Really? So then I guess that we should all be Christian and against gay marriage, since those are consensus opinions.
Harkius
Well I'll be... the states where gay marriage isn't allowed/has laws AGAINST it are the ones where the majority of people have moral objections to it. This isn't going to change because a smaller group says it is unconstitutional, it will change as every major social change in the last few centuries has -- public opinion will change (especially with new generations) until a majority accepts those people and the laws change.
Apparently gay marriage is very much allowed on a consensus basis and nothing more.
goes something like
"I believe this is morally wrong/right, therefore it is imperative based on my morals to do something."
This might work to get yourself motivated, but he asked how you argue for a subjective moral imperative. In other words, how do you persuade someone else? If you can give a rational argument, then chances are what you're talking about isn't actually subjective.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
This might work to get yourself motivated, but he asked how you argue for a subjective moral imperative. In other words, how do you persuade someone else? If you can give a rational argument, then chances are what you're talking about isn't actually subjective.
We persuade people ALL the time. To buy Miller 64, to go to Disneyland, to get a new car, to try out for the baseball team...
You sell your product, and if you do it right, people will buy it.
David Koresh convinced people he was Jesus.
Religion convinces people a magical man in the sky exists.
What exactly is your question?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
We persuade people ALL the time. To buy Miller 64, to go to Disneyland, to get a new car, to try out for the baseball team...
You sell your product, and if you do it right, people will buy it.
David Koresh convinced people he was Jesus.
Religion convinces people a magical man in the sky exists.
What exactly is your question?
My question is a request for you to pick a moral statement and persuade me it's right. I think you won't be able to do it without the appeal to some standard that you'd like me to regard as objective.
And this extends to other domains of persuasion as well. Think about how we persuade people to do those things you mentioned. For instance, I've seen those Miller 64 commercials; among other things they appeal to people's ostensibly objective desire to be healthy and attractive by emphasizing the product's low calorie content. Indeed, that's about as objective as an appeal can get, considering that the effect of calorie consumption on the body is an objective matter.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
We persuade people ALL the time. To buy Miller 64, to go to Disneyland, to get a new car, to try out for the baseball team...
You sell your product, and if you do it right, people will buy it.
David Koresh convinced people he was Jesus.
Religion convinces people a magical man in the sky exists.
What exactly is your question?
Agreed... organized religion is basically the best advertising campaign in the world. Come see us! You'll be saved from evil and get into Heaven! Birth control is wrong! Make more followers... I mean kids! Give us 10% of your money because we'll save you from Hell! Don't believe us? It's God's word! He's never wrong! God says you should do this!
My question is a request for you to pick a moral statement and persuade me it's right. I think you won't be able to do it without the appeal to some standard that you'd like me to regard as objective.
I do not need to think my standard is objective in order to think my standard is better.
Just like I don't need to think beauty is objective in order to think my wife is hotter.
If I can persuade someone else that my standard was better than theirs, and they adopt my standard once convinced, then exactly what relevance is subjectivity/objectivity?
And this extends to other domains of persuasion as well. Think about how we persuade people to do those things you mentioned. For instance, I've seen those Miller 64 commercials; among other things they appeal to people's ostensibly objective desire to be healthy and attractive by emphasizing the product's low calorie content. Indeed, that's about as objective as an appeal can get, considering that the effect of calorie consumption on the body is an objective matter.
I don't believe that the desire to be healthy and fit is objective at all.
I argue people have varying, and subjective definitions of what it means to be fit and healthy. Their own personal definition will either sinc with the commercial for Miller 64, and therefore the commercials appeal to their sence of health and fitness will convince them to drink it ...or it will not, and they will continue drinking their full bodied lager.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I do not need to think my standard is objective in order to think my standard is better.
No, but this is solipsistic. If you were the only person in the universe, you could safely regard everything as subjective.
Just like I don't need to think beauty is objective in order to think my wife is hotter.
The broad-based agreement on the beauty of certain places, people, and things indicates that beauty has an objective as well as a subjective component. (There are studies in neuroscience that underwrite this as well. Also, see Jurgen Schmidhuber's work on beauty and compressibility.)
If I can persuade someone else that my standard was better than theirs, and they adopt my standard once convinced, then exactly what relevance is subjectivity/objectivity?
You're putting the cart before the horse. First you have to persuade them, and for that you need objective ground that you can both stand on. That's why I'm asking you to explain how you'd go about persuading me of something you believe to be a moral truth. I'll note here that you dodged that question and skipped ahead to the part where you assume you've already persuaded someone.
I don't believe that the desire to be healthy and fit is objective at all.
The desire isn't objective, but the appeal is. Miller is saying "Objectively, our beer has less calories, so objectively, ceteris paribus, if you switch from another beer to ours you will be less fat."
Then subjective elements enter into play, like whether or not you care if you're fat, what you think about the taste of the beer versus the fat content, et cetera.
However, in order to even begin to persuade you, Miller needed to have some objective ground to start from. Without that, their commercial would be nothing more than gibberish set to a jingle. And don't get me wrong, some people would still be persuaded by that -- but that's actually a bad thing and indicates a defect in those people.
No, but this is solipsistic. If you were the only person in the universe, you could safely regard everything as subjective.
The broad-based agreement on the beauty of certain places, people, and things indicates that beauty has an objective as well as a subjective component. (There are studies in neuroscience that underwrite this as well. Also, see Jurgen Schmidhuber's work on beauty and compressibility.)
Yes, for instance, many studies have shown that Symetry in facial features improves attractiveness.
It's about the best mate for offspring at its core, is it not?
BUT
Once you have two symetrical people, which one is beautiful?
One person takes the thin redhead over the full figured brunette, and the other person takes the converse.
You're putting the cart before the horse. First you have to persuade them, and for that you need objective ground that you can both stand on. That's why I'm asking you to explain how you'd go about persuading me of something you believe to be a moral truth. I'll note here that you dodged that question and skipped ahead to the part where you assume you've already persuaded someone.
This assumes that two people cannot find a subjective ground they both can stand on.
Do me a favor - Give me ONE objective moral FACT. Just ONE.
