Freedom Vs Statism & Religiosity

deprave said:
"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.
Click to expand...

The trouble I have with this is that I have read about societies who have attitudes toward murder or theft or sex or ... that are pretty far out from the center of gravity. Very few of what we call "moral perversions" weren't accepted at some time, in some place, that has made it into the hands of the anthropologists.

I do of course agree that there are rules, the ones you've parenthesized, that are shared by most known societies. But to qualify as "natural law" or "morally universal", i still stipulate it would have to be unanimous.
We could discuss pathological societies, like the Branch Davidians or the black Nike comet cult. The force of moral suasion wielded by one charismatic but sociopathic individual trumps all moral restraint. This capacity to embrace a mob psychology that doesn't begin to stand up to sober, solitary reflection is a serious impediment to a society of free agents. I would suggest that a prerequisite to belonging to a society of adults is to think about what one does, to consider the consequences. But when you look around ... it isn't what people do.

<add> The practicality of holding leaders accountable for their actions is something I question. If it could be done, authoritarian and especially totalitarian forms of government would be stillborn. cn
 
cannabineer said:
The trouble I have with this is that I have read about societies who have attitudes toward murder or theft or sex or ... that are pretty far out from the center of gravity. Very few of what we call "moral perversions" weren't accepted at some time, in some place, that has made it into the hands of the anthropologists.

I do of course agree that there are rules, the ones you've parenthesized, that are shared by most known societies. But to qualify as "natural law" or "morally universal", i still stipulate it would have to be unanimous.
We could discuss pathological societies, like the Branch Davidians or the black Nike comet cult. The force of moral suasion wielded by one charismatic but sociopathic individual trumps all moral restraint. This capacity to embrace a mob psychology that doesn't begin to stand up to sober, solitary reflection is a serious impediment to a society of free agents. I would suggest that a prerequisite to belonging to a society of adults is to think about what one does, to consider the consequences. But when you look around ... it isn't what people do.

<add> The practicality of holding leaders accountable for their actions is something I question. If it could be done, authoritarian and especially totalitarian forms of government would be stillborn. cn
Click to expand...

so your getting hung up on another technicality really, that doesn't even matter. You agree that MOST societies agree on "Natural" Law so the few exceptions are beside the point.

I also find it ridiculous that you question the practicality of holding everyone accountable equally. What is more practical or reasonable than everyone following the same moral rules? It is indeed attainable, its been attained many times before on various levels.
 
deprave said:
so your getting hung up on another technicality really, that doesn't even matter. You agree that MOST societies agree on "Natural" Law so the few exceptions are beside the point.

I also find it ridiculous that you question the practicality of holding everyone accountable equally. Whats more practical or reasonable than everyone following the same moral rules?
Click to expand...

It isn't a technicality in my assessment, but a central issue. Natural law, to be natural, must be inviolate. Like gravitation, or the sex drive. Individual variants on the sex drive exist, but societally it's quite uniform The differences are typically restricted to the cultural overlay of marriage.
So I am not at home with the "natural law" argument.

Everyone following the same moral rules is arguably reasonable, but demonstrably impractical. When an élite or oligarch class develops, they always have their own rules. I am applying a standard of practicality, i.e. "does it work in real life". The frequent occurrence of oppressive societies argues a loud, clear No to me. cn
 
ginwilly said:
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
Click to expand...

Except it is not man's nature to be an individual, he is a pack animal by nature and there is plenty to back that up from the nature of other primates to the societal cues inherent in our makeup. We do not function as individuals but as a group. Now how might I go about convincing you of the error of your ways?
 
canndo said:
Except it is not man's nature to be an individual, he is a pack animal by nature and there is plenty to back that up from the nature of other primates to the societal cues inherent in our makeup. We do not function as individuals but as a group. Now how might I go about convincing you of the error of your ways?
Click to expand...

The classic approach is, bring a group. cn

images
 
canndo said:
Except it is not man's nature to be an individual, he is a pack animal by nature and there is plenty to back that up from the nature of other primates to the societal cues inherent in our makeup. We do not function as individuals but as a group. Now how might I go about convincing you of the error of your ways?
Click to expand...
Primates are nothing at all like us
[video=youtube;PI4xVeRjunk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI4xVeRjunk[/video]
 
deprave said:
"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.
Click to expand...

Well said. I think this was what you have been saying the entire time, it just took me a minute to get it.
 
canndo said:
Except it is not man's nature to be an individual, he is a pack animal by nature and there is plenty to back that up from the nature of other primates to the societal cues inherent in our makeup. We do not function as individuals but as a group. Now how might I go about convincing you of the error of your ways?
Click to expand...

We act as individuals within that group. Yes we are social creatures, I've stated that. We do seek out groups that hold an association to our beliefs and avoid those that don't. One size does not fit all. I don't want the KKK to make laws pertaining to everyone anymore than I want the Pope to do the same. One size does not fit all, have I said that?
 
canndo said:
Except it is not man's nature to be an individual, he is a pack animal by nature and there is plenty to back that up from the nature of other primates to the societal cues inherent in our makeup. We do not function as individuals but as a group. Now how might I go about convincing you of the error of your ways?
Click to expand...

