NationStates Jolt Archive

And I don't mean in the American way.

I notice that on most issues the majority of people on NSG will tend towards the "live and let live" philosophy. Some are committed libertarians or anarchists and will openly say so, others hold different views and are still liberal in social issues because it seems like common sense to them.

So, how come that you have relatively few outright moralists on NSG? Why isn't it a popular view here that there is an absolute set of social morals that everyone needs to adhere to, if necessary by being forced to do so?

And why is society at large apparently not like NSG in that respect?

Because we're crazzy?

And I don't mean in the American way.

I notice that on most issues the majority of people on NSG will tend towards the "live and let live" philosophy. Some are committed libertarians or anarchists and will openly say so, others hold different views and are still liberal in social issues because it seems like common sense to them.

So, how come that you have relatively few outright moralists on NSG? Why isn't it a popular view here that there is an absolute set of social morals that everyone needs to adhere to, if necessary by being forced to do so?

And why is society at large apparently not like NSG in that respect?
We scare the normies away?

People like MTAE and Ny Nordland are wrighten of as trolls because they are not uber liberal?

Moralists can't figure out the intrenet?

I think it has to do with intelligence. People who play NS tend to be people who are seriously interested in politics, people who are seriously interested in politics tend to be intelligent, and people who are intelligent tend not to be social conservatives.

(Which is not to say that social conservatism is stupid, merely that the reasons most people accept social conservatism are stupid, and the proportions observed in the general population will thus not carry over to a more intelligent group.)

We scare the normies away?

People like MTAE and Ny Nordland are wrighten of as trolls because they are no uber liberal?

Described MTAE as "not uber liberal" is like calling Stalin "some russian guy with a bit of a temper"

It's probably because an environment that encourages free discussion tends to produce people more willing to think about their positions rather than just accept them on faith. As a result, you get much more logically rigorous viewpoints.

And, of course, freedom tends to beget more freedom. If you can discuss freely, you tend to want to expand that freedom to other aspects of life.

Described MTAE as "not uber liberal" is like calling Stalin "some russian guy with a bit of a temper"
Few months ago you would have said that about Ny Nordland. Before him Keiven Prussia.

Not Liberal==not taken as serious.

Few months ago you would have said that about Ny Nordland. Before him Keiven Prussia.

Not Liberal==not taken as serious.

no. Advocating slavery for the poor, income requirements to vote and for female prisoners to be forcibly impregnated so that the children they give birth to could be used to train american super soldiers for the next generation of warfare isn't taken seriously.

That's not "not liberal" that's insanity.

And I don't mean in the American way.

I notice that on most issues the majority of people on NSG will tend towards the "live and let live" philosophy. Some are committed libertarians or anarchists and will openly say so, others hold different views and are still liberal in social issues because it seems like common sense to them.

So, how come that you have relatively few outright moralists on NSG? Why isn't it a popular view here that there is an absolute set of social morals that everyone needs to adhere to, if necessary by being forced to do so?

And why is society at large apparently not like NSG in that respect?

It seems to me that most people are of the "live and let live" variety. Unfortunately, this grants a great deal of freedom to those who would interfere with others lives, so it seems like society at large. No numbers to back that up, though. I could easily be wrong.

That's not "not liberal" that's insanity.

MTAE is both fairly intelligent and very predictable, so "insanity" might be too strong a word.

He can be trusted to make decent arguments for the worst proposals.

no. Advocating slavery for the poor, income requirements to vote and for female prisoners to be forcibly impregnated so that the children they give birth to could be used to train american super soldiers for the next generation of warfare isn't taken seriously.

That's not "not liberal" that's insanity.

If MTAE was the troll he is consistantly made out to be, don't you think he would have gotten himself banned by now?

If MTAE was the troll he is consistantly made out to be, don't you think he would have gotten himself banned by now?

I believe he was already suspended for 5 days, and got a pretty strong warning just recently.

MTAE is both fairly intelligent and very predictable, so "insanity" might be too strong a word.

He can be trusted to make decent arguments for the worst proposals.

Because his arguments are completely devoid of morality. Would our armed service grow if we forcibly impregnated every female prisoner and then took their children to raise as soldiers? Well, duh.

The problem is it utterly ignores morality. Most arguments work if you seek to be utterly inhuman.

I think alot of people who have faith-based (or otherwise, though maybe not as much) absolute morality often live in communities of similarly-mided people, and don't have to defend their beliefs as much. It's easier to express yorself to people that agree. It's also easier to convince people of absolute belief systems in person with body language and personalities at play.

Yeah, so basically here, people will tear you appart.

Because his arguments are completely devoid of morality. Would our armed service grow if we forcibly impregnated every female prisoner and then took their children to raise as soldiers? Well, duh.

The problem is it utterly ignores morality. Most arguments work if you seek to be utterly inhuman.

He does not ignore morality. He fiercely (and sometimes even convincingly) advocates morality based on the maximization of overall pleasure.

He uses very rigid hedonistic utilitarianism to arrive at conclusions that are quite vile, but have intelligent argumentation behind them. If nothing else, he's a demonstration, like Brave New World, of the kind of traps rigid hedonistic utilitarianism can lead you into.

I believe he was already suspended for 5 days, and got a pretty strong warning just recently.

I've been banned for longer than that.:rolleyes:

The moralists, as you call them, get stuck in the internets tubes.

He does not ignore morality. He fiercely (and sometimes even convincingly) advocates morality based on the maximization of overall pleasure.

He uses very rigid hedonistic utilitarianism to arrive at conclusions that are quite vile, but have intelligent argumentation behind them. If nothing else, he's a demonstration, like Brave New World, of the kind of traps rigid hedonistic utilitarianism can lead you into.

Perhaps, however for my own frame of reference, morality based on pure maximization utilitarianism while ignoring basic human rights is no morality at all. A moral system that seeks simple maximization without allowing for the construct of basic human rights is in essence not worthy of the word morality.

Thus I state his positions are grossly immoral. And it only goes to further my point that anyone who argues on a point of "morality" that completely ignores those basic human rights can not be considered simply "not ultra liberal"

And if you object to the word insane..ok..."barbaric" then.

I've been banned for longer than that.:rolleyes:

shocking...

The moralists, as you call them, get stuck in the internets tubes.

I thought they were all busy looking at The Google.

Perhaps, however for my own frame of reference, morality based on pure maximization utilitarianism while ignoring basic human rights is no morality at all. A moral system that seeks simple maximization without allowing for the construct of basic human rights is in essence not worthy of the word morality.

And he would probably reply that you are appealing to meaningless abstract philosophical concepts that have, and should have, nothing to do with reality.

After all, who cares about human rights if everyone's happy?

In my view the problem with his moral system, and I have pointed it out to him before, is that he does not understand the value of freedom - perhaps because he does not understand how genuine freedom and genuine happiness are inseparable.

And it only goes to further my point that anyone who argues on a point of "morality" that completely ignores those basic human rights can not be considered simply "not ultra liberal"

There have been plenty of liberal utilitarians, though most have used utilitarianism to justify a system of rights.

And if you object to the word insane..ok..."barbaric" then.

Perhaps that.

After all, who cares about human rights if everyone's happy?

In my view the problem with his moral system, and I have pointed it out to him before, is that he does not understand the value of freedom - perhaps because he does not understand how genuine freedom and genuine happiness are inseparable.

Perhaps...or, to put it simply, if you start avoiding and violating human rights and freedoms...everybody aint happy.

Perhaps, however for my own frame of reference, morality based on pure maximization utilitarianism while ignoring basic human rights is no morality at all. A moral system that seeks simple maximization without allowing for the construct of basic human rights is in essence not worthy of the word morality.

Thus I state his positions are grossly immoral. And it only goes to further my point that anyone who argues on a point of "morality" that completely ignores those basic human rights can not be considered simply "not ultra liberal"

And if you object to the word insane..ok..."barbaric" then.

And this is why there is only him. Most other people would not put up with people saying this about their politics. They would simply move on to a more understanding forum.

This is exactly why NS is so Liberal.

And this is why there is only him. Most other people would not put up with people saying this about their politics. They would simply move on to a more understanding forum.

This is exactly why NS is so Liberal.

Let's put it this way. I'm fairly tolerant of most political beliefs. My tolerance ends at the point someone starts to advocate slavery and forced pregnancy to breed armed forces.

I think "most people" would not have such extreme views to begin with, and would have great difficulty finding ANY forum, even conservative ones, which would be "more understanding", outside of the extreme fringe groups.

If you want to talk about "conservative" but still somewhat rational people...wilgrove, IDF, and a few others come to mind, and they've been here a while.

Let's put it this way. I'm fairly tolerant of most political beliefs. My tolerance ends at the point someone starts to advocate slavery and forced pregnancy to breed armed forces.

I think "most people" would not have such extreme views to begin with, and would have great difficulty finding ANY forum, even conservative ones, which would be "more understanding", outside of the extreme fringe groups.

If you want to talk about "conservative" but still somewhat rational people...wilgrove, IDF, and a few others come to mind, and they've been here a while.

Point taken. But I remember Wilgrove taking some smurf for his veiws back before he was deated. He is also more liberal than he used to be too.

What? I don't get a mention for being "not uber-liberal"? Oh well.

I think it's that NSG tends to repel non-liberals, generally because they're ripped apart, yelled at, ignored, mocked and the like for pretty much their entire time here. Only the iconoclasts and the contrarians (such as myself or the other aforementioned people) can really put up with the environment.

And I don't mean in the American way.

I notice that on most issues the majority of people on NSG will tend towards the "live and let live" philosophy. Some are committed libertarians or anarchists and will openly say so, others hold different views and are still liberal in social issues because it seems like common sense to them.

So, how come that you have relatively few outright moralists on NSG? Why isn't it a popular view here that there is an absolute set of social morals that everyone needs to adhere to, if necessary by being forced to do so?

And why is society at large apparently not like NSG in that respect?

I suspect it is something in the water. Because when I was dancing naked in it, I started to have a nearly uncontrollable urge to socialize medicine. :p

And I don't mean in the American way.

I notice that on most issues the majority of people on NSG will tend towards the "live and let live" philosophy. Some are committed libertarians or anarchists and will openly say so, others hold different views and are still liberal in social issues because it seems like common sense to them.

So, how come that you have relatively few outright moralists on NSG? Why isn't it a popular view here that there is an absolute set of social morals that everyone needs to adhere to, if necessary by being forced to do so?

And why is society at large apparently not like NSG in that respect?
Because society at large is stupid.

As for me: complete, total social libertarian. So long as you're not harming someone else directly--without their consent--you can do whatever the fuck you want, as far as I'm concerned. I personally restrict myself in a few ways--for instance, I doubt I would ever have casual sex--but I'm not about to push that ideal of my personal own onto someone else.

Hmm. You know who MTAE reminds me of, now that I think of it?
O'Brien(or did he spell that with an a?). As in "How many fingers, Winston?"
He is very intelligent and often argues for the same type of society.

As for me: complete, total social libertarian. <Notices the -6 as opposed to the -10 in your Political Compass score.> :)

So long as you're not harming someone else directly--without their consent--you can do whatever the fuck you want, as far as I'm concerned. I personally restrict myself in a few ways--for instance, I doubt I would ever have casual sex--but I'm not about to push that ideal of my personal own onto someone else.This is how I feel about drugs - I don't use them, and would choose to live in a community where everyone chose to not use them, but I think having them be illegal (and the Drug War that comes with it) does more harm than legalized drugs would.

Because society at large is stupid.

As for me: complete, total social libertarian. So long as you're not harming someone else directly--without their consent--you can do whatever the fuck you want, as far as I'm concerned. I personally restrict myself in a few ways--for instance, I doubt I would ever have casual sex--but I'm not about to push that ideal of my personal own onto someone else.

I prefer casual sex. I tried formal sex a few times, and the tuxedo is more of a hindrance than a help. *nod*

This is how I feel about drugs - I don't use them, and would choose to live in a community where everyone chose to not use them, but I think having them be illegal (and the Drug War that comes with it) does more harm than legalized drugs would.