The desire isn't objective, but the appeal is. Miller is saying "Objectively, our beer has less calories, so objectively, ceteris paribus, if you switch from another beer to ours you will be less fat."
Then why did you say that the desire was objective?
~ "among other things they appeal to people's ostensibly objective desire to be healthy and attractive"
Then subjective elements enter into play, like whether or not you care if you're fat, what you think about the taste of the beer versus the fat content, et cetera.
However, in order to even begin to persuade you, Miller needed to have some objective ground to start from. Without that, their commercial would be nothing more than gibberish set to a jingle. And don't get me wrong, some people would still be persuaded by that -- but that's actually a bad thing and indicates a defect in those people.
Yes, less calories is a quantifiable objective fact.
Like the Moon is objective. Something either has 64 calories, or 100 calories, or 340 calories...or it doesn't. It's measureable.
However - "You will look better if you drink this" is not objective, nor quantifiable.
You are comparing apples and oranges.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I was conflating the definitions of moral nihilism and moral relativism.
Now, are you equating moral nihilism and anarchy?
Harkius
No, there is no relation. Morality as it is commonly known now is defined through Divine Morality, and it doesn't really exist. It's a fallacy from the very ground up. This makes it hard to be a Moral Nihilist, as that whole philosophy is based around Divine Morality. They are two sides to the same coin.
Anarchism in Modern Civil sense is based purely on Ethical Morality, which has one basic truth. Everyone is self-interested. The best way to avoid issues of abuse and other things that are considered inhumane, all people must recognize that one truth. Modern Individualist and Voluntaryist philosophy is built from that basic idea. The NAP was developed from there.
This is a very shortened answer, because I honestly prefer the Q&A type of explanation. it takes more time, but it's easier if I just answer questions about it rather than just lay out a bunch of rubbish that is far more definitive than the Philosophy allows for. It's not a philosophy based on hard one way or another stances other than adherence to the NAP and that basic truth.
This is probably why so many people have difficulty in grasping it, or understanding it.
However - we are 10000 times better than Syria, or Iran, or some other ****ed up sharia law places.
I may not believe in an Objective morality, but I do believe some moral systems are better than others. I also believe that the better moral systems have a responsibility to erradicate those crappy systems out there like Sharia Law.
I don't see how it can be any other way.
If you TRULY believe that the way someone behaves or the way they treat others is WRONG - then you have to do something about it. Objective, or not.
Comparing the US to those countries, which should have the highest standards of morality considering the idea that founded the country in the first place, is consenting to mediocrity.
You are either going to push and uphold those beliefs or you are going to sell yourself short and end up in a tyrannical dictatorship of sorts. That is the very basis of the Divine Morality the country was founded upon. There is no in between level where rational humans control the balance, because humans in general are not rational. Humans are incapable of perfection on any level.
That is the problem with idealism and the thought that the middle-ground is the best, because you never end up in the middle, you always function to the lowest common denominator. The lowest common denominator would vary by opinion, but generally those that profit by the murder of innocents are generally recognized to be the lowest. Not sure if you've noticed lately, but that would almost exclusively be the MIC and the people in government. They are the ones dropping cruise missles and bombs on brown people after all.
It's also the same lie that keeps people from being egoistic *******s to each other, really. Hopefully there will come a day of explicit social contracts, but we have to stick with implicit ones because what's the alternative?
How about you learn to actually deal with each other on the individual basis? You are already doing it daily. There is no need to imply consent or some lie of a contract that is nothing but an illusion. Put it this way, if someone is a blatant *******, I call them out on it. Either they alter their behavior, or I remove myself from that particular relationship. No need for contracts that hold no real binding power.
There is no such thing. There isn't just one Human, so you can not possibly condone that such a meager idea as Human consensus speaks for them all. Sure you can follow what current Politicians do and just lie to the people to convince them to vote for you, but you are only fooling yourself and them to think there is any real power of rights being handed over. It's an illusion, like I said before.
Human Consensus doesn't exist. This is one of the many failures of Democracy. That people think in such a State ran system they have any say what the State does. If you create a State, and hand over your rights to it, every following generation will be increasingly more and more enslaved by it. Only the people that signed the original Constitution actually handed over their rights to the State, everyone else had their's stolen from them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy Decks
~~~~~~~~~
Too many to list efficiently. Find me online with the same SN if you want to play, or message me here to set up a time to play.
Modern
~~~~~~~~~
Whatever pile of 75 I throw together the night before without testing. Usually: :symb::symu::symg:
Okay, time to take the side discussions elsewhere. Moral objectivism: was on-topic, but not anymore. Spoonerist anarchism: just plain off-topic.
I'm going to assume, however, that the "rights are simply things granted by governments, nothing more" argument is still relevant since otherwise it'd be impossible to make much of an argument in this thread.
Those words that are uttered with what is an intent to cause a breach of the peace - namely, incite disorderly conduct - are outside the First Amendment's protection.
Which is exactly the same form of reasoning for why hate speech is illegal—it incites hatred and/or promotes genocide and are thus outside of the protection of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The United States is founded on a code, and that code says that while we may disagree with what you say, you still have that right.
Canada is somewhat similar. Hate speech laws don't work on an "I disagree with you" principle, but on a "what you're saying is harmful" principle.
But let me ask you this: if the world decided to do this, then what? Hate speech is no longer tolerated. So people decide, "Well, you know what? I can't speak it? Time to put my words into actions!" Then all of a sudden, you have killings of people they don't like.
Which already happen with depressing regularity. What's your point?
But, the third sentence is the problem, since the rights that you're proclaiming are granted by an illegitimate government.
Illegitimate in what sense? If the government grants me the right to freedom of religion and then I'm forced to join a specific religion, I can claim my right has been violated. If the government does not grant me the right to freedom of religion (for instance, if I lived in a theocracy), I can't say that being forced to join a specific religion violates my rights, but I can still argue against such on other grounds.
Sure. But you recognize that there are different levels of punishments for those crimes than, say, aggravated battery or attempted murder, yes?
Just like there are different levels of punishments for hate speech and, say, murder as hate crime.
Well, without one, you're relying on majorities (which are historically fickle) to grant rights that they aren't right now. You and I both think that it's ridiculous, but over half of the people in the US are against gay marriage. Apparently, without an objective reason, that's not going to happen.
