What is it, to be governed?

Post Reply New Topic

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.

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

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

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.

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.



What is wrong with it? I can't believe that you really have to ask this question.



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/cr ... acked.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 05 Mar 2012, 6:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

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.

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):

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

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.)

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.

I would disagree that my logic means that I should regret if something bad happens to someone because I was not there to intervene. For one thing, there would probably have been other people there who could have. If not then yes, the situation is highly regrettable.

But I think you are misunderstanding my point somewhat. I am not saying that we should personally give CPR to someone on the street who needs it (although someone should and I hope that I'd feel up to the task in that situation). I'm saying that we should all feel obligated to help pay for that person's medical treatment, through a universal healthcare system.

From what I have read in this thread wr have been talking about helping 'that person on the street' not helping society as a whole but I concede your point.
However we should NOT feel obligated to help anyone, ever. I agree that in order to live in this society we should pay taxes which in turn help people in need, but just because we are legally bound to pay taxes does not mean we should feel obligated to help others. To suggest otherwise sounds like you think society should regulate our thoughts and people who do not conform to societies aay of thinking should be punished.
I have no compunction with aiding the NHS btw, but to suggest that I should feel obligated to do so is a breach of my mind, thus a breach of my rights.