This is something that's been playing on my mind recently, from articles I read it the paper to things that have come up in conversation on this forum.
Is Dudeism, as a universal ethos/philosophy/religion one for taking stances?
If so, is it reflective of a general concensus within the community, and is that in itself simply because we're all so likeminded? I mean, it's our dudely way to abide with things and not get uptight, but aren't there some topics that will jar most of us, which forms something akin to a general agenda?
I'm neither for nor against drugs. Much like alcohol, tobacco and caffeine I advocate moderation and knowledge of what these things do to you, but I'm neither pro nor anti.
Dudeism, I feel, should not take pro stances on harmful things, but nor should we take anti stances, because we're not down on telling people how to live their lives as long as they're not harming each other and are aware of the consequences that may befall themselves.
We all, however, form individual stances for and against drugs. But surely the collective should then be one of neither pro nor anti?
Conversely, I am pro homosexuality (as in the right to act freely as a homosexual), and as far as I know so are all of us (based on not hearing a peep said against it).
Pro homosexuality is not advocating the act, but acceptance of people, like not being racist is about acceptance. So Dudeism takes a stance that we are pro-homosexuality as a collective, right?
Ah, now, this is a tricky one. I am anti war, but what about others? Is this going to be something like drugs where we're not for or against it, we just accept that it happens?
If we are mostly anti-war, but we have a solid base of pro-war people, are we in the middle, or are we anti?
Should Dudeism take an anti-war stance that we should adhere as part of abiding?
Now, here's the clincher...
If our stance is to be "whatever man" on things like drugs and war, what about an act like rape? Would we be against it on moral, legal or personal grounds?
Do we even need totake an official stance with this as surely it's a given we're all against it? But if we don't take a stance, isn't that acceptance of the fact it happens, but if we take an anti, don't we need to take an anti-stance against other things which moves us from "abiding"?
A big philosophical one I know. The obvious answer is that rape is wrong, no further discussion needed, but it's the stance issue I'm interesting in hearing thoughts on. Not just rape, but all stances, these above examples and more.
What I'm driving at here is that I think we should perhaps discuss if we are to take collective stances on such issues as Dudeists or if we're to take individual stances which sometimes happen to be collective. I think it's an interesting issue as a lot of Dudeism seems to be about personal freedom and a more libertarian ideal, but surely there are larger issues we need to agree on if we're coming up with a life philosophy/ethos/religion, right?
Sorry for hitting big, but I like the big discussions/debates and I think this is an interesting subject, given so many religions and philosophies take interesting stances on such things in one direction or another.