ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29332
Location: New Jersey
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:31 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| enrico_dandolo wrote: | You first "defense" is just unrelated to what I said. I never talked about forcing anyone into anything.
As I am heavily consequentialist, I believe doing nothing is the same as doing something if both have the same consequence. In any case, I never said it is like killing someone, only that it is not defensible.
|
But it IS defensible. Freedom to associate or not to associate is essential to civil liberty. Forcing people to be helpful is a form of slavery. You just happen to dislike my defense. Which is just fine. I consider being free to do or not do more important than being Good. If people want to be Good, then let them be Good (at their own expense, thank you). And if I do not wish to be Good, then I would take it very kindly if you did not try to force me to be Good.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
enrico_dandolo
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 21, 2011
Posts: 866
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't care about civil liberties, I am not talking about freedom, I am talking about morals. Also, I am NOT talking about forcing anyone to do anything; you can admit that something is moral wrong, yet say that the government should not do anything about it.
Would you read you newspaper, or try to help?
If you choose "newspaper", you will certainly be morally coherent. In the same way, I could create a coherent moral system built around the maximization of cultivated acres of land dedicated to food production; both would have similar theoretical credentials. I'm just not sure I would prefer freedom to acres of land, to be honest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29332
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| enrico_dandolo wrote: | I don't care about civil liberties, I am not talking about freedom, I am talking about morals. Also, I am NOT talking about forcing anyone to do anything; you can admit that something is moral wrong, yet say that the government should not do anything about it.
|
When did you become God, the Judge was what is Moral and not Moral? Who are you?
Besides, Morality is doxa, not logos. There are no Moral Facts. There are only Moral Opinions.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
enrico_dandolo
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 21, 2011
Posts: 866
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well... no, there can be. To create a moral theory, you only need to find a universal fundamental principle and logically derive principles from it. It can be freedom, total cultivated area, respect towards others, utility or anything else. It is more than just "feeling this is bad, so it must be immoral". Every political philosophy is built from an underlying moral basis, otherwise it does not make sense.
In any case, you are avoiding the question with your acrobatics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29332
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| enrico_dandolo wrote: | Well... no, there can be. To create a moral theory, you only need to find a universal fundamental principle and logically derive principles from it. It can be freedom, total cultivated area, respect towards others, utility or anything else. It is more than just "feeling this is bad, so it must be immoral". Every political philosophy is built from an underlying moral basis, otherwise it does not make sense.
In any case, you are avoiding the question with your acrobatics. |
No I am answering it. What you -call- principle is in fact hot air and is not worth spit. Morality is established by social convention, not by the laws of physics. Your opinion and one dollar would buy a dollar's worth of beans.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
enrico_dandolo
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 21, 2011
Posts: 866
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 6:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hum... No?
If you say that no one can force anyone to do contribute to charity, you are taking a moral stand. This is fundamentally an ethical position.
Otherwise, what is it? Because that statement doesn't look like a coffee cup to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
CrazyCatLord
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 25, 2011
Posts: 2177
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: | | CrazyCatLord wrote: | [
I don't really see what this has to do with liberty. I'm as protective of my freedoms as the next guy, but I don't want the freedom to watch my neighbor starve to death while I live a life in luxury. One might as well demand the freedom to watch bum fights in a gladiatoral arena. |
It has EVERYTHING to do with liberty. My liberty consists in part in not doing a damned thing to feed starving people whose existence I wish to be as brief as possible. Note, this is not the same as forcibly starving anyone. It means refusal to feed a starving person. Anything involving compulsion (legal or otherwise) is a reduction of my liberty and freedom. |
By living in and benefiting from a civilized, developed society, you agree to a social contract. That contract includes providing for the elderly, for disabled people, and for anyone else who cannot provide for themselves. If you don't agree to this social contract, you're not fit to live in a society that requires this agreement.
Participation in a social group has always required the willingness to act for the common good. Even Cro-Magnon man took care of the sick, weak and elderly. It is human nature. Refusing to save the life of your fellow man is both inhuman and inhumane.
| Quote: | | And what is wrong with -watching- bum fights or refusal to watch bum fights? A properly limited government would not prevent duels as long as safety provision were made to prevent harm to third uninvolved parties. Watching is not the initiation of force or criminally negligent harm. |
What is wrong with it? I can't believe that you really have to ask this question.
| Quote: | Except as required by an EXPLICIT legal contract I don't have to do a damned thing for a stranger. I owe strangers nothing positive a priori. In a properly limited government regime there would be no laws requiring me to help strangers in harm's way provided I did not positively put them in harm's way in the first place
I suspect you have a difficulty in understanding the difference between harming someone and not not helping them. But, I might be wrong. Maybe you think that people are obliged to help each other and can be forced or ought to be forced to help each other. In that case, you are pro-slavery.
ruveyn |
Inaction is also an action. If you make a conscious choice to watch a person drown, for example, you are at least partially to blame for their death. That has nothing to do with slavery, it is simply a moral duty as well as common sense. You would also want people to assist you if your life was in danger. In many civilized countries, it is a criminal offense to stand by and watch in such a situation, including ten US states (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue#Common_law ).
That reminds me of a video on CNN that I saw recently: http://edition.cnn.com/video/?/video/crime/2012/02/26/dnt-war-veteran-carjacked.wdiv#/video/crime/2012/02/26/dnt-war-veteran-carjacked.wdiv
An 87 year old WWII veteran is carjacked at a gas station. During the attack, the carjacker breaks his leg. As the victim crawls towards the door, several people walk by and simply ignore him. They can't even be bothered to open the door for him. Is it really slavery to assist a person in such a situation? Do we really want to live in a society that treats an injured elderly person like a leper?