If we put those resources that we use on the 'war on drugs' into better education maybe the kids wouldn't need to use drugs.

<Notices the -6 as opposed to the -10 in your Political Compass score.> :)

This is how I feel about drugs - I don't use them, and would choose to live in a community where everyone chose to not use them, but I think having them be illegal (and the Drug War that comes with it) does more harm than legalized drugs would.

Yes, well, that six represents my own personal beliefs I exhibit towards myself. Furthermore, I took that test quite a time ago, so it may be that my results would have shifted.

As for legalizing drugs: I'm for it mainly for the economic sense it makes.

Lunatic: :D That's not what I meant.

If we put those resources that we use on the 'war on drugs' into better education maybe the kids wouldn't need to use drugs.

Nobody "needs" to use drugs (assuming we're not talking about addicts, here, but instead casual users). People tend to do them because they're fun.

I prefer casual sex. I tried formal sex a few times, and the tuxedo is more of a hindrance than a help. *nod*

Formal sex makes me think of people getting it on after/during the debs/prom :)

Nobody "needs" to use drugs (assuming we're not talking about addicts, here, but instead casual users). People tend to do them because they're fun.

Or make you more likable in social situations.

Or make you more likable in social situations.

Hahaha. Well, they make you *think* you're more likable, anyway...the people backing away slowly might disagree.

Social liberalism FTW.

You can't legislate morality.

Social Conservatives stay out because the tepid waters of NS are incapable of handling anyone who isn't politically trapped in their "Stupidly Rebellious Teenager"-phase. So we have posts, or entire threads, like this:
"ZOMGZ! You got thrown off a Christian forum! AW350M3!!1!"
"Oh, I couldn't go to the South because my in-your-face individualism and funky, fresh rhymes about abortion would get me lynched, even though there hasn't been a lynching in almost a century."
"Everyone is human, and deserves to live as they please and say what they want. Unless I happen to want to call them a fundie, then I'm going to shit in their baptismal font, and it is there fault for not being current on what the "kids" are doing these days."

And then everyone pats themselves on the back for being so forward thinking and cool, as if being an antagonistic, close-minded asshole were at all an original pursuit.
Not that you lot are even all that socially liberal, NSers get their knickers in a twist over issues that have every bit as little an impact on them as their sexual choices do on Fred Phelps.
Corpses? Sacred, because you can't mess with private property.
Animals? Can't fuck 'em because private property has limits.
Religion? Gotta abolish it, never done any good at all.

Social Conservatives stay out because the tepid waters of NS are incapable of handling anyone who isn't politically trapped in their "Stupidly Rebellious Teenager"-phase. So we have posts, or entire threads, like this:
"ZOMGZ! You got thrown off a Christian forum! AW350M3!!1!"
"Oh, I couldn't go to the South because my in-your-face individualism and funky, fresh rhymes about abortion would get me lynched, even though there hasn't been a lynching in almost a century."
"Everyone is human, and deserves to live as they please and say what they want. Unless I happen to want to call them a fundie, then I'm going to shit in their baptismal font, and it is there fault for not being current on what the "kids" are doing these days."

And then everyone pats themselves on the back for being so forward thinking and cool, as if being an antagonistic, close-minded asshole were at all an original pursuit.
Not that you lot are even all that socially liberal, NSers get their knickers in a twist over issues that have every bit as little an impact on them as their sexual choices do on Fred Phelps.
Corpses? Sacred, because you can't mess with private property.
Animals? Can't fuck 'em because private property has limits.
Religion? Gotta abolish it, never done any good at all.

Don't look at me. I just want it all filmed. :)

Social Conservatives stay out because the tepid waters of NS are incapable of handling anyone who isn't politically trapped in their "Stupidly Rebellious Teenager"-phase. So we have posts, or entire threads, like this:
"ZOMGZ! You got thrown off a Christian forum! AW350M3!!1!"
"Oh, I couldn't go to the South because my in-your-face individualism and funky, fresh rhymes about abortion would get me lynched, even though there hasn't been a lynching in almost a century."
"Everyone is human, and deserves to live as they please and say what they want. Unless I happen to want to call them a fundie, then I'm going to shit in their baptismal font, and it is there fault for not being current on what the "kids" are doing these days."

And then everyone pats themselves on the back for being so forward thinking and cool, as if being an antagonistic, close-minded asshole were at all an original pursuit.
Not that you lot are even all that socially liberal, NSers get their knickers in a twist over issues that have every bit as little an impact on them as their sexual choices do on Fred Phelps.
Corpses? Sacred, because you can't mess with private property.
Animals? Can't fuck 'em because private property has limits.
Religion? Gotta abolish it, never done any good at all.


Proof that we are classical libertarians in that this infammatory stuff is accepted quite happily and debated?

And by the way I don't qualify the majority-political viewpoint here as 'Stupidly Rebellious Teenager'. I don't see how caring about Global warming/the third world/nuclear war/welfare state is rebellious. Also I challenge you to find many teenagers willing to debate moral relativism, the potential benefits of anarcho-syndicalism or the possibility of Nuclear War with N. Korea....

Perhaps the reason it seems like the majority of people are somewhere left of being social democrats is that anyone slightly to the right of centre comes on the site and shouts. A lot. About us bleeding-hearted liberals....

Also when I first ever came on here under old-moniker the majority of people had names like Fascism 4eva or USAMAN and I didn't complain then, I just came off as antagonistic as you do here.

Because society at large is stupid.

As for me: complete, total social libertarian. So long as you're not harming someone else directly--without their consent--you can do whatever the fuck you want, as far as I'm concerned. I personally restrict myself in a few ways--for instance, I doubt I would ever have casual sex--but I'm not about to push that ideal of my personal own onto someone else.

I agree with you completely. Although sometimes I have a hard time not crossing the line between forcing my opinions, and informing people of them, and the reasons behind them.

Our demographic is primarily 18-25 year old males, with a mixed bag of Europeans and Americans.

It is a very liberal place. I am very liberal on social issues but as for economic issues I am very conservative. Low taxes, no welfare, no UHS, and no minimum wage but I am pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion, free gun ownership, and other things I get bashed for.

Described MTAE as "not uber liberal" is like calling Stalin "some russian guy with a bit of a temper"

MTAE is not a troll because he disagrees and has alternative views. He's a troll because he likes flame-baiting and not answering anyone who responds to him substantively. He'll argue minor points and anyone who begins flaming as the attention is what he craves. If his ideas were more realistic people could seriously debate him. Calling for a return to slavery isn't exactly a moralist position now is it?

If MTAE was the troll he is consistantly made out to be, don't you think he would have gotten himself banned by now?

He's already been suspended under this name and had his account deleted under another name. For what might you ask? Being a troll! Doesn't anyone thing he's changed because he's changed his nation's name? He can call himself "The anti-troll" and it still doesn't make it so. Dystopia anybody?

And I don't mean in the American way.

I notice that on most issues the majority of people on NSG will tend towards the "live and let live" philosophy. Some are committed libertarians or anarchists and will openly say so, others hold different views and are still liberal in social issues because it seems like common sense to them.

So, how come that you have relatively few outright moralists on NSG? Why isn't it a popular view here that there is an absolute set of social morals that everyone needs to adhere to, if necessary by being forced to do so?

And why is society at large apparently not like NSG in that respect?
I believe in absolute morality.....

I believe in absolute morality.....

But you don't believe in government enforced morality, do you?

But you don't believe in government enforced morality, do you?

no. It's against my religion.

no. It's against my religion.

I think the kind of absolute morality the OP is referring to is the kind that tries to enforce moral behaviour in any way possible, whereas the liberal approach according to him would be live and let live.

MTAE is not a troll because he disagrees and has alternative views. He's a troll because he likes flame-baiting and not answering anyone who responds to him substantively. He'll argue minor points and anyone who begins flaming as the attention is what he craves. If his ideas were more realistic people could seriously debate him. Calling for a return to slavery isn't exactly a moralist position now is it?

He's also a troll because he's the most recent incarnation of that most loveable poster, Disraeliland.

I'm almost willing to bet my life that he is. Their posting styles are just far too similar, not to mention that he's an expatriate Englishman living in the middle of the United States.

I think the kind of absolute morality the OP is referring to is the kind that tries to enforce moral behaviour in any way possible, whereas the liberal approach according to him would be live and let live.

I do think a lot of people do a lot of things that are morally wrong though.....I just don't think most of it is something that can or should be regulated by the government.

He leaves no room for a person like me, either you have to agree that nothing is wrong or that some things are wrong and the government should force you to behave.

Why isn't it a popular view here that there is an absolute set of social morals that everyone needs to adhere to, if necessary by being forced to do so?


Absolute morality and statist despotism are not necessarily connected.

A lot of ideas about 'absolute morality' stem from religion... and a lot of religions also have some 'golden rule'... 'live and let live', or 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you', or the 'rule of three' - which suggests that one might not want to screw around too much with other people, because we wouldn't like it if they screwed around with us.

I think it has to do with intelligence. People who play NS tend to be people who are seriously interested in politics, people who are seriously interested in politics tend to be intelligent, and people who are intelligent tend not to be social conservatives.

(Which is not to say that social conservatism is stupid, merely that the reasons most people accept social conservatism are stupid, and the proportions observed in the general population will thus not carry over to a more intelligent group.)

more likely age thing - and older libs may have been dropped at birth lol ymmv

I do think a lot of people do a lot of things that are morally wrong though.....I just don't think most of it is something that can or should be regulated by the government.

He leaves no room for a person like me, either you have to agree that nothing is wrong or that some things are wrong and the government should force you to behave.

Not quite.
I think it's morally wrong to discriminate against people because of their race and culture. However, I would strongly disagree if someone proposed a ban on Neo-Nazi organisations.
I think it's morally wrong to try and "cure" homosexuality, but if there are people who want to try that, I think they should be free to do so.
I think it's morally wrong to use cars where not really needed and thereby damaging the environment, but I would oppose legislation that would force everyone on busses and trains.

Having a live and let live attitude doesn't mean that you don't think some things are wrong. It just means that you let people live their lives and don't try and force them to live according to your rules. That's how I understand the term "liberal".

more likely age thing - and older libs may have been dropped at birth lol ymmv

The irony of this post is mind-bending. Did you not correctly read the post you were quoting?

no. It's against my religion.

How can you say it’s against your religion to have government enforced morality laws? Perhaps I’m thinking of something different than you but there is more than simple all morality enforced, or none at all.

Morality laws include laws that I agree with and think the government is the proper place that should enforce it, such as, age of consent restrictions, dress and decency laws, public behavior codes for decency and behavior etc., selling cigarettes and alcohol and pornography to minors and so on and so forth, are all morality laws that I would vote to be put in the authority of the government and I don’t think my Christian faith is challenged by that at all.

I'm in favor of allowing each society and community to be enabled to enforce their morality laws, but I also admit that there are certain freedoms that shall not be infringed on by the local governments.

How can you say it’s against your religion to have government enforced morality laws? Perhaps I’m thinking of something different than you but there is more than simple all morality enforced, or none at all.

Morality laws include laws that I agree with and think the government is the proper place that should enforce it, such as, age of consent restrictions, dress and decency laws, public behavior codes for decency and behavior etc., selling cigarettes and alcohol and pornography to minors and so on and so forth, are all morality laws that I would vote to be put in the authority of the government and I don’t think my Christian faith is challenged by that at all.

I'm in favor of allowing each society and community to be enabled to enforce their morality laws, but I also admit that there are certain freedoms that shall not be infringed on by the local governments.

*removes clothes and takes a dump in public*

Take that, government-sponsored morality.

How can you say it’s against your religion to have government enforced morality laws? Perhaps I’m thinking of something different than you but there is more than simple all morality enforced, or none at all.

