Freedom Vs Statism & Religiosity

deprave said:
Philosophy doesn't consider history or culture, which is a good thing because it has no bias.
Click to expand...

Certain philosophies do. tabula rasa or blank slate believes we are all born without any innate traits and our moral code is a learned behavior. I can't get totally behind this because I think for most it's instinctual to protect the young or weak. I'm not well versed enough to carry on a serious conversation but it's fun to ponder. Sorry to derail the thread because it's also a good conversation to be had.

I believe your thread title sparks reaction simply in the use of the buzz words . I think the basis of the argument lies in individualism vs collectivism and the vast chasm of difference of thought.

I'm on your side Deprave in that I feel we should concentrate our order/society on the individual as it's the individual that is essentially held responsible. Well that's not necessarily true but it should be damnit. I think that's the point you are making. If we try to govern as a collective we lose the individual, something the collectives are trying to prevent but don't understand how from a central plan.
 
cannabineer said:
Agreed. (With a cavil: killing is moral; it's murder that is not. Killing for personal or national defense, and killing as a judicial sentence are still considered permissible.)
cn
Click to expand...

Killing is moral is also society dependent though. I can kill a man for crossing an arbitrary line in the sand and be applauded or imprisoned depending on region. Same argument for killing a baby that survives abortion. As society evolves the line between killing and murder evolves with it. Morality is a moving target. The Golden Rule remains constant to me, that's my personal philosophy.
 
cannabineer said:
I would like to know where you found this counterintuitive assertion. Philosophy is a humanity - a basic human pursuit like history, both in its making and in its recording. It is entirely contained in, and informed by, human history and culture. The two are inextricably enmeshed at every level.

I fear you're working down from an ideal that has been arbitrarily declared axiom. That is the basic problem with belief in any revealed creed. A swaging operation ensues. cn
Click to expand...

Moral Relativism its variations vs Culture relativism, it has been debated quite heavily for a long time. Moral Relativism and its variations believe that moral rules are relative ONLY to the societies culture and history. While I think Moral Relativism is partially true there are exceptions in which cultural relativism ring true at their base (killing, stealing, etc..)..So really that is an age old debate but as usual I see where both sides are wrong.

So its not true for me to generalize and say "Philosophy" because in truth its really only half the story but without the Moral Relativism doctrine it would be a factual statement. Not that it matters....

but the truth lies as usual in the middle. Cultural Relativism being largely rejected since I believe the 40s in part due to a false propaganda treating it as gospel.



Again ...not really my point..but I guees you want to get technical and I went there although it is off base....The point is that philosophy at its origins sees the world as it is, there is no invisible lines bordering countries..There are people and there are things..There is good and there is evil..very simple
 
deprave said:
well we are going to loop again...heh

What I suggest is equal accountability for moral principals agreed upon by a society. Many ideas like a "citizen jury" fit this bill, it doesn't need to be upheld by some all powerful authority with a monopoly on power. In fact, How could it be? Its this idea that is "looping"

as you said, mans evil nature, the amoral, these people don't follow ethics and a monopoly on power without accountability is exactly what these individuals want.
Click to expand...

Absolutely!! If we can prove a judge took money to decide a case in a certain matter we lock them up, yet in politics we call it a campaign donation. Knowing this, the tendency to try to buy your favorite politician because society accepts this as "the way it's done".

If anything a public official should be held to higher standards than the commoner.
 
ginwilly said:
Certain philosophies do. tabula rasa or blank slate believes we are all born without any innate traits and our moral code is a learned behavior. I can't get totally behind this because I think for most it's instinctual to protect the young or weak. I'm not well versed enough to carry on a serious conversation but it's fun to ponder. Sorry to derail the thread because it's also a good conversation to be had.

I believe your thread title sparks reaction simply in the use of the buzz words . I think the basis of the argument lies in individualism vs collectivism and the vast chasm of difference of thought.

I'm on your side Deprave in that I feel we should concentrate our order/society on the individual as it's the individual that is essentially held responsible. Well that's not necessarily true but it should be damnit. I think that's the point you are making. If we try to govern as a collective we lose the individual, something the collectives are trying to prevent but don't understand how from a central plan.
Click to expand...

