Right vs. Right
Read/Post Comments (1)
Here's an interesting essay from our local paper. It's a good essay -- it gives the situation, the reaction, then some of the analysis.
A shorthand version: two people acted strangely on ferries in the Puget Sound area. The authorities asked the two Seattle papers to print photos of the men. One paper complied in the name of national security, the other declined on privacy grounds.
The post-mortem analysis of the resulting furor is the meat of this post (or, in other words, the germ of an idea that inspired me to start writing, never mind if I've any clue what I really am going to say.)
The title of the essay is "A question of right vs. right." It could be a snarky play on words about how the right wing of our political process might not be on the side of the angels. It is not.
(As was with the Buck Fush entry, the idiosyncrasies of the various mainstream political positions is not the point, the process and hope of rational discourse is.)
The point of that essay and this blog is when multiple valid and laudable goals are in conflict. We have likely all heard Franklin's quote:
Instead, I'm back at the concept of compromise, of giving up some of a necessary quality (one hopefully I have in excess) in exchange for some of another necessary quality that I feel I have greater need for than the former. In the past, I've argued for not yielding all of one virtue for another, and I still say the same: it's not either-or, and giving up one quality must be done with care and contemplation.
The essay closes with a very good quote from Fred Friendly. I won't gank it for this. Read it for yourself, then tell me what you think.
A shorthand version: two people acted strangely on ferries in the Puget Sound area. The authorities asked the two Seattle papers to print photos of the men. One paper complied in the name of national security, the other declined on privacy grounds.
The post-mortem analysis of the resulting furor is the meat of this post (or, in other words, the germ of an idea that inspired me to start writing, never mind if I've any clue what I really am going to say.)
The title of the essay is "A question of right vs. right." It could be a snarky play on words about how the right wing of our political process might not be on the side of the angels. It is not.
(As was with the Buck Fush entry, the idiosyncrasies of the various mainstream political positions is not the point, the process and hope of rational discourse is.)
The point of that essay and this blog is when multiple valid and laudable goals are in conflict. We have likely all heard Franklin's quote:
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.This is an excellent example of two rights. The essay goes on to list others:
- Truth vs. loyalty
- Individual vs. community (arugably the same as "liberty vs. safety."
- Short-term vs. long-term
- Justice vs. mercy
Instead, I'm back at the concept of compromise, of giving up some of a necessary quality (one hopefully I have in excess) in exchange for some of another necessary quality that I feel I have greater need for than the former. In the past, I've argued for not yielding all of one virtue for another, and I still say the same: it's not either-or, and giving up one quality must be done with care and contemplation.
The essay closes with a very good quote from Fred Friendly. I won't gank it for this. Read it for yourself, then tell me what you think.
Read/Post Comments (1)
Previous Entry :: Next Entry
Back to Top
