Still think you think straight even AFTER the philosophical health check, think again
- Thread starter radioactive lemur
- Start date
Recommended Videos
As to the first point. I agree that legality and morality are not equal quantities, but the term 'theft' is a legal term. If the removal of property is legal, it isn't theft. Whether or not it's wrong is a different issue.radioactive lemur said:
As to the difference between theft and taxation. The problem is that ownership rights are not absolute and never have been. The reason a particular plot of land and the resources on it are 'mine' is because, at some point, someone stumbled upon the unclaimed land, decided it was his, and the rest of society agreed to recognize it. Ownership of property, wealth, money, etc. is the result of a social contract, not an inherent right. For society to dictate the terms of that ownership (for example that a certain percentage of said property goes to support said society) is entirely consistent. The only thing we have an inherent, natural ownership over is our own, physical bodies. This is why I consider 'rape for the greater good' to be morally reprehensible but 'taxation for the greater good' to be acceptable. Your rights to your body are absolute. Your rights to anything else are conditional.
hmmmradioactive lemur said:
1. It can be justified
2. I agree
3. Sometimes but I'm not a complete utilertarian
4. No. Death to both of these things. It could equal out the class discrimination we have in schools
5. Agree
6. Agree
7. Of course! We don't want everyone having guns, although if everyone had a gun...there may be less gun crime.
8. Again with the utilertarianism? What is this? We love Durkheim? But I think I could agree with it/
9. Sigh, again this is Kant's arguement. I disagree
10. I agree.
This is mostly basic philosophy. Also utilertarianism is no way good or bad and so who cares?
1. "Theft, defined as the removal of property by force or threat of force is never morally acceptable."
Not really, if you define theft that way. I'd hardly consider just grabbing some food from a grocery store and running as "removal of property by force or threat."
2. "I believe in equal rights in society. No race, gender, profession, or religion should be discriminated against or given special rights or protections."
Yeah, pretty much.
3. "The ends justify the means"
Yes, but only if they truly justify them. If you kill a dozen innocents to save one innocent, I don't think so. If it were the other way around, then yes.
4. "I believe institutions like socialized medicine and public schools should be maintained and improved"
Nope.
5. "Non-consenting activity is not morally acceptable"
Not in all case. If you're saving someone from a death by punching them out, that's pretty acceptable to me.
6. "Eating animals is not fundamentally immoral as it is natural behavior"
Those things are damn tasty, man.
7. "I believe that at least some element of gun control (ex. special bullet tax, licensing, restriction of automatic weapons) should be maintained"
Licensing.
8. "Rape could be morally acceptable if it resulted in a super-intelligent child who would cure world hunger."
If you put it that way, sure. If someone committed genocide, but it saved the Earth from being completely destroyed, that would be acceptable too.
9. "I believe abortion is fundamentally the murder of a child"
No, I believe it is the destruction of an idea. That child could grow up to become the next Einstein for all we know. If a parent really doesn't want a kid they should either use a freaking condom or just give it up for adoption.
10. "Gays should be free to marry just like heterosexual couples"
Yes, they should. You don't even need a church to marry.
You asked #3 quite a few times.
Not really, if you define theft that way. I'd hardly consider just grabbing some food from a grocery store and running as "removal of property by force or threat."
2. "I believe in equal rights in society. No race, gender, profession, or religion should be discriminated against or given special rights or protections."
Yeah, pretty much.
3. "The ends justify the means"
Yes, but only if they truly justify them. If you kill a dozen innocents to save one innocent, I don't think so. If it were the other way around, then yes.
4. "I believe institutions like socialized medicine and public schools should be maintained and improved"
Nope.
5. "Non-consenting activity is not morally acceptable"
Not in all case. If you're saving someone from a death by punching them out, that's pretty acceptable to me.
6. "Eating animals is not fundamentally immoral as it is natural behavior"
Those things are damn tasty, man.
7. "I believe that at least some element of gun control (ex. special bullet tax, licensing, restriction of automatic weapons) should be maintained"
Licensing.