Your right I didn't use some words appropriately to really get my point across. I should of kept the whole thing simpler and more universal and also blanket statement Philosophy doesn't see culture and history is not entirely true. When you say collectivist vs individualist it kind of has the same effect though, words are tricky.
 
ginwilly said:
Killing is moral is also society dependent though. I can kill a man for crossing an arbitrary line in the sand and be applauded or imprisoned depending on region. Same argument for killing a baby that survives abortion. As society evolves the line between killing and murder evolves with it. Morality is a moving target. The Golden Rule remains constant to me, that's my personal philosophy.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. cn
 
deprave said:
Your right I didn't use some words appropriately to really get my point across. I should of kept the whole thing simpler and more universal and also blanket statement Philosophy doesn't see culture and history is not entirely true. When you say collectivist vs individualist it kind of has the same effect though, words are tricky.
Click to expand...

Yeah, labels are tricky. If we decry a law to be socialist in nature, or a person to be so it invokes emotional reaction instead of thought. I can with conviction that Obama is a socialist and get arguments nonstop yet most of us are socialist in nature, just not in wiki version of a socialist government. We join clubs, churches, bowling leagues, internet forums in our quest to socialize. I'm not calling these socialist in the government sense because a bowling league doesn't charge dues based on income equality.

Individualism and collectivism to me represent two trains of thought. Yet these words also invoke emotional responses that take from the debate. I honestly don't know which words could be used to spark the debate in an honest fashion though. All I know is I agree the emphasis should be on individual freedoms not what's best for the collective. Because I believe that focus is what IS best for the collective. Now if we can just convince our collective (statist, central planners) thinking friends of the error of their ways.:-P

The problem with labeling is it carries a negative connotation because one side thinks negatively of the label. If I call someone a collectivist or central planner or statist it puts them on the defensive automatically because they know I think negatively of those words. Where as if a collectivist called me a Randsian or objectivist I know they are not complementing me.
 
deprave said:
Your right I didn't use some words appropriately to really get my point across. I should of kept the whole thing simpler and more universal and also blanket statement Philosophy doesn't see culture and history is not entirely true. When you say collectivist vs individualist it kind of has the same effect though, words are tricky.
Click to expand...

But philosophy is utterly meshed in the culture of the philosopher. Your mention of moral relativism supports this idea and doesn't refute it: one can only formulate such a concept by extrapolating from human history and culture. cn
 
I have a 140 day landrace drying right now. I should quick dry a bit and see where I go on this topic. Yet another factor that determines our philosophy.
 
cannabineer said:
Temporarily, or do you notice a hysteresis effect upon your Weltanschauung? cn
Click to expand...

lol it's definitely temporary. Had to google Weltanschauung but in a small way I think it does. Maybe not the high, but the act itself. I realize in order to protect my personal freedom to indulge I should also respect others freedoms to behave in manners I may not condone.
 
ginwilly said:
lol it's definitely temporary. Had to google Weltanschauung but in a small way I think it does. Maybe not the high, but the act itself. I realize in order to protect my personal freedom to indulge I should also respect others freedoms to behave in manners I may not condone.
Click to expand...

lol sorry; i'm prone to that.

I will say that the claim that philosophy is somehow separate from history floored me. I cannot wrap my mind around it. Afaik the only discipline of pure abstraction is mathematics, which is of limited iterest when discussing matters of social and political relevance.

I'm trying to unpack how deprave came to the conclusion that there is a sort of synchronizable moral compass in the individual. It seems necessary for the sort of federation of millions of independents I think he envisions. I am having some trouble conceptualizing the whole thing ... so i'm not completely confident I'm not tilting at windmills only I am seeing. cn
 
Deprave has admitted to using poor choices of words to get his point across but you raise an interesting question about the federation of individuals needing a consistent moral compass. I can't speak for him on this subject but I also see us as a federation of individuals governed by laws. Those laws may change with societal changes but I feel the emphasis on the ONE should be behind these laws, not the collective. The laws we all agree on have this emphasis, don't steal, take a life, rape, etc prove my point. The laws that have the most heated arguments are the ones singling out a specific group and not others.

I'm losing this winnable argument though because most are unwilling to have it.
 
ginwilly said:
Deprave has admitted to using poor choices of words to get his point across but you raise an interesting question about the federation of individuals needing a consistent moral compass. I can't speak for him on this subject but I also see us as a federation of individuals governed by laws. Those laws may change with societal changes but I feel the emphasis on the ONE should be behind these laws, not the collective. The laws we all agree on have this emphasis, don't steal, take a life, rape, etc prove my point. The laws that have the most heated arguments are the ones singling out a specific group and not others.

I'm losing this winnable argument though because most are unwilling to have it.
Click to expand...