Well, it depends on which poll you listen to. The ones I've read show that a majority of Americans are actually in favour of gay marriage. And really, majority opinion is needed in such a fragmented system as the American one, where human rights are put to votes rather than decided federally (e.g. all the American gay marriage votes vs Canada's federal government passing a bill legalizing it across the entire country).
There is no such thing. There isn't just one Human, so you can not possibly condone that such a meager idea as Human consensus speaks for them all.
I don't mean "consensus across all humanity." I mean "consensus between however many humans are required." For example, consensus among sufficient members of parliament, or among the majority of voters.
If you create a State, and hand over your rights to it, every following generation will be increasingly more and more enslaved by it. Only the people that signed the original Constitution actually handed over their rights to the State, everyone else had their's stolen from them.
Just on the subject of rights here, if you're born into a system where you don't have a specific right, then you never had that right to be stolen from you (unless you want to make some kind of abstract "stolen before birth" thing, as if all future people are considered to possess a right or something).
Illegitimate in what sense? If the government grants me the right to freedom of religion and then I'm forced to join a specific religion, I can claim my right has been violated. If the government does not grant me the right to freedom of religion (for instance, if I lived in a theocracy), I can't say that being forced to join a specific religion violates my rights, but I can still argue against such on other grounds.
Heres what you've failed to explain adequately (at least adequately enough for me to understand) -- what other grounds could you possibly use?
I can't see any argument why forcing you to join a religion would be in anyway wrong, short of your inalienable right as a human being to freedom of religion.
The concept that rights only exist if the government has granted them to you completely negates the ability to argue that you should have different rights.
Just on the subject of rights here, if you're born into a system where you don't have a specific right, then you never had that right to be stolen from you (unless you want to make some kind of abstract "stolen before birth" thing, as if all future people are considered to possess a right or something).
Just to be clear here: You are arguing that chattel slavery in the American south did not violate any human rights because the slaves never had the rights to be violated. Are you sure this is the argument you want to go with?
I'm going to assume, however, that the "rights are simply things granted by governments, nothing more" argument is still relevant since otherwise it'd be impossible to make much of an argument in this thread.
[quote]Which is exactly the same form of reasoning for why hate speech is illegal—it incites hatred and/or promotes genocide and are thus outside of the protection of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
No, "hate speech" is illegal in Canada because it hurts peoples' feelings. I'm not joking.
"In Chopra v. Health Canada, 2008 CHRT 39, Pierre Deschamps ruled that Shiv Chopra, a microbiologist at Health Canada, was entitled to $4,000 in damages from Health Canada for hurt feelings, lost wages, and interest. The adjudicator found that Chopra was subjected to discriminatory comments, was suspended in retaliation for filing an earlier human rights complaint, and had been passed over when he could have had a temporary promotion to acting chief of his division."
Seriously. Hurt feelings is now something you can get money for in Canada? God, I ***** about how our children in the United States are coddled...but congratulations on making me legitimately facepalm. We seriously need to go into a Darwinian phase and get rid of weaklings like that.
Canada is somewhat similar. Hate speech laws don't work on an "I disagree with you" principle, but on a "what you're saying is harmful" principle.
In which case, if I don't agree with the concept of "global warming is proven science", what's to say that I can't be held to the same standard by some court because they consider what I am saying to be "harmful"?
Which already happen with depressing regularity. What's your point?
Oh, you mean in places like Africa and Asia, which have had centuries of this happening and it probably won't stop any time soon? Here's something to consider, too: if this ignorance is so prevalent in Canada that you need to create laws to stop it, but the United States doesn't need to (for whatever reason), what does that say about the level of ignorance in good ol' Canada?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The above post is the opinion of the poster and is not indicative of any stance taken by the President of the United States, Congress, the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, the Department of the Navy, or the United States Marine Corps."
No, "hate speech" is illegal in Canada because it hurts peoples' feelings. I'm not joking.
And you seem to be taking that in a decidedly literal fashion rather than, for instance, as an unfortunately chosen blanket term for other kinds of nonphysical harm.
In which case, if I don't agree with the concept of "global warming is proven science", what's to say that I can't be held to the same standard by some court because they consider what I am saying to be "harmful"?
The wording of our hate speech laws would preclude such a thing, since they only cover inciting hatred or promoting genocide against identifiable groups (sex, religion, etc).
Here's something to consider, too: if this ignorance is so prevalent in Canada that you need to create laws to stop it, but the United States doesn't need to (for whatever reason), what does that say about the level of ignorance in good ol' Canada?
It doesn't say anything about it. Rather, it says is that America thinks harm to marginalized groups is an acceptable byproduct of having fewer limitations on freedom of speech, while Canada realizes that words can in fact be harmful and restricts hate speech accordingly.
Quote from bLatch »
Heres what you've failed to explain adequately (at least adequately enough for me to understand) -- what other grounds could you possibly use?
Any number of grounds. Utilitarian grounds are an easy go-to.
I can't see any argument why forcing you to join a religion would be in anyway wrong, short of your inalienable right as a human being to freedom of religion.
Not seeing any argument is not the same as no argument being possible.
The concept that rights only exist if the government has granted them to you completely negates the ability to argue that you should have different rights.
This only really works if you're similarly willing to argue that, in the lack of a government, no government should form to give anyone rights to begin with.
Just to be clear here: You are arguing that chattel slavery in the American south did not violate any human rights because the slaves never had the rights to be violated. Are you sure this is the argument you want to go with?
I'm willing to accept unfortunate applications of my arguments. In this case, if the government didn't actually grant slaves the right to freedom (and this issue isn't actually black-and-white given interpretation of the constitution and all that), then they didn't have the right until it was granted to them. On a personal note, I'd say that they should have had that right to begin with, and that not having it was wrong, but none of that changes whether they were granted it or not at that point in time.
Any number of grounds. Utilitarian grounds are an easy go-to.