Morality laws include laws that I agree with and think the government is the proper place that should enforce it, such as, age of consent restrictions, dress and decency laws, public behavior codes for decency and behavior etc., selling cigarettes and alcohol and pornography to minors and so on and so forth, are all morality laws that I would vote to be put in the authority of the government and I don’t think my Christian faith is challenged by that at all.

I'm in favor of allowing each society and community to be enabled to enforce their morality laws, but I also admit that there are certain freedoms that shall not be infringed on by the local governments.
I think you misunderstand my position.

Somethings may be illegal that are also morally wrong, but all things that are morally wrong should not be illegal.

It is a very liberal place. I am very liberal on social issues but as for economic issues I am very conservative. Low taxes, no welfare, no UHS, and no minimum wage but I am pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion, free gun ownership, and other things I get bashed for.

Some of those things you call conservative are actually liberal (especially the economic ones). Its just that in general the people who call themselevs conservative have taken in liberal economics while being disowned by people calling themselves liberal. Oh well that is what happens when people describe themselves and others with a few words.

I would say that NSG is generally liberal on social issues and closer to evens on being liberal/conservative on economic issues.

For me I would describe myself as a realistic liberal on economics and a bit conservative on social issues (note from a UK, not US view point for conservative).

I think you misunderstand my position.

Somethings may be illegal that are also morally wrong, but all things that are morally wrong should not be illegal.

So if I understand you right, the government should not legislate any laws dealing with morals. Instead everyone should be free to live by their own moral values. I think I will go with PootWaddle and say that i believe the government should legislate a minimum set of morals. As Potarius suggested, the age of cosent and access to various substances etc.

I am sorry if I mis-understand you.

Edit: Used the wrong persons name by accident, replaced Potarius with PootWaddle.

So if I understand you right, the government should not legislate any laws dealing with morals. Instead everyone should be free to live by their own moral values. I think I will go with Potarius and say that i believe the government should legislate a minimum set of morals. As Potarius suggested, the age of cosent and access to various substances etc.

I am sorry if I mis-understand you.

...When the hell did I ever say that? I'm completely Laissez-Faire as far as social standards and policies go.

So if I understand you right, the government should not legislate any laws dealing with morals. Instead everyone should be free to live by their own moral values. I think I will go with Potarius and say that i believe the government should legislate a minimum set of morals. As Potarius suggested, the age of cosent and access to various substances etc.

I am sorry if I mis-understand you.

You're misunderstanding. What Smunkee is saying is that morality and legality are two separate issues, and need not have anything to do with each other. In the US, the legal system is not based on morality, no matter what fundy preachers try to tell you.

So if I understand you right, the government should not legislate any laws dealing with morals. Instead everyone should be free to live by their own moral values. I think I will go with Potarius and say that i believe the government should legislate a minimum set of morals. As Potarius suggested, the age of cosent and access to various substances etc.

I am sorry if I mis-understand you.

Age of consent is less of a moral law, it's rather a law intended to protect children from physical and mental harm.

You're misunderstanding. What Smunkee is saying is that morality and legality are two separate issues, and need not have anything to do with each other. In the US, the legal system is not based on morality, no matter what fundy preachers try to tell you.

Ok.

To Potarius, sorry I meant PootWaddle, I read his post typed out my message and went to copy his name (rather than type) and accidentlly copied your name instead. I will correct my earlier post.

Interesting...

When I first saw this thread I thought, here we go again, blatant misuse of the term liberalism to mean leftist... whereas neo-liberalism is about as right wing as you can get economically.

I am what you'd call libertarian left.

I think you misunderstand my position.

Somethings may be illegal that are also morally wrong, but all things that are morally wrong should not be illegal.


Okay, I agree with you. But to what level and degree do we agree, I do not know. Sooo…

I’ll set up a scenario of a morality law that I would agree with the local government having the power to create and enforce, but would probably make the majority of NSG people here to have objections to it.

A small US community, 90% blue collar Catholics, the public schools consist of one high school, one middle school and two elementary schools. Government support staff employees at the school are union protected county workers, by state law and regulations, who do not in this case live in the community etc., and let’s assume there are no other state laws regarding menu limitations creation outside of meeting federal regulations for nutrition, and the county worker supervisor is given the authority for menu creation. The school teachers and administration are paid by local property taxes and with it’s own local school board.

Problem, the school menu keeps having hamburger on Fridays and the community is tired of asking that fish be offered instead (parents having to bag lunch for their kids on every Friday). Cafeteria management says the budget doesn’t’ support two food choices because the school is too small for that option and they prefer to purchase bulk pre-made hamburgers with another in county local community school district that doesn’t mind hamburgers on Fridays, so the menu will not change on Fridays while that county supervisor/manager is in charge.

Reaction from the local community government: The local mayor and city council pass an ordinance that all schools within their district shall have fish fry Fridays within the city limits henceforth, to force the cafeteria management to comply with local wishes.


Morality law, pure and simple. Should they or should they not be allowed to do this?

Morality law, pure and simple. Should they or should they not be allowed to do this?

That isn't 'morality' law, it is government-versus-economy...

You might have had a better example if the Friday was about religious observance, or the opposition to Friday's menu was based on rampant vegitarianism, or something.

That isn't 'morality' law, it is government-versus-economy...

You might have had a better example if the Friday was about religious observance, or the opposition to Friday's menu was based on rampant vegitarianism, or something.

I'm sorry, the catholic community reference was so that you would know why they don't want hamburger on Fridays. Religious reasons.

And then everyone pats themselves on the back for being so forward thinking and cool, as if being an antagonistic, close-minded asshole were at all an original pursuit.
Not that you lot are even all that socially liberal, NSers get their knickers in a twist over issues that have every bit as little an impact on them as their sexual choices do on Fred Phelps.
Corpses? Sacred, because you can't mess with private property.
Animals? Can't fuck 'em because private property has limits.
Religion? Gotta abolish it, never done any good at all.
I agree with the bulk of what you said, but I am curious, what exactly is your political position? You've always puzzled me the most. I'll venture a guess from one of the recent debates you were in, and say anarchocapitalist.

That aside, I am only socially libertarian in that I believe it is for individuals to order their own affairs between each other. I have nothing against the concept of authority and tradition, so long as it is not enforced by some government agency or by one individual on to another. A lot of the liberals here on NS have not fully thought out what the term quite implies, and as HN says do adhere to it merely out of a sense of rebelliousness. However, it is true that here one is much more likely to find libertarians of all sorts, than in real-life where most people stare at you in utter bewilderment when you express the term.

Okay, I agree with you. But to what level and degree do we agree, I do not know. Sooo…

I’ll set up a scenario of a morality law that I would agree with the local government having the power to create and enforce, but would probably make the majority of NSG people here to have objections to it.

A small US community, 90% blue collar Catholics, the public schools consist of one high school, one middle school and two elementary schools. Government support staff employees at the school are union protected county workers, by state law and regulations, who do not in this case live in the community etc., and let’s assume there are no other state laws regarding menu limitations creation outside of meeting federal regulations for nutrition, and the county worker supervisor is given the authority for menu creation. The school teachers and administration are paid by local property taxes and with it’s own local school board.

Problem, the school menu keeps having hamburger on Fridays and the community is tired of asking that fish be offered instead (parents having to bag lunch for their kids on every Friday). Cafeteria management says the budget doesn’t’ support two food choices because the school is too small for that option and they prefer to purchase bulk pre-made hamburgers with another in county local community school district that doesn’t mind hamburgers on Fridays, so the menu will not change on Fridays while that county supervisor/manager is in charge.

Reaction from the local community government: The local mayor and city council pass an ordinance that all schools within their district shall have fish fry Fridays within the city limits henceforth, to force the cafeteria management to comply with local wishes.


Morality law, pure and simple. Should they or should they not be allowed to do this?


I don't think it's a government issue.

I'm sorry, the catholic community reference was so that you would know why they don't want hamburger on Fridays. Religious reasons.

My father was raised Catholic. I don't recall him being forced to eat fish on Friday... is this something I should know?

I don't think it's a government issue.

How is it not a government issue? Public School = Government. Property taxes = Government. Tax payer supported Public Cafeteria menu.

Or are you simply against the government mixing with education and cafeterias entirely?

How is it not a government issue? Public School = Government. Property taxes = Government. Tax payer supported Public Cafeteria menu.

Or are you simply against the government mixing with education and cafeterias entirely?

In the example you invent, there is a perfectly good reason why the school does what it does... it is the fiscally responsible thing to do. Should the government be allowed to mandate a change in policy that will be substantially more expensive, if they are not willing to somehow fund that difference?

How is it not a government issue? Public School = Government. Property taxes = Government. Tax payer supported Public Cafeteria menu.

Or are you simply against the government mixing with education and cafeterias entirely?

The purpose of the government is to protect rights, not to make life super pretty for all involved, in fact it's impossible to accomodate everyone, what about vegetarians during this fish fry? what about people who don't eat fried food? what about people allergic to breaded foods?

although yeah, I am against government school too..... but that's a whole other conversation.

as far as your scenario, I think it's probably a bad idea for the local government to make a law that favors one religion because that religion whines about it, they should make the menu and people should just deal with it.

And why is society at large apparently not like NSG in that respect?

Well, if you look at it this way, if everyone in the world joined NSG, I think it would be pretty conservative... I think.

Well, if you look at it this way, if everyone in the world joined NSG, I think it would be pretty conservative... I think.

Perhpas, but just consider the spam........
:eek:

My father was raised Catholic. I don't recall him being forced to eat fish on Friday... is this something I should know?

I'm not soliciting your participation in no red meat Fridays, but for educational purposes I'll share with you the information that historically devout Catholics avoid red meat on Fridays throughout the year. Many more Catholics do not eat meat on Lent Friday as a penance, and some don’t do it at all anymore. But Catholic practices were not the point of the scenario, only the religious practice as the community standard.

Perhpas, but just consider the spam........
:eek:

Tis true. Which is perhaps a good reason why not everyone in the world has access to the Internet. Ha ha. :p

The purpose of the government is to protect rights, not to make life super pretty for all involved, in fact it's impossible to accomodate everyone, what about vegetarians during this fish fry? what about people who don't eat fried food? what about people allergic to breaded foods?

although yeah, I am against government school too..... but that's a whole other conversation.

as far as your scenario, I think it's probably a bad idea for the local government to make a law that favors one religion because that religion whines about it, they should make the menu and people should just deal with it.

The bolded part emphasizes the basis for your government philosophy here.

However, I also disagree with you final analyses after that regardless of you position about public schools.

To advocate that the menu should be made and people should just have to ‘deal with it’ is to make the people ignore the very purpose of their local government in the first place, IMO.

IF the government representative is going to take their money through taxes and then provide them with a product that the government knows they can not use, it should be within their power to address that issue through their government, as the means to addressing the injustice.

Another example would be a large Jewish or Muslim community might have an issue with daily pork offerings at their children's school. IF the community majority agrees with or has sympathy for the cause, it should be within their power to address their perceived wrong. If the community is mixed between two groups, a moderated response would be achieved by default of votes gained in the mayor’s office and city council, or IF large populations of many different types exist in the community, then the laws would never be passed to favor one group over the others in the first place without some sort of shared agenda between groups.

Individual needs and desires of small groups will have almost no impact unless they can get the public at large to sympathize with their cause, I never said anything about ‘rights’ to certain types of foods, I’m talking about if communities should be allowed to mandate some aspects of their community, even when it is simply morality questions. I think they should and do have that power.

Described MTAE as "not uber liberal" is like calling Stalin "some russian guy with a bit of a temper"

Shouldn't that be 'some Georgian guy with a bit of a temper'?

The bolded part emphasizes the basis for your government philosophy here.

However, I also disagree with you final analyses after that regardless of you position about public schools.

To advocate that the menu should be made and people should just have to ‘deal with it’ is to make the people ignore the very purpose of their local government in the first place, IMO.

IF the government representative is going to take their money through taxes and then provide them with a product that the government knows they can not use, it should be within their power to address that issue through their government, as the means to addressing the injustice.