Last edited by CrazyCatLord on Mon Mar 05, 2012 6:06 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29332
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 6:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| enrico_dandolo wrote: | Hum... No?
If you say that no one can force anyone to do contribute to charity, you are taking a moral stand. This is fundamentally an ethical position.
Otherwise, what is it? Because that statement doesn't look like a coffee cup to me. |
Sure it is an ethical position which makes it a judgement and an opinion, as opposed to a fact. There are countries in the world where charity is compelled by law. This is the common mode of operation in pinko stinko European welfare states. These people see government as an instrument of Good. I see government as an instrument of force and a necessary evil (which is why we should have as little of it as is practical).
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
enrico_dandolo
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 21, 2011
Posts: 866
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 6:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Okay, so let us state that I have been talking to a wall for several posts, and you have been talking to a wall for several posts, because I think I understand we are not talking about the same thing at all. Because I agree, ethics is not physics, even though I believe some things in morals can be concluded to be morally wrong, and you seem to disagree. This has led to a dead end.
So, would you say that letting people dying is not wrong in any way, because you didn't sign a contract forcing you to help them? And, if I were dying on the sidewalk, and you saw me, would you feel that you should help me, if it were no significant loss for yourself? |
|
| Back to top |
|
AstroGeek
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 29, 2011
Age: 19
Posts: 1477
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| enrico_dandolo wrote: | Okay, so let us state that I have been talking to a wall for several posts, and you have been talking to a wall for several posts, because I think I understand we are not talking about the same thing at all. Because I agree, ethics is not physics, even though I believe some things in morals can be concluded to be morally wrong, and you seem to disagree. This has led to a dead end.
So, would you say that letting people dying is not wrong in any way, because you didn't sign a contract forcing you to help them? And, if I were dying on the sidewalk, and you saw me, would you feel that you should help me, if it were no significant loss for yourself? |
He would disagree because the thing that ruveyn loves above all is freedom. Including, it seems, freedom from responsibility. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Chevand
Phoenix
Joined: Jul 21, 2008
Posts: 576
Location: Vancouver, BC
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Since you seem to be small-government libertarian to the point of being borderline anarchistic, I'd be interested, ruveyn, in hearing your impressions of the following excerpt from Common Sense (particularly to the part with my emphasis added):
| Thomas Paine wrote: | | Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others. |
_________________
Mediocrity is a petty vice; aspiring to it is a grievous sin. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29332
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chevand wrote: | Since you seem to be small-government libertarian to the point of being borderline anarchistic, I'd be interested, ruveyn, in hearing your impressions of the following excerpt from Common Sense (particularly to the part with my emphasis added):
| Thomas Paine wrote: | | Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others. |
|
I read Common Sense at least five times a year. Everyone who values his liberty should do the same.
Government AT BEST is a necessary evil (which means government is an evil).
There are and never have been good governments. All we have are bad governments and worse governments.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29332
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 9:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| AstroGeek wrote: |
He would disagree because the thing that ruveyn loves above all is freedom. Including, it seems, freedom from responsibility. |
Not true. I believe in the sanctity of contracts. We should keep all contracts we make voluntarily and if necessary be forced to or be compelled to pay damages consequent to not doing so. Without contracts and the means to enforce them, there would be no civilization.
What I deny is the obligation to be Good to strangers. While I am not permitted to do evil neither am I compelled to do Good to strangers. For my children I am totally responsible until they reach the age of autonomy and become their own persons.
I love for my own sake and I do not compel other people to live for mine.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
AstroGeek
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 29, 2011
Age: 19
Posts: 1477
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: | | AstroGeek wrote: |
He would disagree because the thing that ruveyn loves above all is freedom. Including, it seems, freedom from responsibility. |
Not true. I believe in the sanctity of contracts. We should keep all contracts we make voluntarily and if necessary be forced to or be compelled to pay damages consequent to not doing so. Without contracts and the means to enforce them, there would be no civilization.
What I deny is the obligation to be Good to strangers. While I am not permitted to do evil neither am I compelled to do Good to strangers. For my children I am totally responsible until they reach the age of autonomy and become their own persons.
I love for my own sake and I do not compel other people to live for mine.
ruveyn |
Why do either of us even bother with the rhetoric? At the end of the day, neither of us is going to convince the other. It's better for my own sanity that I leave this alone.
(This does not mean that you won, by the way: I believe in cooperation over competition, in helping other people, and in creating a society where we work together for the common good. Those who don't like it are perfectly free to not participate by moving somewhere less enlightened. At the end of the day we have fundamentally different values as the basis for our respective moral systems so neither of us can win an argument with the other.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
Paulie_C
Sea Gull
Joined: Jan 05, 2012
Age: 28
Posts: 246
Location: Birmingham, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
First of all thanks for the discussion, it has been an interesting read.
@Astrogeek, you are letting your beliefs and moral convictions cloud the issue. I agree that if I saw someone in need I would help but ruveyn's point still remains valid.
Inaction is not an action, by it's very definition it is the absence of action. Even if I *choose* not to take action to help someone, that is not an action, it is a thouht which leads to inaction. If you were not there to help a person out then the events would unfold regardless, just in a different way than what *you* would want. So by saying we should be societally obligated to help people out is tacitally saying that we should also feel regret everytime something bad happens to someone we cannot help because we were not there to intervene.
True freedom gives us the choice to watch someone die in the street and not be punished (so long as we were not directly involved).
I, like you, would help out the person in need, but if I chose not to then a free society cannot punish me. They can judge me 'til the cows clme home but that's it.
I have typed this on my phone on my break so I apologise for any spelling mistakes and if it sounds rushed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