What do you think Thomas Hobbes used to argue for the existence of natural rights in Leviathan? Whenever you argue that people ought to or ought not to be treated a certain way on an objective basis (and a utilitarian argument is objective), you are arguing that people have a natural or human right. You don't have to call it that if you don't want to, but your insistence that people who do call it that are somehow wrong is bogging down this conversation utterly pointlessly. You know what is meant, so suck it up and move on already.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I'd argue that reaching utilitarian conclusions of what rights people should have isn't ever going to be independent of the societies involved. Arguing for natural/inalienable/whatever rights is arguing for rights that exist independently of the needs and values of a given society, and that the society merely grants in line with some greater concept.
I'd argue that reaching utilitarian conclusions of what rights people should have isn't ever going to be independent of the societies involved. Arguing for natural/inalienable/whatever rights is arguing for rights that exist independently of the needs and values of a given society, and that the society merely grants in line with some greater concept.
If utilitarian arguments depend on the needs and values of a given society, how are you supposed to argue against Antebellum chattel slavery again?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Just like there are different levels of punishments for hate speech and, say, murder as hate crime.
But there's a big difference there. Murder is already a crime in itself. Murder-as-hate-crime is a special kind of premeditated murder. So the hate crime is really a "bonus" added on to the existing crime. And I'll gladly defend the existence of that "bonus," because intent does matter where crimes are concerned.
Speech is not a crime. And on that alone I don't know how one could determine whether speech is "hateful" or "harmful." Notice I said "alone," though, since persistent and directly targeted attacks would be harassment or similar.
Just on the subject of rights here, if you're born into a system where you don't have a specific right, then you never had that right to be stolen from you (unless you want to make some kind of abstract "stolen before birth" thing, as if all future people are considered to possess a right or something).
This seems to imply that a "Disenfranchising All Persons Born After 1 January 2013 Act of 2012" would be okay, if passed (magically). Because nobody affected has been born yet, so they never had any voting rights to revoke in the first place.
No, "hate speech" is illegal in Canada because it hurts peoples' feelings. I'm not joking.
"In Chopra v. Health Canada, 2008 CHRT 39, Pierre Deschamps ruled that Shiv Chopra, a microbiologist at Health Canada, was entitled to $4,000 in damages from Health Canada for hurt feelings, lost wages, and interest. The adjudicator found that Chopra was subjected to discriminatory comments, was suspended in retaliation for filing an earlier human rights complaint, and had been passed over when he could have had a temporary promotion to acting chief of his division."
If "hurt feelings" in the Canadian justice system are anything like "emotional distress" in the American system, it's probably a "bonus" as well. According to this definition, "emotional distress" (at least originally) could only be in addition to material damages. The idea in Chopra, I suspect, was that he lost wages and that this was a significant decrease in his well-being. (In that losing out on several thousand dollars means more if you make $40k/year as opposed to, say, $400k/year. Or $40mil/year.)
Which is exactly the same form of reasoning for why hate speech is illegal—it incites hatred and/or promotes genocide and are thus outside of the protection of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
America thinks harm to marginalized groups is an acceptable byproduct of having fewer limitations on freedom of speech, while Canada realizes that words can in fact be harmful and restricts hate speech accordingly.
Hold on; not having laws criminalizing "hate speech" is not the same as protecting, sanctioning, or condoning such speech. A lot of people forget that and try to whip out the First Amendment like a shield whenever they get called out for their hatemongering. I'd argue that aggressive criticism is basically like a lawsuit, but with social capital on the line instead of money.
I think there's also a "Prohibition" argument to be made here: anything which has a low cost of production and low cost of secrecy will be nearly impossible to regulate. Speech costs basically nothing, and is really easy to slip under the radar. Didn't I say something about "dog-whistle" code words earlier? You can call for racial violence or even genocide without being explicit... after all, you only want "us" to know, not "them."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
I don't mean "consensus across all humanity." I mean "consensus between however many humans are required." For example, consensus among sufficient members of parliament, or among the majority of voters.
So you agree with Tyranny if it's in the name of the Majority only then?
Just on the subject of rights here, if you're born into a system where you don't have a specific right, then you never had that right to be stolen from you (unless you want to make some kind of abstract "stolen before birth" thing, as if all future people are considered to possess a right or something).
The origin of the concept of Rights is formulated from the very Negative and Positive Rights that I spoke about previously. It's impossible to separate rights from self-ownership, as they are all based on the very concept in the first place. You can not say that people have only the rights that the Government allows them to have when they are born and still call them "Right's". They are no longer rights at that point, those are defined as "privilages". From the way you described it, you do not have any right's. In fact you are a slave whom is given privilages by your government. That is simply not how it actually works, and our respective governments are already aware of this. This is why such effort is put into controlling the future of education through state ran schooling. It's hard to convince the masses of something, unless you make it so they do not understand the situation in the first place.
I really wish as a whole people would learn that definitions already exist for these terms as they are not new concepts. Nothing we are discussing here and now has not been discussed within the past 2000+ years of known history. Governments have no Right's, and they do not grant Right's. This was the essence of the Liberal Movement when it began in the 1700's. The Liberal Revolution of that Era was to recognize that the State and the Government were not real, and that institutions built around them are merely beholden to the people that allow them to exist in the first place.
I'd argue that reaching utilitarian conclusions of what rights people should have isn't ever going to be independent of the societies involved. Arguing for natural/inalienable/whatever rights is arguing for rights that exist independently of the needs and values of a given society, and that the society merely grants in line with some greater concept.
Which is inherently false. Society does not exist independently of the people involved, and if they have no inherent right's to establish said society then you have no society. It's that mind-numbly simple. Society can not take away right's as it doesn't exist without the right's that create it in the first place. You can not give something you do not have to something that does not exist. Likewise you can only give something you have to something that exists. If the Society is not present due to lack of right's to create it, then it can not be said to be the final determination on who can do what. This was the very basis of the Liberal Revolution.
Okay, time to take the side discussions elsewhere. Moral objectivism: was on-topic, but not anymore. Spoonerist anarchism: just plain off-topic.
Spooner was a Moralist not an Anarchist though. All of this has to do with Morality at it's core, as that is what this debate about Hate Speech is entailing. Rothbard was an Anarchist and a Moralist, but Spooner was merely a Moralist. The difference was that Spooner came to his conclusions based upon Ethical Morality, Rothbard started from the basis that Statism was immoral and built from there. Some may call Spooner and Anarchist, but he wasn't. He firmly pushed from a Moral standpoint, rather than anti-statist standpoint.