8. "Rape could be morally acceptable if it resulted in a super-intelligent child who would cure world hunger."
If you put it that way, sure. If someone committed genocide, but it saved the Earth from being completely destroyed, that would be acceptable too.
9. "I believe abortion is fundamentally the murder of a child"
No, I believe it is the destruction of an idea. That child could grow up to become the next Einstein for all we know. If a parent really doesn't want a kid they should either use a freaking condom or just give it up for adoption.
10. "Gays should be free to marry just like heterosexual couples"
Yes, they should. You don't even need a church to marry.
You asked #3 quite a few times.
1. seeing as theft is taking someone else's belonging's without their permission without intent on bringing it back, I would agree with that.
2. Equal rights for everyone would be a good thing.
3. Seeing as it interprets doing something bad to get an overall good result, I would say no.
4. Public schools yes, as it can help prepare children for RL so to speak. Socialized medicine I'm a bit torn on, as I'm more of a "let your immune system have a try at taking care of it first" approach, maybe as a secondary thing.
5. If someone doesn't want to do it, they shouldn't have too. Of course, this conflicts with the public schools, as many children don't want to go because they bored easily/they want to do more fun things. Generally, I would find that sometimes it might need to be done.
6. Food chain. Survival of the fittest
7. Well they are in england (where I live) and I'm not too sure on crime statistics, but I would generally feel less afraid of a knife than a gun (less range, unless you throw)
8. two things: 1, what are the chances of that really happening, and I would say no, as it can be taking someone's "innocence" without their permission.
9. Technically yes, Realisticlly, I'm not too sure on this answer
10. Yes, if two people want to get married, they should be able to, provided they are in love.
the main problem I found with the other thread was that the questionnaire that was linked only allowed for either "agree" or "Disagree" as answers, when the majority of the questions I felt more in the middle of the statements.
2. Equal rights for everyone would be a good thing.
3. Seeing as it interprets doing something bad to get an overall good result, I would say no.
4. Public schools yes, as it can help prepare children for RL so to speak. Socialized medicine I'm a bit torn on, as I'm more of a "let your immune system have a try at taking care of it first" approach, maybe as a secondary thing.
5. If someone doesn't want to do it, they shouldn't have too. Of course, this conflicts with the public schools, as many children don't want to go because they bored easily/they want to do more fun things. Generally, I would find that sometimes it might need to be done.
6. Food chain. Survival of the fittest
7. Well they are in england (where I live) and I'm not too sure on crime statistics, but I would generally feel less afraid of a knife than a gun (less range, unless you throw)
8. two things: 1, what are the chances of that really happening, and I would say no, as it can be taking someone's "innocence" without their permission.
9. Technically yes, Realisticlly, I'm not too sure on this answer
10. Yes, if two people want to get married, they should be able to, provided they are in love.
the main problem I found with the other thread was that the questionnaire that was linked only allowed for either "agree" or "Disagree" as answers, when the majority of the questions I felt more in the middle of the statements.
1. Agreed, so long as the implication of Theft remains true that it is the unlawful removal...
2. Whole-heartedly agree
3. Nope, generally just causes more problems.
4. Yeppers.
5. vague, non-consent or anti-consent? Forcing someone to perform an activity against their consent is not morally acceptable. Performing an action that may effect another without explicitly getting consent of that person may or may not be wrong depending on the action/effects/etc
6. Agreed, not necessarily on the distinction of natural behavior, but we are omnivores optimized to eat animals and plants.
7. Wow, vague and entirely loaded. I think licensing should continue, outright ban no.
8. No, and that's retarded.
9. I don't believe that, but I could see how people could.
10. Agreed and any government built around the principle of separation of church and state should not think about regulating a ritual that is entirely a religious and social phenomenon, including issuing marriage licenses.
