"I think a fundamental difference we have is that you (like Dante) are into idealistic principles above all else."

No surprise, given your views.

But its really more a case of your "ends oriented" ethics and my "means oriented" ethics.

For me, freedom IS the goal; wherever it leads.

I believe that history has shown that the benefits ( even unforeseen benefits ) of freedom far outweigh the costs.

Further, the "ends oriented" always seem to be aiming at a goal which remains eternally out of reach. The amount of damage they're willing to dismiss as "incidental" on the way to their goal can get awfully huge. And their goal seem to never be delivered while the costs mount.

This might too explain your staggering ignorance over civil-rights movements. Oftentimes they were the byproduct of the means developed for entirely different aims. If there had been some goal-oriented equation, many might not've been started at all; or certainly not been part of anyone's playbook.

The other benefit of means-oriented ethics is not acting like a hypocrite. I have no problem trying to address the sources of harm which can occur to people by creating a single-standard by which I'd like to be treated. ( You see, the means matter. )

You, would create goals for kids requiring rules you know to be wrong when applied to yourself.

Given that we live WITH the application of the rules, and WITHOUT the utopian promise of the goals; I'd say that I'm the pragmatist and you're the idealist here.

Dante