Another example would be a large Jewish or Muslim community might have an issue with daily pork offerings at their children's school. IF the community majority agrees with or has sympathy for the cause, it should be within their power to address their perceived wrong. If the community is mixed between two groups, a moderated response would be achieved by default of votes gained in the mayor’s office and city council, or IF large populations of many different types exist in the community, then the laws would never be passed to favor one group over the others in the first place without some sort of shared agenda between groups.

Individual needs and desires of small groups will have almost no impact unless they can get the public at large to sympathize with their cause, I never said anything about ‘rights’ to certain types of foods, I’m talking about if communities should be allowed to mandate some aspects of their community, even when it is simply morality questions. I think they should and do have that power.

I think we need to get a different example that is not food related....just because of my own bias in that area.

although, if you come up with one, you should probably start another thread and when I get done baking I will come talk to you.

In the example you invent, there is a perfectly good reason why the school does what it does... it is the fiscally responsible thing to do. Should the government be allowed to mandate a change in policy that will be substantially more expensive, if they are not willing to somehow fund that difference?

Should the government be allowed to mandate a change in policy that will be substantially more expensive if they do not fund the difference? Yes, yes they should. In the same way California says car makers must meet a higher level of efficiency in their state, regardless of what the Feds say.

Should the government have to follow local building codes when it builds a housing units? Yes, yes it should, even when it costs more to follow them.

I think we need to get a different example that is not food related....just because of my own bias in that area.

although, if you come up with one, you should probably start another thread and when I get done baking I will come talk to you.

Actually I picked the food example because it is both a morality based choice AND because I remembered that you have a food bias (and my family too has a food issue, to a much lesser degree than yours admittedly though). But even though we as individuals might be self-restricted to our options in the school cafeterias of the communities we live in, it does not mean that the community should be limited in their collective ability to make choices for themselves and their immediate community. Just because I can't use it as an individual doesn’t mean it’s not fair or not right.

But I catch your point about off topic...

Few months ago you would have said that about Ny Nordland. Before him Keiven Prussia.

Not Liberal==not taken as serious.

Ny Nordland is not taken as serious because he posts stuff with sources that are, frankly, nazi in origin. (Angry White Female), and because his debate style had a lot of flamebaiting followed by complaining to the mods to get his opponents punished.

KP because he himself contradicts himself, has obvious mental/emotional problems he has no issue telling everyone of, and because a lot of his arguments, again, consisted of a lot of supremacist, bigoted gunk.

MTAE is just a troll and that is that.

You are trying to show that these people are unfairly dismissed for not being "liberal," but just what do you mean by "liberal?" I take offense to being lumped in with EVERYONE here on this damned site considering how little I agree with just about everyone on many issues. But you do it because you're trying to show Evil Liberal Bias. I think you are more concerned with making a show than in discussing politics, especially if you think MTAE, KP and Ny Nordland are the poster people for "conservatives."

Because his arguments are completely devoid of morality. Would our armed service grow if we forcibly impregnated every female prisoner and then took their children to raise as soldiers? Well, duh.

The problem is it utterly ignores morality. Most arguments work if you seek to be utterly inhuman.

Ignores morality, or just simply throws common sense out the window for pure trolling attention as in the case of his thread praising former congressman/pedophile Mark Foley as the greatest civil rights activist since Rosa Parks. Or the one apologizing for Joseph McCarthy.

Here's my politics, liberal for some, conservative for others:


I think abortion should be legal, it's going to happen anyway, however I think women should receive counseling and be told of alternatives prior to an abortion. I think gun control is silly, people are always finding new and inventive ways to hurt each other, at least guns are easily traceable. I'm anti-welfare because the system is far too easily abused but pro NHS, I don't think people should hesitate to see a doctor because they're afraid they won't be able to pay the bill. I like government sponsored education, home schooling is great for those intelligent enough to teach their offspring responsibly, but most people are stupid.

I revile privatization of things the government is actually good at handling, though it's a very short list. I think people should have the freedom to say whatever they want to, believe what they want, worship how they want, have sex with whoever they can get to agree (as long as they're adults) to shag them. If you want to marry your mother, fine, it really doesn't bother me and I should have no say in what the two of you do. You have the right to say as stupid, vile, hateful, and bigoted of things as you want, and I don't think the government should stop you. Though I would appreciate it if someone would counter your arguments.

I think that political parties are self serving rather than public serving, more interested in lobbying funds and pension plans than duty to the public. I like religion, to a point, I think the government needs to stay out of it, but I'd also appreciate if the churches would stay out of government. I oppose the tax exempt status of churches, if they're doing the good work and providing charity to the less fortunate let them write it off on their taxes like I have to.

Social Conservatives stay out because the tepid waters of NS are incapable of handling anyone who isn't politically trapped in their "Stupidly Rebellious Teenager"-phase. Yes, of course, because adults couldn't possibly disagree with you...

He's also a troll because he's the most recent incarnation of that most loveable poster, Disraeliland.

I'm almost willing to bet my life that he is. Their posting styles are just far too similar, not to mention that he's an expatriate Englishman living in the middle of the United States.I'm all but positive that Disraeliland is/was Australian.

And by the way I don't qualify the majority-political viewpoint here as 'Stupidly Rebellious Teenager'. I don't see how caring about Global warming/the third world/nuclear war/welfare state is rebellious. Also I challenge you to find many teenagers willing to debate moral relativism, the potential benefits of anarcho-syndicalism or the possibility of Nuclear War with N. Korea....
When your politics are primarily motivated by left-over teenage angst from that one time your parents grounded you for staying out to late at a Phish concert and so you realized that they were, like, the establishment, man; the next day, you decided to impress your friends, as well as get revenge on your "old man", by swinging away from the political beliefs of your parents as hard and fast as possible? Remember that? That was the day you went from "Stupidly Obedient Child" to "Stupidly Rebellious Teenager."
And I had plenty of debates with my fellows in High School about your little laundry list, and they were every bit as irrational and ridiculous as most of the one's on NS.
Perhaps the reason it seems like the majority of people are somewhere left of being social democrats is that anyone slightly to the right of centre comes on the site and shouts. A lot. About us bleeding-hearted liberals....
Why shouldn't they shout? On NS, that's the only way that people will listen to you.
Also when I first ever came on here under old-moniker the majority of people had names like Fascism 4eva or USAMAN and I didn't complain then, I just came off as antagonistic as you do here.
Are you trying to imply that my disgust stems from right-wing views? I assure you that you couldn't be more wrong, I burned that out of my system years ago.

Where is our ideological arch-nemesis, MTAE?

MTAE, you know you cannot resist. Come in and engage!

Yes, of course, because adults couldn't possibly disagree with you...
"Stupidly Rebellious Teenager" is the midway point between "Stupidly Obedient Child" and "Stupidly Conformist Adult", which make up the three phases of the average reactionary, allowing them to easily slide through life without ever having to put a great deal of thought into political philosophy.
First, one follows their parents beliefs because their parents are their providers and protectors.
Then, they begin to resent their parent's beliefs, and so they react against them by leaping to the first bandwagon to which their parents were politically opposed.
However, since there was no great deal of thought or planning put into their rebellion, they regress quickly back into the mainstream.

"Stupidly Rebellious Teenager" is the midway point between "Stupidly Obedient Child" and "Stupidly Conformist Adult", which make up the three phases of the average reactionary, allowing them to easily slide through life without ever having to put a great deal of thought into political philosophy.
First, one follows their parents beliefs because their parents are their providers and protectors.
Then, they begin to resent their parent's beliefs, and so they react against them by leaping to the first bandwagon to which their parents were politically opposed.
However, since there was no great deal of thought or planning put into their rebellion, they regress quickly back into the mainstream.Oh, I see. Which stage are you in?

I think it has to do with intelligence. People who play NS tend to be people who are seriously interested in politics, people who are seriously interested in politics tend to be intelligent, and people who are intelligent tend not to be social conservatives.

(Which is not to say that social conservatism is stupid, merely that the reasons most people accept social conservatism are stupid, and the proportions observed in the general population will thus not carry over to a more intelligent group.)

If there were ever a better example of the pretentiousness, self-absorption and narcissim of the so-called "liberal", I have yet to see it.

At least you had the wit to say that people who are intelligent "tend not to be" social conservatives, rather than "are not".

I'm not soliciting your participation in no red meat Fridays, but for educational purposes I'll share with you the information that historically devout Catholics avoid red meat on Fridays throughout the year. Many more Catholics do not eat meat on Lent Friday as a penance, and some don’t do it at all anymore. But Catholic practices were not the point of the scenario, only the religious practice as the community standard.

Ah - okay. I have encountered the abstinence from red meat during Lent - I wasn't aware of the idea that some carried this to a ridiculous extreme. I shouldn't be too surprised, the Catholic establishment does love it's little rituals and methods of control.

However - it is worth saying - if the point of the example was that the fish was part of religious observation... wouldn't it have been more to the point to say that that was 'the point'?

Should the government be allowed to mandate a change in policy that will be substantially more expensive if they do not fund the difference? Yes, yes they should. In the same way California says car makers must meet a higher level of efficiency in their state, regardless of what the Feds say.

Should the government have to follow local building codes when it builds a housing units? Yes, yes it should, even when it costs more to follow them.

Wow - do you farm red herring, or something?

California says car makers must meet a higher level of efficiency... but California does not exist in a vacuum. Europeans, and others, have been making more efficient machines for quite some time, and have often found they spent LESS doing so.

One only has to look at the Citreon 2CV as a classic example - efficient, and cheap to produce. Californians are quibbling over a few mpgs, but the 2CV has been known to clock 60mpg or more.

Just because the auto makers don't like change, and are pissing all over themselves looking for reasons to oppose it, doesn't mean you have to be a pawn in their propaganda war.

If there were ever a better example of the pretentiousness, self-absorption and narcissim of the so-called "liberal", I have yet to see it.

At least you had the wit to say that people who are intelligent "tend not to be" social conservatives, rather than "are not".To give Soheran a bit of credit, he does say that the reasons people subscribe to social conservatism are stupid, not that social conservatism need necessarily be stupid.
I tend to agree that the reasons for liberalism (the live and let live kind that Neu Leonstein reffered to in the OP) are often rather more solid. The reasons for big-L-Liberalism are often achingly stupid. Nobody has to worrt about a monopoly on stupidity.

However - it is worth saying - if the point of the example was that the fish was part of religious observation... wouldn't it have been more to the point to say that that was 'the point'?I found the point about the fish obvious. I'm surprised that you didn't, but you're probably a minority.

I question the question! Why must we ask why NSG is liberal compared to society at large?Surely the question should be why society at large is more conservative than NSG:confused: To suggest that wider society is a more important unit than this forum is TREASON!:mad:

I found the point about the fish obvious. I'm surprised that you didn't, but you're probably a minority.

Maybe. Maybe most people are acquainted with the dietary peculiarities of Catholics pre-1960's.

The reason I'm "liberal" is because I think allowing people to think for themselves and making them responsible for their decisions will enable us to discover the kinds of moral and social truths that contemporary social conservatism isn't able to provide. I'm a liberal in the classical sense, not in the contemporary American sense or anything like that. Perhaps in the future social conservatives will be able to offer that kind of moral core, but at present I find their views too limited and inflexible to work according to the world as it is.

If we want to find an objective morality, or political/economic structure, or social structure we need the freedom to look for it...and it appears the more we look for it rationally, the closer we seem to get.

Ultimately, I see liberalism and rationality as indispensable to the search for truth.

So, how come that you have relatively few outright moralists on NSG? Why isn't it a popular view here that there is an absolute set of social morals that everyone needs to adhere to, if necessary by being forced to do so?

What are these social morals, and how shall I decide what sort of person I am to vote on this poll?

If there were ever a better example of the pretentiousness, self-absorption and narcissim of the so-called "liberal", I have yet to see it.

Then you are not looking.

