I agree. Justice is perceived intuitively, not mentally.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application