As it was pointed out above, murder is a crime previously, but calling it a hate-crime is ridiculous. It's still the same action no matter the premediatation or intent of the criminal behavior. How is Hate-Speech a crime? It's not inherently immoral, as it does not steal away the right's of another. How are we measuring Morality then, without an accurate perspective of what Morality is? How can we then define why Hate-Crimes are a misnomer if it's impossible or forbidden to establish a mode of morality from which to formulate a basis for argument? What is a Hate-Crime? Are not all Crimes based on Hate in some form or fashion? If hate is merely an extension of fear or anger, then where do you draw the line for it?
It doesn't say anything about it. Rather, it says is that America thinks harm to marginalized groups is an acceptable byproduct of having fewer limitations on freedom of speech, while Canada realizes that words can in fact be harmful and restricts hate speech accordingly.
Words can, in fact, be harmful? Sounds like an objective moral assertion to me! Putting on our nihilist shoes, why can't we just say "American jurisprudence doesn't agree, debate over?"
As a moral nihilist, the only thing you can really say here is that your society has decided, by mere fiat, that words are inherently harmful and our society has decided, also by mere fiat, that words aren't inherently harmful, but can only do harm through secondary effects.
What you can't say is that you are right about words being inherently harmful, or that American jurisprudence is wrong -- because that requires an objective moral position. And what you especially can't say is that American jurisprudence thinks this kind of harm is acceptable, because that would require objective agreement on the moral nature of the harm itself, which can't exist.
If utilitarian arguments depend on the needs and values of a given society, how are you supposed to argue against Antebellum chattel slavery again?
I'm willing to admit that there does in fact exist the possibility of slavery somehow being the most beneficial option for some hypothetical society. In the long run, it wouldn't have been for the American south even without the huge conflicts surrounding it, but that's getting a bit beyond the scope of this thread.
Let's not mince words here. It only restricts hate speech toward groups that are on a special list.
It restricts hate speech against white people, straight people, and Christians just as much as it restricts hate speech against black people, gay people, and Muslims.
That's actually not true. That's the argument that you're making, perhaps unwittingly.
No, it's the argument other people are making and, apparently, putting into my mouth.
This seems to imply that a "Disenfranchising All Persons Born After 1 January 2013 Act of 2012" would be okay, if passed (magically). Because nobody affected has been born yet, so they never had any voting rights to revoke in the first place.
I don't recall saying it'd be okay, just that the affected haven't actually been born yet and thus don't have the rights in question.
Society does not exist independently of the people involved, and if they have no inherent right's to establish said society then you have no society.
This doesn't flow. Why, specifically, would there be no society in the absence of absolute rights? Society is a construct, as are the laws it enforces and the rights it grants.
Words can, in fact, be harmful? Sounds like an objective moral assertion to me!
There's nothing speaking of morality in the assertion that words can be harmful—harm is simply a thing, after all. A moral judgement would be to say that this harm is bad, and that much is not only open to debate, but has been debated previously in this very thread.
I'm willing to admit that there does in fact exist the possibility of slavery somehow being the most beneficial option for some hypothetical society. In the long run, it wouldn't have been for the American south even without the huge conflicts surrounding it, but that's getting a bit beyond the scope of this thread.
Would it not have been "most beneficial" objectively or subjectively?
There's nothing speaking of morality in the assertion that words can be harmful—harm is simply a thing, after all. A moral judgement would be to say that this harm is bad, and that much is not only open to debate, but has been debated previously in this very thread.
If you're a nihilist or relativist, it's not open to debate. Debate requires some objective or otherwise shared standard by which to reason. Without it, debating right or wrong is like debating whether red or blue is the better color.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
As it was pointed out above, murder is a crime previously, but calling it a hate-crime is ridiculous. It's still the same action no matter the premediatation or intent of the criminal behavior.
Wait, no. Premeditation is an important qualifier, although "planning ahead" is not itself a crime. But we punish a "crime of passion"—jealous lover kills cheating partner in a fit of rage, say—differently than a killing spree planned months in advance.
There's nothing speaking of morality in the assertion that words can be harmful—harm is simply a thing, after all. A moral judgement would be to say that this harm is bad, and that much is not only open to debate, but has been debated previously in this very thread.
Wait, isn't "harm is bad" a tautology? I though the topic in question was more like "this kind of harm is or is not punishable."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Would it not have been "most beneficial" objectively or subjectively?
The most beneficial according to agreed-upon subjective metrics.
If you're a nihilist or relativist, it's not open to debate. Debate requires some objective or otherwise shared standard by which to reason. Without it, debating right or wrong is like debating whether red or blue is the better color.
And it's impossible to find common or at least comparable shared subjective standards?
Until you're on that special list, it doesn't do anything for you.
So either it protects everyone in every group or it's worthless? Sure is fallacious up in your posts.
Oh, wait. That second one doesn't get my vote.
What I mean with my arguments is not a democracy.
In the absence of any moral objectivity, there is no duty for a government to form to give these rights. And if there is no obligation for such a government...then your argument that "we only have the rights that the government gives us" rings rather hollow.
Just because there's no obligation for a government to form doesn't mean that a government can't form. I'm under no obligation to read your posts, for instance, yet for some reason I do so anyway.
Usually, I am not in favor of banning what is often seen as "hate speech", distinctions such as threatening, harassment, and violating contracts aside.
The founders of this country didn't make the 1st Amendment to allow us to talk about the weather and how we are doing. The intent of the 1st Amendment was to allow us to say whatever we want, no matter how controversial it is.
It's really a shame that the same conservatives that say they are pro-constitution want the government to censor anything that doesn't conform to their vision of a middle America disney-land. And let's not get started with the P.C. liberals...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Well I'll be... the states where gay marriage isn't allowed/has laws AGAINST it are the ones where the majority of people have moral objections to it. This isn't going to change because a smaller group says it is unconstitutional, it will change as every major social change in the last few centuries has -- public opinion will change (especially with new generations) until a majority accepts those people and the laws change.