I am tired of arguing with homophobes, misogynists, and general social authoritarians who not only do not understand the arguments they are attacking, but have at best a very limited understanding of the arguments they use to advance their own position. Quite often they are simply people who have never learned to think for themselves.

Again, the positions are not necessarily stupid (though some of them are). The people who tend to advocate them often are, however. And the intelligent arguments for them are rare enough that it is to be expected that among intelligent people, the proportion of social conservatives will be significantly less than it is among the general population.

For what it's worth, of late I have rejected several of the liberal positions I held by for a long time, and there are some liberal positions that I have always rejected.

I'm not sure I understand the question, but I have to say that I support having as few outright morals as possible. Laws is one thing, but when you start talking about universal truths, you're getting into strange territory. Nothing is universal except death. Taxes...well, in MY country they're universal. ;)

I don't understand all this fuss about "legislating morality."

Could someone please explain to me how legislating morality differs from any other kind of legislation? I have my own answer, but it doesn't seem to be the one most people are thinking of.

Social liberalism FTW.

You can't legislate morality.
Every political system legislates morality. (maybe not anarchism)

It is a very liberal place. I am very liberal on social issues but as for economic issues I am very conservative. Low taxes, no welfare, no UHS, and no minimum wage but I am pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion, free gun ownership, and other things I get bashed for.
Why do you think you get "bashed" more than other libertarians?

I'm almost willing to bet my life that he is. Their posting styles are just far too similar, not to mention that he's an expatriate Englishman living in the middle of the United States.
Why does he think Britain is a former communist country?

I do think a lot of people do a lot of things that are morally wrong though.....I just don't think most of it is something that can or should be regulated by the government.

He leaves no room for a person like me, either you have to agree that nothing is wrong or that some things are wrong and the government should force you to behave.
Your position seems to be of the very liberal type. Leonstein didn't say that the very liberal type lacks morals, he just said that the very liberal type doesn't impose them through the law.


I think it's morally wrong to use cars where not really needed and thereby damaging the environment, but I would oppose legislation that would force everyone on busses and trains.
Isn't it wrong to kill people, yet everyone agrees that should be enforced? I don't see how it's much different from this.

Morality law, pure and simple. Should they or should they not be allowed to do this?
Yes they should, it's their democratic right (though I disagree with the implication that fish isn't meat.)

There is no "right to beef" in the human rights charter.

I don't understand all this fuss about "legislating morality."

Could someone please explain to me how legislating morality differs from any other kind of legislation? I have my own answer, but it doesn't seem to be the one most people are thinking of.The idea behind it is that, when people refer to this, they mean that you shouldn't legislate against anything that an individual does that harms only or primarily the individual. This differs from some other legislation, such as legislation against murder, which harms other individuals.

Every political system legislates morality. (maybe not anarchism)

If the kind of anarchism accepts self-defense, it legislates morality (though only in a loose sense.)

If there were ever a better example of the pretentiousness, self-absorption and narcissim of the so-called "liberal", I have yet to see it.
Conservative ideas are not noted for their humilty.

If the kind of anarchism accepts self-defense, it legislates morality (though only in a loose sense.)
Surely anarchism legislates nothing. You need a government to have legislation.

The idea behind it is that, when people refer to this, they mean that you shouldn't legislate against anything that an individual does that harms only or primarily the individual. This differs from some other legislation, such as legislation against murder, which harms other individuals.

And what does that have to do with legislating morality?

I know lots of people whose moral systems only condemn acts that harm others; why, when they impose their morality, are they not legislating morality, but when Pat Robertson attempts to, he is legislating his?

Not to mention the numerous moral assumptions that go into one's definition of "harm", the questions of morality and personal identity that could be conceivably raised regarding the definition of "individual" (can I do something that will harm Soheran thirty years from now?), and the fact that the vast majority of people who are against "legislating morality" are hardly consistent on that point (very few support the complete legalization of drugs, and plenty don't even consider the implications of their doctrine for the liberty of children).

Surely anarchism legislates nothing. You need a government to have legislation.

It's an enforced rule. What else do you want to call it?

And what does that have to do with morality?

I know lots of people whose moral systems only condemn acts that harm others; why, when they impose their morality, are they not legislating morality, but when Pat Robertson attempts to, he is legislating his?Yes, you're correct, however the reasons that can be given to legislate against murder include that harm will be done to others. This could mean that the person proposing the legislation means that murder is morally wrong, but doesn't need to. They could be perfectly fine with murder, from a moral perspective, but dislike the idea of it being legal.
Pat Robertson's morality, on the other hand, can for the most part only be proposed on moral grounds and not on the grounds that someone is harmed by it.

Not to mention the numerous moral assumptions that go into one's definition of "harm", the questions of morality and personal identity that could be conceivably raised regarding the definition of "individual" (can I do something that will harm Soheran thirty years from now?), and the fact that the vast majority of people who are against "legislating morality" are hardly consistent on that point (very few support the complete legalization of drugs, plenty don't even consider the implications of their doctrine for the freedom of children).Yes, you're correct here, too; I don't think most of these people realize that they aren't being consistent.

Yes, you're correct, however the reasons that can be given to legislate against murder include that harm will be done to others. This could mean that the person proposing the legislation means that murder is morally wrong, but doesn't need to. They could be perfectly fine with murder, from a moral perspective, but dislike the idea of it being legal.

So they want to legislate against it from an amoral perspective? Why is that a good thing?

Pat Robertson's morality, on the other hand, can for the most part only be proposed on moral grounds and not on the grounds that someone is harmed by it.

The notion that "someone is harmed by it" is a legitimate basis for legislation is just as morally based as the notion that "God doesn't like it" is a legitimate basis for legislation.

Why should we oppose people being harmed?

I'm a classical liberal with very free market policies.

Does that count?

So they want to legislate against it from an amoral perspective? Why is that a good thing?No, usually it's from a moral perspective, but an amoral argument could also be used.

The notion that "someone is harmed by it" is a legitimate basis for legislation is just as morally based as the notion that "God doesn't like it" is a legitimate basis for legislation.

Why should we oppose people being harmed?Absolutely. I suppose the difference is that the idea that people shouldn't be harmed is fairly universal, and so isn't recognized as a moral statement, whereas saying that God doesn't like something is recognized as a moral statement.

No, usually it's from a moral perspective, but an amoral argument could also be used.

Well, I can use an amoral argument for pretty much anything.

We shouldn't anger God by permitting gay marriage, because if we do, He will send more hurricanes, and hurricanes might inconvenience me.

Absolutely. I suppose the difference is that the idea that people shouldn't be harmed is fairly universal, and so isn't recognized as a moral statement, whereas saying that God doesn't like something is recognized as a moral statement.

That may be it.

Well, I can use an amoral argument for pretty much anything.

We shouldn't anger God by permitting gay marriage, because if we do, He will send more hurricanes, and hurricanes might inconvenience me.I'm not entirely convinced that there is a such thing as an amoral argument, anyway. The idea that you shouldn't be inconvenienced seems to be a moral stance to me. (What I meant by an amoral argument before was more an argument that was made from a fairly universally agreed upon morality.)

I'm not entirely convinced that there is a such thing as an amoral argument, anyway. The idea that you shouldn't be inconvenienced seems to be a moral stance to me.

Or just a sentimental one. I don't have to be considering it morally - I don't have to ask myself, is it right or wrong for me to be convenienced? I can simply vote for my self-interest, without considering its moral implications.

Or just a sentimental one. I don't have to be considering it morally - I don't have to ask myself, is it right or wrong for me to be convenienced? I can simply vote for my self-interest, without considering its moral implications.True...I suppose what I'm saying is that the idea that your self-interest should be advanced seems to me to be inherently a moral proposition...but you're right in that you could argue in favor of self-interest without arguing in favor of its morality. (I suppose I just view it differently.)

Described MTAE as "not uber liberal" is like calling Stalin "some russian guy with a bit of a temper"

Stalin was Georgian......

Wow - do you farm red herring, or something?
...

LOL, oh my goodness.

And IF it is cheaper to meet local ordinances, such as the cars for California, then my example simply points out that in the long run, fish are cheaper than hamburgers, by the pound. ;)

Stalin was Georgian......

That means that somebody called me (:eek:) uber-liberal.

He's also a troll because he's the most recent incarnation of that most loveable poster, Disraeliland.

Disraeliland was a potent debator, and I believe he verged on anarchocapitalism. I don't see how MTAE and he resemble one another. I wish the former would return though...

I've always assumed that I was a liberal type and about some topics I don't think I'll ever change may view unless I get a pretty compelling argument -- e.g. abortion, animal rights, free speech. However, there is this sort of intermediate area in which I think I incline towards conservatism more and this has to do with things like homelessness and drug addiction and even poverty. On the one hand, I can easily understand why someone is homeless who has, perhaps, some mental disability or something that determins that they will be homeless. These people need help. Yet, with drug addicts, I feel quite differently. There has to be a realization of consequences not only to themselves but also to society. These people should not be tolerated and should be forced into treatment programs and taken off of the streets and the doll.

Here's a really conservative statement: people with disabilities who use government support should not be given government support because they do not contribute to society.

Here's a really conservative statement: people with disabilities who use government support should not be given government support because they do not contribute to society.
WTF, I didn't think that even the most evil of conservatives thought this. The reason they don't contribute is that they can't, and as humans, they have the right to live.

Here's a really conservative statement: people with disabilities who use government support should not be given government support because they do not contribute to society.
That statement is entirely consistent with utilitarianism.

That statement is entirely consistent with utilitarianism.

What and conservatism and utilitarianism and mutually exclusive? I don't think so.

That statement is entirely consistent with utilitarianism.

Not really.

Utilitarianism does not use "contribution to society" as a standard for who deserves what; it aims to maximize happiness (or preference satisfaction), and it seems to me that either objective would be better served by government support for the disabled than by lack of government support for them.

Not really.

Utilitarianism does not use "contribution to society" as a standard for who deserves what; it aims to maximize happiness (or preference satisfaction), and it seems to me that either objective would be better served by government support for the disabled than by lack of government support for them.


Yeah, but disabled people don't comprise the greatest number. Since they don't, you can maximize happiness by giving more to those who earn it and get rid of disabled people. You need some type of Rawlsian theory of justice to make it so that disabled people get look after.

Yeah, but disabled people don't comprise the greatest number.

So? They are still worthy of moral consideration.

And because they do not comprise "the greatest number," aiding them does not have a high cost.

Since they don't, you can maximize happiness by giving more to those who earn it and get rid of disabled people.

Let's compare costs and benefits:

1. Having disabled people live a life of misery, and making others a little happier
2. Having disabled people live a decent life, and denying others a little bit of happiness.

It's pretty clear to me which is preferable.

So? They are still worthy of moral consideration.

And because they do not comprise "the greatest number," aiding them does not have a high cost.



Let's compare costs and benefits:

1. Having disabled people live a life of misery, and making others a little happier
2. Having disabled people live a decent life, and denying others a little bit of happiness.

It's pretty clear to me which is preferable.

Why, just don't allow disabled people to be born. Make the individulas that become disabled work. Al I said was that no one who is disabled should get state support.

Why, just don't allow disabled people to be born.

This could indeed be justified with utilitarianism.

Make the individulas that become disabled work.

The whole point of the benefits is to provide for people who cannot work.

That statement is entirely consistent with utilitarianism.

I tend to consider myself utilitarian, but I wholeheartedly disagree with that statement. The only condition under which I would agree with denying support to those with disabilities would be if those funds could be better allocated elsewhere (domestically). I cannot see a better way to maximize aggregate happiness than to give government money to those with disabilities; the difference between an impoverished disabled person and a disabled person who is well off is much greater than the difference between a poor person and a middle-class person. You will increase the happiness of a disabled person much more than just a regular poor person by giving him $1000 dollars.

The whole point of the benefits is to provide for people who cannot work.