I do get caught up in terminology.
As for the best fulcrum for law ... the individual, the collective, transient sliding composites ... I don't know. I am at a strange point in my life, disillusioned with formerly trusted ideologies, not finding or succeeding in constructing a worthy and serviceable replacement.
But the individual will have to be an integral benchmark for all law, since it is the basic unit of humanity and society. There are laws governing collectives and corporations, but ultimate liability is assigned to individuals. Leadership emerges. cn
 
I just mean that it doesn't have a cultural or historical bias is the argument of cultural relativism, but I only agree with that as far as the fundamentals. I think we can all agree (perhaps) that there are shared moral beliefs which aren't defined by culture or history nor dependent on it. So yes that’s 'Natural Right' which you correctly pointed out is blind to history and then I acknowledged that.

This is actually the whole premise of natural rights, if it weren’t then they wouldn’t be 'natural rights.'
 
deprave said:
I just mean that it doesn't have a cultural or historical bias is the argument of cultural relativism, but I only agree with that as far as the fundamentals. I think we can all agree (perhaps) that there are shared moral beliefs which aren't defined by culture or history nor dependent on it. So yes that’s 'Natural Right' which you correctly pointed out is blind to history and then I acknowledged that.

This is actually the whole premise of natural rights, if it weren’t then they wouldn’t be 'natural rights.'
Click to expand...

I think you've put your finger on the part with which I am not inclined to agree. I have seen no evidence of "natural rights" or a culture-independent moral toolset. So I believe that a cultural/moral bias is built into history, philosophy, politics.

Now I don't know if this is a tangent or a return to course:
but it is my fairly firm belief that the variation in moral sensibility from one person to the next is wide, too wide to begin to be a reliable foundation for a non-hierarchic society. There will always be an oversupply of Macchiavellis. cn
 
I too believe in the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happYness to be natural rights. I believe even a tribal Guinea is born with these natural rights, they may however be taken away by custom, society or an evil individual. This doesn't mean to me that they are not inherit.
 
cannabineer said:
I think you've put your finger on the part with which I am not inclined to agree. I have seen no evidence of "natural rights" or a culture-independent moral toolset. So I believe that a cultural/moral bias is built into history, philosophy, politics.

Now I don't know if this is a tangent or a return to course:
but it is my fairly firm belief that the variation in moral sensibility from one person to the next is wide, too wide to begin to be a reliable foundation for a non-hierarchic society. There will always be an oversupply of Macchiavellis. cn
Click to expand...

I definitely agree with the second paragraph. This why is communism fails when implemented in a group larger than we have emotional attachments to. If I lived in a small commune I may only take from the resource pile what I need because the others comply with this. As soon as someone takes what they want though, we all devolve into trying to get mines.
 
cannabineer said:
I think you've put your finger on the part with which I am not inclined to agree. I have seen no evidence of "natural rights" or a culture-independent moral toolset. So I believe that a cultural/moral bias is built into history, philosophy, politics.

Now I don't know if this is a tangent or a return to course:
but it is my fairly firm belief that the variation in moral sensibility from one person to the next is wide, too wide to begin to be a reliable foundation for a non-hierarchic society. There will always be an oversupply of Macchiavellis. cn
Click to expand...

"Fairly Firm Belief"

Leads me to believe you realize there are some things shared regardless of culture or history, rationally can not disagree but taking it to that level I think is incorrect, Sure even the fundamentals vary to some degree but at the core they are the same. (Murder, Violence, Theft, etc)..No I don't think its too wide to hold leaders accountable for violations of ethics and moral rules, I don't think it is required for a non-hierarchic society to form for these things to happen.

I do not think there needs to be some great metamorphisms or change the way the world is today, or that we have to go live in communes and "share" and everyone will get a long like happy little fluffly bunnies.

I just think that everyone should be treated equally and held accountable for their actions based on established moral principals, that’s all. This is not asking a lot and if we continue to stand on this moral high ground, like the slaves of the past, we will prevail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

deprave
Counterfeit is illegal for a reason
Replies
6
Views
451
cannabineer
cannabineer
Padawanbater2
Edward Snowden
Replies
12
Views
655
abandonconflict
abandonconflict
Seaf0ur
The BASIS of our rights, and WHY the 2nd amendment should matter to YOU
Replies
13
Views
713
SirGreenThumb
SirGreenThumb
deprave
The last thing we need as the people is for the government to be "Compromising"
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
deprave
deprave
rollinbud
Incest as Progress
2
Replies
23
Views
1K
dslantic
dslantic
Back
Top