Apparently gay marriage is very much allowed on a consensus basis and nothing more.
This might work to get yourself motivated, but he asked how you argue for a subjective moral imperative. In other words, how do you persuade someone else? If you can give a rational argument, then chances are what you're talking about isn't actually subjective.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
We persuade people ALL the time. To buy Miller 64, to go to Disneyland, to get a new car, to try out for the baseball team...
You sell your product, and if you do it right, people will buy it.
David Koresh convinced people he was Jesus.
Religion convinces people a magical man in the sky exists.
What exactly is your question?
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
My question is a request for you to pick a moral statement and persuade me it's right. I think you won't be able to do it without the appeal to some standard that you'd like me to regard as objective.
And this extends to other domains of persuasion as well. Think about how we persuade people to do those things you mentioned. For instance, I've seen those Miller 64 commercials; among other things they appeal to people's ostensibly objective desire to be healthy and attractive by emphasizing the product's low calorie content. Indeed, that's about as objective as an appeal can get, considering that the effect of calorie consumption on the body is an objective matter.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Agreed... organized religion is basically the best advertising campaign in the world. Come see us! You'll be saved from evil and get into Heaven! Birth control is wrong! Make more followers... I mean kids! Give us 10% of your money because we'll save you from Hell! Don't believe us? It's God's word! He's never wrong! God says you should do this!
I do not need to think my standard is objective in order to think my standard is better.
Just like I don't need to think beauty is objective in order to think my wife is hotter.
If I can persuade someone else that my standard was better than theirs, and they adopt my standard once convinced, then exactly what relevance is subjectivity/objectivity?
I don't believe that the desire to be healthy and fit is objective at all.
I argue people have varying, and subjective definitions of what it means to be fit and healthy. Their own personal definition will either sinc with the commercial for Miller 64, and therefore the commercials appeal to their sence of health and fitness will convince them to drink it ...or it will not, and they will continue drinking their full bodied lager.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
No, but this is solipsistic. If you were the only person in the universe, you could safely regard everything as subjective.
The broad-based agreement on the beauty of certain places, people, and things indicates that beauty has an objective as well as a subjective component. (There are studies in neuroscience that underwrite this as well. Also, see Jurgen Schmidhuber's work on beauty and compressibility.)
You're putting the cart before the horse. First you have to persuade them, and for that you need objective ground that you can both stand on. That's why I'm asking you to explain how you'd go about persuading me of something you believe to be a moral truth. I'll note here that you dodged that question and skipped ahead to the part where you assume you've already persuaded someone.
The desire isn't objective, but the appeal is. Miller is saying "Objectively, our beer has less calories, so objectively, ceteris paribus, if you switch from another beer to ours you will be less fat."
Then subjective elements enter into play, like whether or not you care if you're fat, what you think about the taste of the beer versus the fat content, et cetera.
However, in order to even begin to persuade you, Miller needed to have some objective ground to start from. Without that, their commercial would be nothing more than gibberish set to a jingle. And don't get me wrong, some people would still be persuaded by that -- but that's actually a bad thing and indicates a defect in those people.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Yes, for instance, many studies have shown that Symetry in facial features improves attractiveness.
It's about the best mate for offspring at its core, is it not?
BUT
Once you have two symetrical people, which one is beautiful?
One person takes the thin redhead over the full figured brunette, and the other person takes the converse.
This assumes that two people cannot find a subjective ground they both can stand on.
Do me a favor - Give me ONE objective moral FACT. Just ONE.
Then why did you say that the desire was objective?
~ "among other things they appeal to people's ostensibly objective desire to be healthy and attractive"
Yes, less calories is a quantifiable objective fact.
Like the Moon is objective. Something either has 64 calories, or 100 calories, or 340 calories...or it doesn't. It's measureable.
However - "You will look better if you drink this" is not objective, nor quantifiable.
You are comparing apples and oranges.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
No, there is no relation. Morality as it is commonly known now is defined through Divine Morality, and it doesn't really exist. It's a fallacy from the very ground up. This makes it hard to be a Moral Nihilist, as that whole philosophy is based around Divine Morality. They are two sides to the same coin.
Anarchism in Modern Civil sense is based purely on Ethical Morality, which has one basic truth. Everyone is self-interested. The best way to avoid issues of abuse and other things that are considered inhumane, all people must recognize that one truth. Modern Individualist and Voluntaryist philosophy is built from that basic idea. The NAP was developed from there.
This is a very shortened answer, because I honestly prefer the Q&A type of explanation. it takes more time, but it's easier if I just answer questions about it rather than just lay out a bunch of rubbish that is far more definitive than the Philosophy allows for. It's not a philosophy based on hard one way or another stances other than adherence to the NAP and that basic truth.
This is probably why so many people have difficulty in grasping it, or understanding it.
Comparing the US to those countries, which should have the highest standards of morality considering the idea that founded the country in the first place, is consenting to mediocrity.
You are either going to push and uphold those beliefs or you are going to sell yourself short and end up in a tyrannical dictatorship of sorts. That is the very basis of the Divine Morality the country was founded upon. There is no in between level where rational humans control the balance, because humans in general are not rational. Humans are incapable of perfection on any level.
That is the problem with idealism and the thought that the middle-ground is the best, because you never end up in the middle, you always function to the lowest common denominator. The lowest common denominator would vary by opinion, but generally those that profit by the murder of innocents are generally recognized to be the lowest. Not sure if you've noticed lately, but that would almost exclusively be the MIC and the people in government. They are the ones dropping cruise missles and bombs on brown people after all.
How about you learn to actually deal with each other on the individual basis? You are already doing it daily. There is no need to imply consent or some lie of a contract that is nothing but an illusion. Put it this way, if someone is a blatant *******, I call them out on it. Either they alter their behavior, or I remove myself from that particular relationship. No need for contracts that hold no real binding power.
There is no such thing. There isn't just one Human, so you can not possibly condone that such a meager idea as Human consensus speaks for them all. Sure you can follow what current Politicians do and just lie to the people to convince them to vote for you, but you are only fooling yourself and them to think there is any real power of rights being handed over. It's an illusion, like I said before.