How is that even relevant?
 
ginwilly said:
We act as individuals within that group. Yes we are social creatures, I've stated that. We do seek out groups that hold an association to our beliefs and avoid those that don't. One size does not fit all. I don't want the KKK to make laws pertaining to everyone anymore than I want the Pope to do the same. One size does not fit all, have I said that?
Click to expand...


I am not sure of the scale you speak of... If I am a member of a non-diverse society I am unable to pick and choose the sort of group and their morality, I am stuck in the society in which I find myself.

the subject of laws is a different one all together. but I have lost the thread of this debate - sorry.
 
deprave said:
concept is to follow the same moral rules you enforce yourself of which society has agreed upon such as no cheating, stealing, killing. The concept is that there is no exception to these rules. This is a "test" protocol.
Click to expand...


Good point, I agree.

The "nap" principle. Non initiation of aggression principle, makes sense. Whereas many (most?) statutory laws and regulation are prohibition based and often defy natural law. They institute and assist the nanny state.
 
I fear that this thread has turned to mutual congratulation by the exponents of "natural law". I have not seen that concept successfully defended as

a) consistent with what people actually do to each other, and
b) useful as the axiom from which sound real-life jurisprudence devolves.

I worry that "natural law" is being treated not as something that can be subject to experimental validation (thus my original lament about a test protocol ... i think like an engineer) but an article of faith. I see "Posit this is true, then work forward from there". cn
 
cannabineer said:
I fear that this thread has turned to mutual congratulation by the exponents of "natural law". I have not seen that concept successfully defended as

a) consistent with what people actually do to each other, and
b) useful as the axiom from which sound real-life jurisprudence devolves.

I worry that "natural law" is being treated not as something that can be subject to experimental validation (thus my original lament about a test protocol ... i think like an engineer) but an article of faith. I see "Posit this is true, then work forward from there". cn
Click to expand...

I thought I defended it well.

You do think like some of my fellow programmers, that the user is an absolute moron, I give them more credit then that. Consequently I get more code written. Instead of coding so that every possible doomsday scenario is prevented I simply take the approach of making my code itself overly through then I don't need all these checks for doomsday scenarios and vere off, I can thus stay focused on the goal of the program.

example if I a variable is supposed to return an integer greater than 3, I make sure its returns only an integer initially, where some write it so what if its not this then do this and do that, and also if its not this do that and also if its not this do that. I never have to go there because I cut off any potential problems at the source, not only can the user be a moron but the developer as well.
 
I'm sorry, deprave, but I didn't see a defense of "natural law" as anything more than an abstractum. Ime it always fails the basic test of human behavior. I am wondering if you and Rob Roy are requiring an intelligent, thoughtful user for the system to work. I'd prefer one that works for people as they are. And a universal system like a nation's government pretty much has to be designed with the malicious user (in your analogy, a hacker) in mind. I see no hacker protection in the natural law paradigm. cn
 
my point being that ethics is like nutrition, and as you point out this is a flaw with ethics. Nutrition doesn't help people who do not practice it, likewise evil people don't practice ethics, additionally because ethics is like nutrition is not for emergencies. The example I was trying to make is preventive programming versus reactive, preventive vs emergencies. You don't call 911 because your overweight or you don't call your nutritionist when you've just been shot in the leg. So on that point, without good nutrition and prevention in a society it only makes it easier to tackle emergencies although they intention isn't to tackle those emergencies but for better health overall thus better prevention.

so your approach is really counter to what you just wrote, adaptation to the world as it is, is exactly the goal of ethical philosophy. While other approaches are often are making the world how you want to be and reactionary, the exact opposite of being preventive and adaptive.



so....It can't be the end all be all like you are elevating it to...of course.. you can't just have nutrition, what if someone steps on a nail?

Back to the point of this thread...Everyone should be equally accountable for all moral standards agreed upon within a society, very very simple...There is really no if ,and, or but about it.
 
deprave said:
my point being that ethics is like nutrition, and as you point out this is a flaw with ethics. Nutrition doesn't help people who do not practice it, likewise evil people don't practice ethics, additionally because ethics is like nutrition is not for emergencies. The example I was trying to make is preventive programming versus reactive, preventive vs emergencies. You don't call 911 because your overweight or you don't call your nutritionist when you've just been shot in the leg. So on that point, without good nutrition and prevention in a society it only makes it easier to tackle emergencies although they intention isn't to tackle those emergencies but for better health overall thus better prevention.

so your approach is really counter to what you just wrote, adaptation to the world as it is, is exactly the goal of ethical philosophy. While other approaches are often are making the world how you want to be and reactionary, the exact opposite of being preventive and adaptive.



so....It can't be the end all be all like you are elevating it to...of course.. you can't just have nutrition, what if someone steps on a nail?

Back to the point of this thread...Everyone should be equally accountable for all moral standards agreed upon within a society, very very simple...There is really no if ,and, or but about it.
Click to expand...

Help me try to get this straight. Perhaps I am conflating your stance with Rob Roy's. His I understand to be Government = (coercion/force/aggression) = Bad.

But now you're telling me "nutrition (as a stand-in for an internal moral compass) is not enough". What then do you propose as the real-world analog of 911 in your metaphor? I'm guessing some sort of positive involvement by an enforcement agency. Am I following?
If so, what sort and degree of this aligning force is countenanced in your philosophy?
cn
 
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