How Do You Define Morality?

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by orthodoc

Way to generalize, Spexx! Of course every conservative thinks those things, if you've said so.

You may notice that many of your points relate to the morality of harming others. Do you feel that it should be an individual freedom to harm others? If I wanted to generalize, I could say that liberals want to tell:

a woman that she is free, at her whim, to kill another genetically distinct human being
husbands they can kill their wives who are mortally ill, even though the wife's parents are willing to care for her, so that the husband can carry on with his new lady-love and make off with all the insurance money
doctors that they must kill their patients when it's demanded (nice opening for relatives who don't want their inheritances used up on medical care, and for insurance (including, especially, government insurance in the case of universal health insurance) companies to cut their costs)
you that you can legally discriminate against people
you that you can have sex with anyone, even children (what else is prohibited??)
you that you can ruin the lives of those around you through drug use
you that your child must adopt (as a way of 'learning') the religious practices, and pray to the gods of (in certain California districts), any religion with the one exception of Christianity

as for the others, tossing out the definition of the most important legal relationship in our society shouldn't be done by activist judges; if it's done, it should be through the democratic process;
don't know of restrictions on buying sex toys ... are you talking about lethal ones??

But I don't generalize because I know that not all people who disagree with me on some things want to remove all my freedoms. So I favor actual discussion over categorizing and stereotyping with stupid lists.

But notice how almost every single one of those is 'you are free to...' or 'you can...'
Erring on the side of freedom is always, always better than erring on the side of authority.

[orthodoc]

Originally Posted by Ibram

But notice how almost every single one of those is 'you are free to...' or 'you can...'
Erring on the side of freedom is always, always better than erring on the side of authority.

Free to kill? Free to rape? I disagree that that's a better thing.

Edit: I more than just 'disagree' - will sit down later to discuss the problems with anarchist philosophy.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by orthodoc

Free to kill? Free to rape? I disagree that that's a better thing.

Obviously, I do to. But again, it is still better to err on the side of freedom than on the side of authority.
For example...
It's not better to make murder okay...
but it is better to let a murderer go free than put an innocent man in jail.

Originally Posted by orthodoc

Free to kill? Free to rape? I disagree that that's a better thing.

Edit: I more than just 'disagree' - will sit down later to discuss the problems with anarchist philosophy.

You are taking it out of context.
Freedom is not free to harm others.
Freedom is not to infringe on the freedom of others.
Anarchy is a silly concept it ALWAYS leads to totalitarianism.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Ibram

But notice how almost every single one of those is 'you are free to...' or 'you can...'
Erring on the side of freedom is always, always better than erring on the side of authority.

Originally Posted by orthodox

Free to kill? Free to rape? I disagree that that's a better thing.

Not to bring Orwell into this, but it is quite funny, ironic really, that ultimate freedom is the same thing as authority. If everyone has ultimate freedom, someone is going to start to taking away other people's freedoms and then we will go back to an authoritarian state. And if you look at it, even authority is ultimate freedom because the authority is free to do whatever they want.

A balance between the two is needed. A system that allows someone to have as much freedom as they can without taking away other people's freedom. A loose authority can do this but preferably a society can reach equilibrium and enforce it themselves without the need for a strong central power.