Human Consensus doesn't exist. This is one of the many failures of Democracy. That people think in such a State ran system they have any say what the State does. If you create a State, and hand over your rights to it, every following generation will be increasingly more and more enslaved by it. Only the people that signed the original Constitution actually handed over their rights to the State, everyone else had their's stolen from them.
~~~~~~~~~
Too many to list efficiently. Find me online with the same SN if you want to play, or message me here to set up a time to play.
Modern
~~~~~~~~~
Whatever pile of 75 I throw together the night before without testing. Usually: :symb::symu::symg:
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I'm going to assume, however, that the "rights are simply things granted by governments, nothing more" argument is still relevant since otherwise it'd be impossible to make much of an argument in this thread.
Which is exactly the same form of reasoning for why hate speech is illegal—it incites hatred and/or promotes genocide and are thus outside of the protection of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Canada is somewhat similar. Hate speech laws don't work on an "I disagree with you" principle, but on a "what you're saying is harmful" principle.
Which already happen with depressing regularity. What's your point?
Illegitimate in what sense? If the government grants me the right to freedom of religion and then I'm forced to join a specific religion, I can claim my right has been violated. If the government does not grant me the right to freedom of religion (for instance, if I lived in a theocracy), I can't say that being forced to join a specific religion violates my rights, but I can still argue against such on other grounds.
Just like there are different levels of punishments for hate speech and, say, murder as hate crime.
Well, it depends on which poll you listen to. The ones I've read show that a majority of Americans are actually in favour of gay marriage. And really, majority opinion is needed in such a fragmented system as the American one, where human rights are put to votes rather than decided federally (e.g. all the American gay marriage votes vs Canada's federal government passing a bill legalizing it across the entire country).
I don't mean "consensus across all humanity." I mean "consensus between however many humans are required." For example, consensus among sufficient members of parliament, or among the majority of voters.
Just on the subject of rights here, if you're born into a system where you don't have a specific right, then you never had that right to be stolen from you (unless you want to make some kind of abstract "stolen before birth" thing, as if all future people are considered to possess a right or something).
Heres what you've failed to explain adequately (at least adequately enough for me to understand) -- what other grounds could you possibly use?
I can't see any argument why forcing you to join a religion would be in anyway wrong, short of your inalienable right as a human being to freedom of religion.
The concept that rights only exist if the government has granted them to you completely negates the ability to argue that you should have different rights.
Just to be clear here: You are arguing that chattel slavery in the American south did not violate any human rights because the slaves never had the rights to be violated. Are you sure this is the argument you want to go with?
No, "hate speech" is illegal in Canada because it hurts peoples' feelings. I'm not joking.
"In Chopra v. Health Canada, 2008 CHRT 39, Pierre Deschamps ruled that Shiv Chopra, a microbiologist at Health Canada, was entitled to $4,000 in damages from Health Canada for hurt feelings, lost wages, and interest. The adjudicator found that Chopra was subjected to discriminatory comments, was suspended in retaliation for filing an earlier human rights complaint, and had been passed over when he could have had a temporary promotion to acting chief of his division."
Seriously. Hurt feelings is now something you can get money for in Canada? God, I ***** about how our children in the United States are coddled...but congratulations on making me legitimately facepalm. We seriously need to go into a Darwinian phase and get rid of weaklings like that.
In which case, if I don't agree with the concept of "global warming is proven science", what's to say that I can't be held to the same standard by some court because they consider what I am saying to be "harmful"?
Oh, you mean in places like Africa and Asia, which have had centuries of this happening and it probably won't stop any time soon? Here's something to consider, too: if this ignorance is so prevalent in Canada that you need to create laws to stop it, but the United States doesn't need to (for whatever reason), what does that say about the level of ignorance in good ol' Canada?
Captain, United States Marines
"Peace through superior firepower."
And you seem to be taking that in a decidedly literal fashion rather than, for instance, as an unfortunately chosen blanket term for other kinds of nonphysical harm.
The wording of our hate speech laws would preclude such a thing, since they only cover inciting hatred or promoting genocide against identifiable groups (sex, religion, etc).
It doesn't say anything about it. Rather, it says is that America thinks harm to marginalized groups is an acceptable byproduct of having fewer limitations on freedom of speech, while Canada realizes that words can in fact be harmful and restricts hate speech accordingly.
Any number of grounds. Utilitarian grounds are an easy go-to.
Not seeing any argument is not the same as no argument being possible.
This only really works if you're similarly willing to argue that, in the lack of a government, no government should form to give anyone rights to begin with.
I'm willing to accept unfortunate applications of my arguments. In this case, if the government didn't actually grant slaves the right to freedom (and this issue isn't actually black-and-white given interpretation of the constitution and all that), then they didn't have the right until it was granted to them. On a personal note, I'd say that they should have had that right to begin with, and that not having it was wrong, but none of that changes whether they were granted it or not at that point in time.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
But there's a big difference there. Murder is already a crime in itself. Murder-as-hate-crime is a special kind of premeditated murder. So the hate crime is really a "bonus" added on to the existing crime. And I'll gladly defend the existence of that "bonus," because intent does matter where crimes are concerned.
Speech is not a crime. And on that alone I don't know how one could determine whether speech is "hateful" or "harmful." Notice I said "alone," though, since persistent and directly targeted attacks would be harassment or similar.
This seems to imply that a "Disenfranchising All Persons Born After 1 January 2013 Act of 2012" would be okay, if passed (magically). Because nobody affected has been born yet, so they never had any voting rights to revoke in the first place.
If "hurt feelings" in the Canadian justice system are anything like "emotional distress" in the American system, it's probably a "bonus" as well. According to this definition, "emotional distress" (at least originally) could only be in addition to material damages. The idea in Chopra, I suspect, was that he lost wages and that this was a significant decrease in his well-being. (In that losing out on several thousand dollars means more if you make $40k/year as opposed to, say, $400k/year. Or $40mil/year.)
Hold on; not having laws criminalizing "hate speech" is not the same as protecting, sanctioning, or condoning such speech. A lot of people forget that and try to whip out the First Amendment like a shield whenever they get called out for their hatemongering. I'd argue that aggressive criticism is basically like a lawsuit, but with social capital on the line instead of money.