Hence, if you cannot work you are not contributing to the greater good. If you are not contributing to the greater good, then your actions, or lack thereof, are inconsistent with utilitarianism. You should not, then, benefit from those that contribute to the greater good.

Hence, if you cannot work you are not contributing to the greater good. If you are not contributing to the greater good, then your actions, or lack thereof, are inconsistent with utilitarianism. You should not, then, benefit from those that contribute to the greater good.

That is a very un-utilitarian argument. Utilitarianism does not rest on paying people what they contribute, rather on maximizing happiness (or preference satisfaction.)

And it ignores other ways to contribute to the greater good beyond paid labor.

That is a very un-utilitarian argument. Utilitarianism does not rest on paying people what they contribute, rather on maximizing happiness (or preference satisfaction.)

And it ignores other ways to contribute to the greater good beyond paid labor.

Yes, but there has to be some way to maximize the good, it doesn't just magically happen. Ideally, we'd work these things out with a utilitarian calculus, which means that there is both a wieghing of contributions and what does not contribute to the greater good (i.e. what takes away from the greater good). By not contributing your not adding to the greater good. There has to be some consequence to this; otherwise, we could all not do anything but still contribute to the greater good. I would think, then, that non-action would be marked as a negative in the calculus.

Hence, if you cannot work you are not contributing to the greater good.

Raw utilitarianism doesn't take into account the relative worth of an individual's life, only the aggregate happiness in a society. Theoretically, Hitler should not be denied access to a good life, despite his obviously detrimental effects upon society (as long as that would not conflict with and outweigh the happiness of others, that is).

Yes, but there has to be some way to maximize the good, it doesn't just magically happen. Ideally, we'd work these things out with a utilitarian calculus, which means that there is both a wieghing of contributions and what does not contribute to the greater good (i.e. what takes away from the greater good). By not contributing your not adding to the greater good. There has to be some consequence to this; otherwise, we could all not do anything but still contribute to the greater good. I would think, then, that non-action would be marked as a negative in the calculus.

As a disincentive, maybe, but since disabled people can't (not merely "won't") contribute in all the ways that a non-disabled person can (though they can contribute in many ways nevertheless), such a disincentive would accomplish nothing.

Raw utilitarianism doesn't take into account the relative worth of an individual's life, only the aggregate happiness in a society. Theoretically, Hitler should not be denied access to a good life, despite his obviously detrimental effects upon society (as long as that would not conflict with and outweigh the happiness of others, that is).


Yes, your right. However, I think in an applied way a utilitarian calculus will have to deal with detrimental effects. I mean utilitarianism is going to have to answer to a Hitler type case if it is going to be a useful idea.

He's also a troll because he's the most recent incarnation of that most loveable poster, Disraeliland.

So, because someone disagrees with you (Disraeliland), he's a troll? Wow, makes sense. *rolls eyes*

As a disincentive, maybe, but since disabled people can't (not merely "won't") contribute in all the ways that a non-disabled person can (though they can contribute in many ways nevertheless), such a disincentive would accomplish nothing.

I'm not sure that intention or lack of intention is what matters here. We would be merely looking at their lack of action (the ends) and not the intentional or non-intentional process that connects, as you say, to the disincentive.

We would be merely looking at their lack of action (the ends) and not the intentional or non-intentional process that connects, as you say, to the disincentive.

What would be the utilitarian benefit involved in doing that?

What would be the utilitarian benefit involved in doing that?

Well, it is not a matter of benefit, it is a matter of how utilitarianism works, it looks to the ends of action to see if it satisfies the greater good. It doesn't look to the process of how that greater good came around. So, it isn't so much about disabled people, it is more about non-contribution and its detrimental effects to the greater good. A Utilitarian eye will not look at whether someone is disabled or not (it just happens that they are in this case) it will look to the ends or lack thereof, I'm claiming, and do the calculation.

I mean utilitarianism is going to have to answer to a Hitler type case if it is going to be a useful idea.

Indeed, and it does. If Hitler threatens the aggregate happiness in a society, he needs to be neutralized. Ideally, however, such an end can be achieved in a way that does not harm Hitler, either. However, I do not believe in such an undiluted form of utilitarianism -- if someone has committed a major transgression, they are worth much less than an innocent man, in my eyes.

Well, it is not a matter of benefit, it is a matter of how utilitarianism works, it looks to the ends of action to see if it satisfies the greater good.

The consequences of the action. "Ends" is a vague term that has other meanings.

It doesn't look to the process of how that greater good came around.

Unless it's relevant to maximizing it. So if you consider killing someone to maximize the greater good, that person's suffering is taken into account. And if you want to know how to design an incentives structure for society, you consider people's capabilities and motivations.

So, it isn't so much about disabled people, it is more about non-contribution and its detrimental effects to the greater good. A Utilitarian eye will not look at whether someone is disabled or not (it just happens that they are in this case) it will look to the ends or lack thereof, I'm claiming, and do the calculation.

Utilitarianism does not say "people are good or evil based on the consequences of their actions, and should be rewarded or punished according to their goodness or evilness."

Utilitarianism says "actions are justified or unjustified based on their consequences."

A utilitarian might add that "people are good or evil based on whether or not they intend to maximize happiness" but this is not relevant to how they ought to be treated, except indirectly. Utilitarianism, in fact, argues that the only purpose of punishment (negative treatment for bad contribution to maximizing happiness) should be utilitarian benefit.

So, it isn't so much about disabled people, it is more about non-contribution and its detrimental effects to the greater good.

Non-existence has a greater impact upon the "greater" good than does non-contribution. If you decrease the amount of people that you have, you will (most likely) also decrease the total happiness in society.

First of all, NS is probably mostly frequented by people who have an actual interest in politics, and such people are normally intelligent, and such people are normally more liberal, because moralistic people are generally so because of their religion, and such religions also promote ignorance.

Second, most moralistic people either go on some fluffy website like Neopets or think that chat forums and the internet are evil.

Indeed, and it does. If Hitler threatens the aggregate happiness in a society, he needs to be neutralized. Ideally, however, such an end can be achieved in a way that does not harm Hitler, either. However, I do not believe in such an undiluted form of utilitarianism -- if someone has committed a major transgression, they are worth much less than an innocent man, in my eyes.

The harm hitler part could be wrong if we think in terms of retribution. That is, punishing Hitler would contribute to the greater could since it will satisfy retribution from the victims standpoint. I think you can, then, justifiably harm Hitler through punishment for cathartic effect.

If you decrease the amount of people that you have, you will (most likely) also decrease the total happiness in society.

Does that mean that we should maximize childbirth as well?

Not really.

Utilitarianism does not use "contribution to society" as a standard for who deserves what; it aims to maximize happiness (or preference satisfaction), and it seems to me that either objective would be better served by government support for the disabled than by lack of government support for them.

But beacuse it takes more government money to make those people happy, it could be efficiently deployed on able-bodied people.

Does that mean that we should maximize childbirth as well?

As long as society can adequately sustain the increased population, yes. However, at present, I don't think we have the necessary resources to greatly expand our child base while still maintaining a sufficiently high quality of life, which is usually a fair indicator of aggregate happiness. I'm all for more children, as long as they are not condemned to live in horrendous squalor.

But beacuse it takes more government money to make those people happy, it could be efficiently deployed on able-bodied people.

No, the increase in happiness the money would cause when given to those people would be less than the increase in happiness it would cause when given to the disabled.

I think you can, then, justifiably harm Hitler through punishment for cathartic effect.

I completely agree with you. That's why I'd love to see Saddam hung on national TV and the act displayed all over the world.

As long as society can adequately sustain the increased population, yes.

Why should we accept a lower standard of living in trade for more children, as your "aggregate happiness" calculation would dictate?

It makes more sense to take an average.

It makes more sense to take an average.

Would you rather have one extremely happy person or billions of moderately happy people? I would choose the latter without hesitation.

The consequences of the action. "Ends" is a vague term that has other meanings.



Unless it's relevant to maximizing it. So if you consider killing someone to maximize the greater good, that person's suffering is taken into account. And if you want to know how to design an incentives structure for society, you consider people's capabilities and motivations.



Utilitarianism does not say "people are good or evil based on the consequences of their actions, and should be rewarded or punished according to their goodness or evilness."

Utilitarianism says "actions are justified or unjustified based on their consequences."

A utilitarian might add that "people are good or evil based on whether or not they intend to maximize happiness" but this is not relevant to how they ought to be treated, except indirectly. Utilitarianism, in fact, argues that the only purpose of punishment (negative treatment for bad contribution to maximizing happiness) should be utilitarian benefit.


I did not say anything about good or evil. I merely claim that the disability aspect of the argument is accidental. Yes, and by 'ends', I mean consequences (and measurable ones at that). It is beneficial to society to get rid of disabled people since they do not contribute to the maximization of the good but take away from it. Certainly, in real world scenarios such as we are talking about here, we are going to need to discuss what ought to be down to satisy the utilitarian calculas. Got to go to sleep.

Would you rather have one extremely happy person or billions of moderately happy people? I would choose the latter without hesitation.

I would choose the former without hesitation.

Existence (at least former existence) is a necessary precondition for moral consideration. People who do not exist and have never existed have no legitimate interests (indeed, have no interests at all.)

Would you rather have one extremely happy person or billions of moderately happy people? I would choose the latter without hesitation.
Why?

I would choose the former without hesitation.

Existence (at least former existence) is a necessary precondition for moral consideration. People who do not exist and have never existed have no legitimate interests (indeed, have no interests at all.)
Agreed. Only a fool would say the one billion in India are happier than those in Iceland just because the former has a much larger population.

It is beneficial to society to get rid of disabled people since they do not contribute to the maximization of the good

Yes, they do. They do so in two ways.

Firstly, they are capable of affecting other people's lives positively - a parent is happier when she knows that her disabled child is cared for, for instance.

Secondly, they themselves have preferences and emotions that are worthy of moral consideration.

Why?

For the same reason that I would like to lead a good life until I'm, say, 70, rather than have one extremely happy hour of life and then just die. It's an axiom.

No, the increase in happiness the money would cause when given to those people would be less than the increase in happiness it would cause when given to the disabled.
Depending how you measure happiness, you might get a bigger gain by removing those disabled people entirely.

Plus, I think you're using diminishing marginal utility, a principle I don't accept.

I would choose the former without hesitation.

Existence (at least former existence) is a necessary precondition for moral consideration. People who do not exist and have never existed have no legitimate interests (indeed, have no interests at all.)

I don't know, some argument could be made that characters in novels need to be treated morally and that characters like Freddy Kruger are immoral. Perhaps this could be reduced to the viewer or reader, though. Whatever.

I find that the regulars on this forum tend to be intelligent, and in my experience, the intelligent are often social liberals.
It just doesn’t make sense to spend so much time on other people’s personal lives.

Agreed. Only a fool would say the one billion in India are happier than those in Iceland just because the former has a much larger population.

While each individual in India may be worse off than each individual in Iceland, the total happiness in India is greater than the total happiness in Iceland, by virtue of its high population.

For the same reason that I would like to lead a good life until I'm, say, 70, rather than have one extremely happy hour of life and then just die. It's an axiom.
Again, why? What is the point of an extended life to begin with? Once you cease-to-exist, you wouldn't know any better. You seem to believe existence is better than non-existence.

I think it has to do with intelligence. People who play NS tend to be people who are seriously interested in politics, people who are seriously interested in politics tend to be intelligent, and people who are intelligent tend not to be social conservatives.

(Which is not to say that social conservatism is stupid, merely that the reasons most people accept social conservatism are stupid, and the proportions observed in the general population will thus not carry over to a more intelligent group.)

Let's just not call social conservatives stupid, alright? It's not a very kind thing to say. I don't call liberals "Long haired, Gay lovin', Pot Smokin' Hippies" do I? No, because it's just not civil. Your intelligence isn't based on your political beliefs.

While each individual in India may be worse off than each individual in Iceland, the total happiness in India is greater than the total happiness in Iceland, by virtue of its high population.
Ah, yes, as if happiness were some entity that increases in size as more individuals come into play. Nonsense.