2. Whole-heartedly agree
3. Nope, generally just causes more problems.
4. Yeppers.
5. vague, non-consent or anti-consent? Forcing someone to perform an activity against their consent is not morally acceptable. Performing an action that may effect another without explicitly getting consent of that person may or may not be wrong depending on the action/effects/etc
6. Agreed, not necessarily on the distinction of natural behavior, but we are omnivores optimized to eat animals and plants.
7. Wow, vague and entirely loaded. I think licensing should continue, outright ban no.
8. No, and that's retarded.
9. I don't believe that, but I could see how people could.
10. Agreed and any government built around the principle of separation of church and state should not think about regulating a ritual that is entirely a religious and social phenomenon, including issuing marriage licenses.
Taxation is theft and comparable to rape...and gun control is the first step towards genocide.radioactive lemur said:
...?
Okay then
1) Disagree
2) Agree
3) Disagree
4) Agree
5) Agree
6) Agree (Also should be noted that poor countries do not have access to as many or as varied vegetable sources of protein as rich countries, to the point where people suffer malnutrition from the lack of protein when animal protein is absent. Necessity should not dictate morality.)
7) Agree
8) Disagree
9) Disagree
10) Agree
2) Agree
3) Disagree
4) Agree
5) Agree
6) Agree (Also should be noted that poor countries do not have access to as many or as varied vegetable sources of protein as rich countries, to the point where people suffer malnutrition from the lack of protein when animal protein is absent. Necessity should not dictate morality.)
7) Agree
8) Disagree
9) Disagree
10) Agree
Neg. There are circumstantial times.
Affirmative.
That one is highly circumstantial. Like, we're talking doing things to survive there.
Maintained only if they are improved. It's awful in the present time.
Again, this really depends on what's going on. Rape is bad, overtaking another car ain't really horrible.
Humans are omnivores. 'Nuff said.
Well, yeah, of course. Gotta make sure guns are in the hands of responsible people.
Well, that kinda ties into ends justifying the means. Yes. I don't condone rape, but I would see how that situation works.
No, but I can see how it could be viewed as so.
Yep. You can marry a pillow, you can marry a man.
1. "Theft, defined as the removal of property by force or threat of force is never morally acceptable."In certain circumstances it can be. Depends on what, the need and level of force/violence used
2. "I believe in equal rights in society. No race, gender, profession, or religion should be discriminated against or given special rights or protections."Yes/Agree/etc
3. "The ends justify the means"Not always
4. "I believe institutions like socialized medicine and public schools should be maintained and improved"Agree as everyone should have access to basic requirements in this area but a two tiered system will probably always exist.
5. "Non-consenting activity is not morally acceptable"Agree
6. "Eating animals is not fundamentally immoral as it is natural behavior"Well I think we should cut down on level of animal products due to environmental damage so I suppose given this question it is not immoral
7. "I believe that at least some element of gun control (ex. special bullet tax, licensing, restriction of automatic weapons) should be maintained"Agree
8. "Rape could be morally acceptable if it resulted in a super-intelligent child who would cure world hunger."No just no.
9. "I believe abortion is fundamentally the murder of a child"Can be acceptable in certain cases to avoid life threatening birth ie where both would die anyway to name one case for me anyway. So while it is murder in some case in other you could consider it euthanasia or a lesser of two evils.
10. "Gays should be free to marry just like heterosexual couples"Why should they be happier than the rest of us(that is a joke by the way I am agreeing with statement so no offense is meant by it)?
Also to be honest that last one was quite bullshit and many of the conflicts were in just the way it was worded and were only possible conflicts. They wanted black and white answers to what is a massive grey area and the test wasn't accurate due to that. For example I came up with a conflict with Enviroment and use of cars which didn't take into account certain instances where a car would be better and another with Loving God and allowing a child to come to harm. The second is just my personal view on how God interacts with the world and free will and all that. Although those are just two off the top of my head.
2. "I believe in equal rights in society. No race, gender, profession, or religion should be discriminated against or given special rights or protections."Yes/Agree/etc
3. "The ends justify the means"Not always
4. "I believe institutions like socialized medicine and public schools should be maintained and improved"Agree as everyone should have access to basic requirements in this area but a two tiered system will probably always exist.