I think there's also a "Prohibition" argument to be made here: anything which has a low cost of production and low cost of secrecy will be nearly impossible to regulate. Speech costs basically nothing, and is really easy to slip under the radar. Didn't I say something about "dog-whistle" code words earlier? You can call for racial violence or even genocide without being explicit... after all, you only want "us" to know, not "them."
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
So you agree with Tyranny if it's in the name of the Majority only then?
The origin of the concept of Rights is formulated from the very Negative and Positive Rights that I spoke about previously. It's impossible to separate rights from self-ownership, as they are all based on the very concept in the first place. You can not say that people have only the rights that the Government allows them to have when they are born and still call them "Right's". They are no longer rights at that point, those are defined as "privilages". From the way you described it, you do not have any right's. In fact you are a slave whom is given privilages by your government. That is simply not how it actually works, and our respective governments are already aware of this. This is why such effort is put into controlling the future of education through state ran schooling. It's hard to convince the masses of something, unless you make it so they do not understand the situation in the first place.
I really wish as a whole people would learn that definitions already exist for these terms as they are not new concepts. Nothing we are discussing here and now has not been discussed within the past 2000+ years of known history. Governments have no Right's, and they do not grant Right's. This was the essence of the Liberal Movement when it began in the 1700's. The Liberal Revolution of that Era was to recognize that the State and the Government were not real, and that institutions built around them are merely beholden to the people that allow them to exist in the first place.
Which is inherently false. Society does not exist independently of the people involved, and if they have no inherent right's to establish said society then you have no society. It's that mind-numbly simple. Society can not take away right's as it doesn't exist without the right's that create it in the first place. You can not give something you do not have to something that does not exist. Likewise you can only give something you have to something that exists. If the Society is not present due to lack of right's to create it, then it can not be said to be the final determination on who can do what. This was the very basis of the Liberal Revolution.
Spooner was a Moralist not an Anarchist though. All of this has to do with Morality at it's core, as that is what this debate about Hate Speech is entailing. Rothbard was an Anarchist and a Moralist, but Spooner was merely a Moralist. The difference was that Spooner came to his conclusions based upon Ethical Morality, Rothbard started from the basis that Statism was immoral and built from there. Some may call Spooner and Anarchist, but he wasn't. He firmly pushed from a Moral standpoint, rather than anti-statist standpoint.
As it was pointed out above, murder is a crime previously, but calling it a hate-crime is ridiculous. It's still the same action no matter the premediatation or intent of the criminal behavior. How is Hate-Speech a crime? It's not inherently immoral, as it does not steal away the right's of another. How are we measuring Morality then, without an accurate perspective of what Morality is? How can we then define why Hate-Crimes are a misnomer if it's impossible or forbidden to establish a mode of morality from which to formulate a basis for argument? What is a Hate-Crime? Are not all Crimes based on Hate in some form or fashion? If hate is merely an extension of fear or anger, then where do you draw the line for it?
~~~~~~~~~
Too many to list efficiently. Find me online with the same SN if you want to play, or message me here to set up a time to play.
Modern
~~~~~~~~~
Whatever pile of 75 I throw together the night before without testing. Usually: :symb::symu::symg:
Words can, in fact, be harmful? Sounds like an objective moral assertion to me! Putting on our nihilist shoes, why can't we just say "American jurisprudence doesn't agree, debate over?"
As a moral nihilist, the only thing you can really say here is that your society has decided, by mere fiat, that words are inherently harmful and our society has decided, also by mere fiat, that words aren't inherently harmful, but can only do harm through secondary effects.
What you can't say is that you are right about words being inherently harmful, or that American jurisprudence is wrong -- because that requires an objective moral position. And what you especially can't say is that American jurisprudence thinks this kind of harm is acceptable, because that would require objective agreement on the moral nature of the harm itself, which can't exist.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
I'm willing to admit that there does in fact exist the possibility of slavery somehow being the most beneficial option for some hypothetical society. In the long run, it wouldn't have been for the American south even without the huge conflicts surrounding it, but that's getting a bit beyond the scope of this thread.
It restricts hate speech against white people, straight people, and Christians just as much as it restricts hate speech against black people, gay people, and Muslims.
No, it's the argument other people are making and, apparently, putting into my mouth.
I don't recall saying it'd be okay, just that the affected haven't actually been born yet and thus don't have the rights in question.
This doesn't flow. Why, specifically, would there be no society in the absence of absolute rights? Society is a construct, as are the laws it enforces and the rights it grants.
There's nothing speaking of morality in the assertion that words can be harmful—harm is simply a thing, after all. A moral judgement would be to say that this harm is bad, and that much is not only open to debate, but has been debated previously in this very thread.
If you're a nihilist or relativist, it's not open to debate. Debate requires some objective or otherwise shared standard by which to reason. Without it, debating right or wrong is like debating whether red or blue is the better color.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Wait, no. Premeditation is an important qualifier, although "planning ahead" is not itself a crime. But we punish a "crime of passion"—jealous lover kills cheating partner in a fit of rage, say—differently than a killing spree planned months in advance.
Um, okay.
So by what metric could we decide whether such an act would be good or bad?
Wait, isn't "harm is bad" a tautology? I though the topic in question was more like "this kind of harm is or is not punishable."
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
The most beneficial according to agreed-upon subjective metrics.
And it's impossible to find common or at least comparable shared subjective standards?
Is this kind of harm bad enough to warrant punishment, y/n also why, is basically it.
So either it protects everyone in every group or it's worthless? Sure is fallacious up in your posts.
What I mean with my arguments is not a democracy.
Just because there's no obligation for a government to form doesn't mean that a government can't form. I'm under no obligation to read your posts, for instance, yet for some reason I do so anyway.
The founders of this country didn't make the 1st Amendment to allow us to talk about the weather and how we are doing. The intent of the 1st Amendment was to allow us to say whatever we want, no matter how controversial it is.
It's really a shame that the same conservatives that say they are pro-constitution want the government to censor anything that doesn't conform to their vision of a middle America disney-land. And let's not get started with the P.C. liberals...