Quote:
Originally Posted by WorBlux  I guess I misunderstood your position a little.
Yes they do have to be justified by reason, and you can build up a system of morality based on reason. The natural rights would be those things people are allowed to morally defend under such a system. Now while you point out that morality is optional (following being natural as well as not following it) this does not mean valid moral laws cannot be extracted and held . If moral laws exist they are be their nature objective since moral statements claim to apply universally to all people, and claim to be statements of preferenable behavior (it is better for everyone not to steal than it is for them to steal). By natural rights all I mean is those things that are deemed worthy of protection and defensive force by moral laws derived from properties of human beings. |
I agree. My trouble with the terminology is that it is often used to cover the holes in rational support for a given moral proposition. I have a similar problem with religious based moral statements.
There are "rights" that I believe in enough that I would fight and possibly risk death to defend. I see these as points beyond which I cannot compromise. I am lucky that the country I live in does not pass beyond these points because I would certainly lose. I think it cheapens the debate to not acknowledge that people have feelings like this about various interactions, possibly different ones than mine.
Moral debate is important enough to forgo the "magic words" which are useful in rhetoric. "Natural" is one of these words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WorBlux The libertarian idea isn't just to let people run their lives to maximum value, but that such a system is the only one that is morally justified. |
I don't disagree. The bulk of my original post here was about one aspect of why it is morally justified. I believe that if there is a purpose to human life, it is to minimize the evil we do in life. Laws rooted in freedom, and personal responsibility, along with free economics are the best way I know to achieve this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WorBlux The reform is going to take a long time and it will be tough, and the only way any reform has ever succeeded is by seizing the moral high ground. And yes sadly many people have been contorted and manipulated into rejecting all of their feelings and initiatives. People do not want to be free because to do so they must stop acting like a slave, and if they do that almost every single relationship they have will not survive. |
I am glad that there are folks such as yourself that have hope. I may be too jaded, but I fear that things will have to get a lot worse before enough people are ready to really look at why they should give up their mutually cannibalistic economic attitudes.
In the US, where I live, a great many people who really want to do the right thing are blinded by history. The interweaving of commerce with violence is something they can't imagine being undone. Many of the ills attributed to money are the ills of permissive violence. Neither of our major political parties are much help sorting out the corruption as they both philosophically embrace it as "the way it is."
The populace in general is not philosophically receptive either. Maybe the threads can be disentangled but I am doubtful.
I make a somewhat bizarre advocate for capitalism anyway as I am not all that interested in money or material rewards. I feel imprisoned by possessions to large degree. I don't desire wealth beyond freedom from constant need. I think I was "supposed" to be a hippy but I just couldn't avoid my own moral reasoning.
04-25-2008, 07:54 AM