5. "Non-consenting activity is not morally acceptable"Agree
6. "Eating animals is not fundamentally immoral as it is natural behavior"Well I think we should cut down on level of animal products due to environmental damage so I suppose given this question it is not immoral
7. "I believe that at least some element of gun control (ex. special bullet tax, licensing, restriction of automatic weapons) should be maintained"Agree
8. "Rape could be morally acceptable if it resulted in a super-intelligent child who would cure world hunger."No just no.
9. "I believe abortion is fundamentally the murder of a child"Can be acceptable in certain cases to avoid life threatening birth ie where both would die anyway to name one case for me anyway. So while it is murder in some case in other you could consider it euthanasia or a lesser of two evils.
10. "Gays should be free to marry just like heterosexual couples"Why should they be happier than the rest of us(that is a joke by the way I am agreeing with statement so no offense is meant by it)?
Also to be honest that last one was quite bullshit and many of the conflicts were in just the way it was worded and were only possible conflicts. They wanted black and white answers to what is a massive grey area and the test wasn't accurate due to that. For example I came up with a conflict with Enviroment and use of cars which didn't take into account certain instances where a car would be better and another with Loving God and allowing a child to come to harm. The second is just my personal view on how God interacts with the world and free will and all that. Although those are just two off the top of my head.
This guy.gwiddison said:
Special emphasis should be placed on the upholding of the society. While corruption does run rampant in today's political bodies, were it not for them we would not have life as we know it today. The infrastructure we have in the U.S. is a direct benefit of tax revenue. Roads, mail, schools, it all is because we pay taxes. If we didn't, it would be up to each individual to build or upkeep whatever they wanted to build or upkeep at the time. Eventually people would agree on building and upkeep standards and appoint someone to be in charge of them, as often happens in gated communities today. Yeah, the IRS can force you or threaten to force you to pay taxes, but that money doesn't go solely into their hands. Some of it comes back to you in the form of things you'd want anyways.
1. No. Is a starving child stealing food ethically wrong?
2. Yes, however special rights are debatable. Some say that laws protecting from discrimination is a form of special rights. While this is not my position, you still need to define if it is equality guaranteed under law, or equality naturally formed without enforcement
3. No. Defiantly no. A good outcome coming from unethical methods are still unethical. Saying the ends justify the means leaves any behavior open. For example, you nuke the middle east. You would have peace in the middle east, but the cost to obtain that method of peace does not justify the result.
4. Debatable. While some services naturally improve the standards of living for a country, it is debatable whether government or private industry should provide them. One might provide it more efficiently. Providing education and health care is necessary for a country to have a high standard of living. Some system is needed to insure that nobody is left out of an education. However, that system could be provided by a non-profit corporation. As long as nobody is denied education or health care because of social or economic status.
5. Vague and arguable. Is it not right for a parent to force their child to eat their vegetables? It is certainly not ethical to perform non-consentual sexual activities. That of course depends on views of consent.
6. Maybe. In a society where omnivorism is no longer essential to survive, that argument fails. Rape is natural and id would compel us to perform it. However, since it is no longer needed for survival, it has become unethical. So the question has to be asked, Do we need to consume animals?
7.No need. People are not naturally inclined to murder. If we addressed the causes of murder, then we wouldn't need gun control.
8. No. Never.
9.By your logic.. then so are miscarriages. It depends on your view of what is consciousness
10. yes.
Notice that I used ethics instead of morals. Morals are set by religion. Ethics are set by society.
2. Yes, however special rights are debatable. Some say that laws protecting from discrimination is a form of special rights. While this is not my position, you still need to define if it is equality guaranteed under law, or equality naturally formed without enforcement
3. No. Defiantly no. A good outcome coming from unethical methods are still unethical. Saying the ends justify the means leaves any behavior open. For example, you nuke the middle east. You would have peace in the middle east, but the cost to obtain that method of peace does not justify the result.