What is the point of an extended life to begin with?

So you can have an opportunity to increase your total happiness. Are you saying that you'd rather take some amazing drugs, ride the high for a couple minutes, and then be killed rather than be content until you're 70? Average happiness is of little consequence to me; only net happiness is.

So you can have an opportunity to increase your total happiness. Are you saying that you'd rather take some amazing drugs, ride the high for a couple minutes, and then be killed rather than be content until you're 70? Average happiness is of little consequence to me; only net happiness is.
I'd prefer a high level of happiness whatever my lifespan. This does not mean I only have to live an hour's worth of life. I'd prefer non-existence to even high-level happiness though.

Ah, yes, as if happiness were some entity that increases in size as more individuals come into play. Nonsense.

Each individual has a personal "happiness." I believe that each individual's aggregate happiness can be somehow represented in an objective form (12234 or -5464, for example); the total happiness can be obtained by adding all the individual coefficients of happiness. As more happy individuals are born, the total happiness increases.

Each individual has a personal "happiness." I believe that each individual's aggregate happiness can be somehow represented in an objective form (12234 or -5464, for example); the total happiness can be obtained by adding all the individual coefficients of happiness. As more happy individuals are born, the total happiness increases.
And yet another Don Quixotes chasing after windmills, except this time not only are they illusory, but also utterly pointless. Have fun with your exercise in utter futility.

I'd prefer non-existence to even high-level happiness though.

Why? Do you think living a very happy life is somehow a negative experience? Why not just kill yourself now, then? That's an easy way to achieve non-existence.

Depending how you measure happiness, you might get a bigger gain by removing those disabled people entirely.

Plus, I think you're using diminishing marginal utility, a principle I don't accept.

So you think a $10 loaf of bread for a starving person is worth the same as a $10 ticket to the movies for a rich couple that goes every week?

For the same reason that I would like to lead a good life until I'm, say, 70, rather than have one extremely happy hour of life and then just die.

The difference is that you are alive. You exist. You have preferences. You have interests.

People who do not exist do not. Of what moral relevance are they?

Why? Do you think living a very happy life is somehow a negative experience?
Hardly. I see no reason why existence is preferrable over non-existence though.

And yet another Don Quixotes chasing after windmills, except this time not only are they illusory, but also utterly pointless. Have fun with your exercise in utter futility.

If you only care about average happiness, would you like to kill all the people who are depressed? All the people who live in squalor? If I'm chasing after windmills, you're after slaughterhouses.

If you only care about average happiness, would you like to kill all the people who are depressed? All the people who live in squalor?

No, because I consider their preference not to die. They exist, and thus they are worthy of moral consideration.

Again, why? What is the point of an extended life to begin with? Once you cease-to-exist, you wouldn't know any better. You seem to believe existence is better than non-existence.

Since his beliefs are the results of his existance, of course he'll choose to exist and hence "believe"...

If you only care about average happiness, would you like to kill all the people who are depressed? All the people who live in squalor? If I'm chasing after windmills, you're after slaughterhouses.
Strawman. I would prefer each individual to be happier on a personal level. Not to increase some fictional, non-existent level of happiness. Aggregates for the sake of aggregation are a waste of time.

People who do not exist do not. Of what moral relevance are they?

When they will exist, they will be of moral relevance. I believe the only way to measure the "success" of humanity is by adding up the total "happiness" of all its members, from the first human to the last. All those that were and will be are included in that sum. Therefore, I care even about those who do not yet exist.

Let's just not call social conservatives stupid, alright?

Not all of them, but plenty of them are.

It's not a very kind thing to say. I don't call liberals "Long haired, Gay lovin', Pot Smokin' Hippies" do I?

Go ahead. "Long haired" and "gay lovin'" both fit me.

No, because it's just not civil. Your intelligence isn't based on your political beliefs.

No, but your political beliefs are often based on your intelligence. (Not necessarily their position on the spectrum, but their sophistication and depth.)

No, because I consider their preference not to die. They exist, and thus they are worthy of moral consideration.

Let's say you could magically press a button, which would allow you to subject all humans living 200 years from now to a slow and torturous death. Would you have no qualms about pressing such a button, since those people do not exist yet, and thus are unworthy of your consideration?

Since his beliefs are the results of his existance, of course he'll choose to exist and hence "believe"...
What is the objective value of existence over non-existence?

What is the objective value of existence over non-existence?

I enjoy life; I would not enjoy non-existence.

I enjoy life; I would not enjoy non-existence.
Logical error. You would not exist to not enjoy it. The "I" part therefore is irrelevant. You would simply not be.

Logical error. You would not exist to not enjoy it. The "I" part therefore is irrelevant. You would simply not be.
And thus he would not be able to add his happiness to the total happiness of the human race, which he veiws as a bad thing. Not a logical error at all, just an odd way of thinking and one that I do not agree with. Though, I do beleive that people that think like him are helpful to the cause of human advancement.

Logical error. You would not exist to not enjoy it.

Given that I exist, I realize that I enjoy life. Had I not existed, I would not have arrived at this conclusion, nor would I have felt any joy or happiness. Since I like joy and happiness, and since existence is a prerequisite for them, I prefer existence over non-existence.

Not a logical error at all
Yet it is. If you did not exist you could not say "I would not enjoy it." The "I" part would not exist, period.

just an odd way of thinking and one that I do not agree with.
Neither do I. Individuals matter more to me than imaginary aggregates.

Though, I do beleive that people that think like him are helpful to the cause of human advancement.
How so?

Given that I exist, I realize that I enjoy life. Had I not existed, I would not have arrived at this conclusion, nor would I have felt any joy or happiness. Since I like joy and happiness, and since existence is a prerequisite for them, I prefer existence over non-existence.
That is purely subjective. You have not given an objective reason as to why existence is preferrable to non-existence. All you have said is I exist, therefore I prefer it. A non-existent being could not state such a preference.

What is the objective value of existence over non-existence?

Molecules moving, i.e: energy?

A non-existent being could not state such a preference.

I wonder why and non-existent being cannot state any preference. If you ask a question, it must be answered by a being which exists. Such a being would realize that non-existence yields no joy or happiness. Since such a being likes joy and happiness, he can safely say that he prefers life over non-existence, by virtue of the fact that he is happier now than he was before he was born. By existing, we realize that non-existence is a completely neutral state without having to experience it, and that life is a positive state.

Yet it is. If you did not exist you could not say "I would not enjoy it." The "I" part would not exist, period.
But he does exist.
Neither do I. Individuals matter more to me than imaginary aggregates.
Society, which is made up of individuals, matters to me. I just don't think that you can really measure happiness beyond needs and essential wants.
How so?
For the same reason that I tolerate charitable Christian organizations, someone who wants to do good deeds and make others happy is good for humanity, no matter their motives.

I just don't think that you can really measure happiness beyond needs and essential wants.

Happiness is simply the interaction of several chemicals in your body, which produce certain effects. While humans cannot quantify these reactions, I believe there is an objective way to ascertain which mix of chemicals yields the most positive state.

I wonder why and non-existent being cannot state any preference. If you ask a question, it must be answered by a being which exists. Such a being would realize that non-existence yields no joy or happiness. Since such a being likes joy and happiness, he can safely say that he prefers life over non-existence, by virtue of the fact that he is happier now than he was before he was born. By existing, we realize that non-existence is a completely neutral state without having to experience it, and that life is a positive state.
Non-existent beings do not exist to begin with. Ipso facto, your argument is moot.

But he does exist.
I am trying to elicit an objective response as to why existence is preferrable over non-existence from him. The entire point is moot as the latter simply implies nothingness. He can't seem to realize this. He is arguing something to the effect that he would express a preference for this nothingness.

Society, which is made up of individuals, matters to me. I just don't think that you can really measure happiness beyond needs and essential wants.
Yes, but would you say that just because you added more people (units of happiness in his little world), the society would be better off, even though for each individual total happiness fell? It's like simply adding 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 to get 4. There is no point to it.

Non-existent beings do not exist to begin with. Ipso facto, your argument is moot.


I am trying to elicit an objective response as to why existence is preferrable over non-existence from him. The entire point is moot as the latter simply implies nothingness. He can't seem to realize this. He is arguing something to the effect that he would express a preference for this nothingness.


Yes, but would you say that just because you added more people (units of happiness in his little world), the society would be better off, even though for each individual total happiness fell?

Existance is preferable to non-existance because since you dont know non-existance, you cant comment on it...

Existance is preferable to non-existance because since you dont know non-existance, you cant comment on it...
How can nothingness express a desire to exist, then?

How can nothingness express a desire to exist, then?

It cant. However existance can express desire to existance...

Happiness is simply the interaction of several chemicals in your body, which produce certain effects. While humans cannot quantify these reactions, I believe there is an objective way to ascertain which mix of chemicals yields the most positive state.
But those chemicals have different levels of effects on different people.
Yes, but would you say that just because you added more people (units of happiness in his little world), the society would be better off, even though for each individual total happiness fell?
Not for a secound.

It cant. However existance can express desire to existance...
On behalf of nothingness? Again, idiotic.

Let's say you could magically press a button, which would allow you to subject all humans living 200 years from now to a slow and torturous death. Would you have no qualms about pressing such a button, since those people do not exist yet, and thus are unworthy of your consideration?

No, because they will exist, and when they exist, they will have a legitimate preference not to suffer a torturous death.

Children never born never exist.

Given that I exist, I realize that I enjoy life. Had I not existed, I would not have arrived at this conclusion, nor would I have felt any joy or happiness. Since I like joy and happiness, and since existence is a prerequisite for them, I prefer existence over non-existence.

Is one gazillion more or less than one?

You cannot compare things that don't exist. Therefore you cannot know whether you would enjoy existence more than non-existence.

So you think a $10 loaf of bread for a starving person is worth the same as a $10 ticket to the movies for a rich couple that goes every week?
I think the $10 that buys it should be of equal value to all.

On behalf of nothingness? Again, idiotic.

What is idiotic is that you expect objectivity. In order for objectivity to exist, you should be able to gather data from both sides. You cant gather data from non-existance. Besides, objectivity is a product of existance as well....

I think the $10 that buys it should be of equal value to all.

It would be, perhaps, if everyone were exactly the same and lived exactly the same way.

Thankfully, that is not the case.

What is idiotic is that you expect objectivity. In order for objectivity to exist, you should be able to gather data from both sides. You cant gather data from non-existance. Besides, objectivity is a product of existance as well....
You are missing the point. That there is nothing fundamentally worse about non-existence, simply because it is nothingness. You cannot say something should exist because you have no experience of it.

While each individual in India may be worse off than each individual in Iceland, the total happiness in India is greater than the total happiness in Iceland, by virtue of its high population.
That's only true if the people of India have, on average, a positive happiness.

Is happiness on an absolute scale, or is it possible to have negative net happiness such that oblivion would be an improvement?

It would be, perhaps, if everyone were exactly the same and lived exactly the same way.

Thankfully, that is not the case.
Allow me to rephrase - I didn't really think that one through.

While I may well value my $10 more than you value your $10, I value any $10 I have equally to any other $10 I have. That I have more instances of $10 doesn't change the value of $10 to me.

But those chemicals have different levels of effects on different people.

Exactly; humans are therefore incapable of calculating aggregate happiness. However, that does not mean there is an objective formula for calculating the total happiness of each person. Humans might never know what the (100 ^ 100 ^ 100 ^ 100 ^ 100 ^ 100 ^ 100)th digit of pi is, but that doesn't mean there isn't a formula for calculating it. Different chemicals have specific, quantifiable effects upon different people.

You are missing the point. That there is nothing fundamentally worse about non-existence, simply because it is nothingness. You cannot say something should exist because you have no experience of it.

There is *nothing* about nothingness, therefore it cant be preffered because there is no material to compare...

While I may well value my $10 more than you value your $10, I value any $10 I have equally to any other $10 I have. That I have more instances of $10 doesn't change the value of $10 to me.

Sort of.

You value all your $10 bills equally, but if you had half the $10 bills you currently have, you would value them all (and any additional ones you have the opportunity to attain) more.

The goods you have that are worth $10, however, will have vastly varying values.

Therefore you cannot know whether you would enjoy existence more than non-existence.

Yes I could. I can know that I would not enjoy non-existence, since, by definition, I would not exist. I also know that I enjoy life. Since enjoyment is preferable to nothing, the answer is obvious.

Yes I could. I can know that I would not enjoy non-existence, since, by definition, I would not exist. I also know that I enjoy life.

If you did not exist, there would be no person not to enjoy non-existence.

Is happiness on an absolute scale, or is it possible to have negative net happiness such that oblivion would be an improvement?

Yes, it would. For example, death might be preferable to extreme torture.

If you did not exist, there would be no person not to enjoy non-existence.

Since you dont know "non-existance", you cant comment on it...

Yes, it would. For example, death might be preferable to extreme torture.
Then you need to know where that line is in order to claim that India has greater total happiness than Iceland does.

Since you dont know "non-existance", you cant comment on it...

It is definitionally true that if something does not exist, something does not exist.

There is *nothing* about nothingness, therefore it cant be preffered because there is no material to compare...
Then how can you express a desire on part of nothingness to exist? There is simply no material. His argument amounts to that.

You are missing the point. That there is nothing fundamentally worse about non-existence, simply because it is nothingness.
Taken more broadly: things that don't exist can't exhibit characteristics.

I notice that on most issues the majority of people on NSG will tend towards the "live and let live" philosophy. Some are committed libertarians or anarchists and will openly say so, others hold different views and are still liberal in social issues because it seems like common sense to them.

So, how come that you have relatively few outright moralists on NSG? Why isn't it a popular view here that there is an absolute set of social morals that everyone needs to adhere to, if necessary by being forced to do so?I'm not reading all 15 pages of this thread, so please forgive me if this is redundant. It's short, and you all may not agree with it... but at least it's short.

Liberals aren't libertarians. They just have better PR than conservatives. Liberals are the ones who made "hate speech" and "hate crime" laws (see: thought crimes, 1984), who believe in the expansion of eminent domain to private recipients (translation: the government can force you to sell your house so some douchebag can put up an office building), who openly infringe on religious practices and expression (as long as the victims are a flavor of Christianity), who advocate the outlawing of cigarettes, who advocate the outlawing of means of self-defence in the hopes it will disarm criminals, who discrimination against whites and against men (in the USA, at least), who reduce financial freedom in favor of the government deciding how to spend its citizens' money, and so on. Does that apply to all liberals? Of course not! Likewise, not all conservatives are knuckle-dragging, bible-thumping evolutionary throwbacks.

However, the point is liberalism has nothing to do with libertarianism, nor do they follow a "live and let live" philosophy. Liberals are exactly like conservatives. They censor, outlaw, and legislate to eliminate every aspect of society that their ideology dislikes. The only real difference is what they happen to dislike. So please do not confuse authoritarians and libertarians with conservatives and liberals. The left and the right are filled with the exact same kinds of douchebags. Just remember it's the uncompromising people on the extreme ends who screw everything up.

One last comment: People constantly think conservatives are simple-minded because they stick to like-minded groups --and they may be correct-- but it's just as true for liberals.

If you did not exist, there would be no person not to enjoy non-existence.

If you did not use three negatives, I wouldn't not have to easily understand your sentence. :)

By extension, there would be nobody to enjoy anything. Currently, there are people who enjoy something. Since enjoyment is preferable to nothingness, I can safely say that I choose existence. If I did not exist, the whole question is moot since I could not possibly have any opinion whatsoever.

It is definitionally true that if something does not exist, something does not exist.

Yes and you cant comment on things that doesnt exist...He cant make a choice when he doesnt exist...He can only make it when he does, therefore he'll choose to exist...

Then how can you express a desire on part of nothingness to exist? There is simply no material. His argument amounts to that.

Nothingness has no desire whatsoever. I, however, have a desire to not be non-existent.

Sort of.

You value all your $10 bills equally, but if you had half the $10 bills you currently have, you would value them all (and any additional ones you have the opportunity to attain) more.
But that's irrational. There's no reason for me to value any of my $10 less simply because I have more of them. Each of them still has the same utility.
The goods you have that are worth $10, however, will have vastly varying values.
I don't see how that's relevant.

Taken more broadly: things that don't exist can't exhibit characteristics.
Precisely.

Both his arguments are illogical. He cannot explain why there should be a big number simply for the sake of bigness. It is an empty argument.

If I did not exist, the whole question is moot since I could not possibly have any opinion whatsoever.

Yeah. Exactly.

So we don't choose to make you not exist now, because you have a preference to exist, but we don't care about the non-opinions of people who don't exist, have never existed, and will never exist. So we need not encourage childbirth.

Nothingness has no desire whatsoever. I, however, have a desire to not be non-existent.
You are urging for more of something to exist. You are asking for more of 1 instead of 0. Yet you make no argument for why this is preferrable.

Both his arguments are illogical. He cannot explain why there should be a big number simply for the sake of bigness. It is an empty argument.

It's not an argument, but an axiom. You cannot logically deduce such concepts; you must start from some basic postulates.

It's not an argument, but an axiom. You cannot logically deduce such concepts; you must start from some basic postulates.
In what way is it an axiom for 0 to express a desire to be 1? In what way is more of 1 preferrable to less of it for the sake of more-ness?

It's not an argument, but an axiom. You cannot logically deduce such concepts; you must start from some basic postulates.

Hey, big words!

But that's irrational. There's no reason for me to value any of my $10 less simply because I have more of them. Each of them still has the same utility.

No, they don't. Utility is relative.

Again, a ten dollar loaf of bread is worth a whole lot more to a starving person than a ten dollar ticket to the movies is worth to a rich person who goes every week.

The more money you have, the less important to you the goods you buy are (because otherwise you would have bought them even with less money); thus, the less utility each individual unit of money has.

Llewdor, why the objection to the theory of diminishing marginal utility? It all ties in to the Subjective Theory of Value.

Thread hurts brain. Thread hurts brain.

*snip*
Hence the OP clarified in what sense he was using Liberal... :rolleyes:

we don't care about the non-opinions of people who don't exist, have never existed, and will never exist. So we need not encourage childbirth.

If we do encourage childbirth, they will exist. I don't care about their opinions, I simply care about total happiness. I base all of my ideas upon that axiom. If we can increase the total happiness, we should go for it, regardless of the existential status of the people that will exist if we encourage childbirth.

If we can increase the total happiness, we should go for it, regardless of the existential status of the people that will exist if we encourage childbirth.

You are begging the question.

Why should we increase the total happiness? Why should we care about the potential happiness of non-existent people?

In what way is it an axiom for 0 to express a desire to be 1? In what way is more of 1 preferrable to less of it for the sake of more-ness?

I never stated that 0 expresses a desire to be 1. I simply said that we should strive to increase total happiness -- I find this a reasonable axiom. I have explained why I find this to make sense. Therefore, we should prefer 1 to 0 and 2 to 1.

Yes I could. I can know that I would not enjoy non-existence, since, by definition, I would not exist. I also know that I enjoy life. Since enjoyment is preferable to nothing, the answer is obvious.

Because it is impossible to measure the enjoyment of non-existence (we don't actually know what neutral enjoyment is) it is impossible to know if we experience positive or negative enjoyment through existence. Therefore your comparison is worthless.

Once again, is one more or less than a gazillion?

Why should we increase the total happiness?

There is no answer. I simply use it as an axiom. Why should we not go around torturing everyone we see? There's no objective reason, but one would assume that needless pain is morally abhorrent. Is there a reason for that? No, it's all a house of cards based on certain underlying postulates; mine is the sanctity of aggregate happiness.

Hey, big words!

It makes me seem smart (or, failing that, hopefully less of a troll). :)

needless pain is morally abhorrent.

Do non-existent people feel pain?

Why should we increase the total happiness? Why should we care about the potential happiness of non-existent people?
Why should care about the happiness of existant people? There's really no reason for anything. Some things just make people feel good for whatever reason.

I never stated that 0 expresses a desire to be 1. I simply said that we should strive to increase total happiness -- I find this a reasonable axiom. I have explained why I find this to make sense. Therefore, we should prefer 1 to 0 and 2 to 1.
No, you have done no such thing. You have just said 5 is preferrable to 2 because it's 5. That is no argument whatsoever. To me it matters what average individual happiness is, not its total.

No, they don't. Utility is relative.

Again, a ten dollar loaf of bread is worth a whole lot more to a starving person than a ten dollar ticket to the movies is worth to a rich person who goes every week.

The more money you have, the less important to you the goods you buy are (because otherwise you would have bought them even with less money); thus, the less utility each individual unit of money has.
Note however: utility is ordinal, not cardinal.

You can't really say that something gives you "x" units of utility, you can only say that Option A gives you more utility than Option B.

That brings with it that you can't compare utilities between people. It may well be that Person A values Option A more, and Person B values Option B more...but you can't make a decision of whether to take Option A or B on the basis of utility because you don't have absolute values to compare.

So even if Bill Gates values a dollar less when he is already rich, that doesn't mean that this extra dollar would really be worth more in the hands of some poor person.

we don't actually know what neutral enjoyment is

We assume that it is, by definition, non-existence, as that is a state in which neither positive or negative enjoyment is expressed.

To me it matters what average individual happiness is, not its total.

Why?

We assume that it is, by definition, non-existence, as that is a state in which neither positive or negative enjoyment is expressed.

Because it is impossible to measure the enjoyment of non-existence (we don't actually know what neutral enjoyment is) it is impossible to know if we experience positive or negative enjoyment through existence. Therefore your comparison is worthless.

Once again, is one more or less than a gazillion?

It may well be that Person A values Option A more, and Person B values Option B more...but you can't make a decision of whether to take Option A or B on the basis of utility because you don't have absolute values to compare.

And why not? People are not so radically different in their assessments of utility that comparisons cannot be made.

So even if Bill Gates values a dollar less when he is already rich, that doesn't mean that this extra dollar would really be worth more in the hands of some poor person.

Not in and of itself, no, but considering that they are both of the same species, and they both have similar physical and emotional needs, it's not much of a stretch to say that that is the case.

(This is a common objection to utilitarianism, one that has never held much water for me. Amartya Sen's capabilities approach, which I also like, is an interesting response to this and other objections.)

Why?
It means the individual is actually happier. Whereas 10 for the sake of 10 means nothing.

It means the individual is actually happier.

Why should we favor the happiness of the individual over the total happiness of the group? Having one happy guy for the sake of having one happy guy means nothing. Having 100 happy people actually means something.

Why should we favor the happiness of the individual over the total happiness of the group? Having one happy guy for the sake of having one happy guy means nothing. Having 100 happy people actually means something.
Let me put it this way. Add 100 people with happiness = 10, and you have group happiness of 1000. Add 100 people with happiness = 2 each, and you have an aggregate of 200. In the first case, the group and the individual are both happier. What you are saying is the individual's happiness should equal, say, 3, but there should be 5000 individuals. Total happiness will be 15 000. Will the group really be happier though? No. Because each member will be worse off. So your point is idiotic. I have utterly demolished your argument. Give it up.

Where you see liberal, I see progressives.

Where you see liberal, I see progressives.

That may be the case, but they're a threat to truth, justice, the American way, and my stock portfolio.

Will the group really be happier though? No. Because each member will be worse off. So your point is idiotic. I have utterly demolished your argument. Give it up.

You're thinking of the group as a single entity, which is patently false. You're argument is not only moronic, but evil. According to you, all the people who fall below the "average" happiness might as well be killed, because that would increase the Holy Average. Hell, everybody except the happiest person in the world might as well kill themselves now, since that would increase the average, right? Your "point" demolishes itself.