4. Debatable. While some services naturally improve the standards of living for a country, it is debatable whether government or private industry should provide them. One might provide it more efficiently. Providing education and health care is necessary for a country to have a high standard of living. Some system is needed to insure that nobody is left out of an education. However, that system could be provided by a non-profit corporation. As long as nobody is denied education or health care because of social or economic status.
5. Vague and arguable. Is it not right for a parent to force their child to eat their vegetables? It is certainly not ethical to perform non-consentual sexual activities. That of course depends on views of consent.
6. Maybe. In a society where omnivorism is no longer essential to survive, that argument fails. Rape is natural and id would compel us to perform it. However, since it is no longer needed for survival, it has become unethical. So the question has to be asked, Do we need to consume animals?
7.No need. People are not naturally inclined to murder. If we addressed the causes of murder, then we wouldn't need gun control.
8. No. Never.
9.By your logic.. then so are miscarriages. It depends on your view of what is consciousness
10. yes.
Notice that I used ethics instead of morals. Morals are set by religion. Ethics are set by society.
1. Depends.
2. Yes. Too bad it isnt done.
3. Too vague. Depends on situation. Orbital laser to get some cheese is a bit of an overkill after all.
4. Hell yes.
5. I can still prank you. And it depends on a whole lot of things, but i would say that "generally" you would want to ask permission first.
6. Yes, but we can be smart about it and not overuse/misuse the ressource. How about eating bugs? Or more greens? Or just eat less crap?
7. Yes. Just yes. Guns are lame anyway.
8. Nope. Hell no.
9. Hell no. If abortion is murder.. then is miscariage murder? What if medical reason forced a "miscariage"?
10. Yes.
2. Yes. Too bad it isnt done.
3. Too vague. Depends on situation. Orbital laser to get some cheese is a bit of an overkill after all.
4. Hell yes.
5. I can still prank you. And it depends on a whole lot of things, but i would say that "generally" you would want to ask permission first.
6. Yes, but we can be smart about it and not overuse/misuse the ressource. How about eating bugs? Or more greens? Or just eat less crap?
7. Yes. Just yes. Guns are lame anyway.
8. Nope. Hell no.
9. Hell no. If abortion is murder.. then is miscariage murder? What if medical reason forced a "miscariage"?
10. Yes.
1. How in the hell is taxation voluntary? Please point me in the direction of a country where the government is not constantly stealing from you and I'll be on my way. Also for the record I have no problem with repossession (unless of course it's the government repossessing stuff for failure to pay tax). Repo isn't taking someone else's property, it's taking your own property BACK as per a prior agreement between individuals. Borrowing stuff and not paying it back makes YOU the thief.jh322 said:
7. It certainly worked well in Nazi Germany, China, the Soviet Union, Armenia, etc. Gun control may appear to work well now. It may even amount to less deaths at this particular moment. However, I give the UK and Australian cops maybe 10 years before they realize they can do anything they want without consequences, and start murdering women an children in the street for fun.
OK so I looked through this
Lol, basically, in order to fit intuitionism I would need to solve meta-ethics.
Good luck with that one pal, not many people are pure teleos or deontological.
I accept that there's this void that no person, none at all, have managed to clearly rationalise or define. Doesn't mean I'm contradictory.
A clever trap, though!
While I agree that gun control's dangerous, I disagree with the principles you put forward. For the love of god can we not avoid a Reductio Ad Hitlerum at all? Jesus. That doesn't address anything though, it's just lazy and boring. Whether or not the ends could justify the means later on in the future doesn't seem relevant, it's more to do with the contradiction of promoting liberty and preventing people from protecting themselves (I'm looking at you, "Liberal" thinkers!).
Also I highly doubt the UK police will go rogue in 10 years. I'll put a lot of money down on this, if you're willing. Police aren't bad people, they're just guys there for a job. If you gave everyone a rifle some crazy fucker might shoot the place up, but it's not like we're holding everyone back from self destruction.
Lol, basically, in order to fit intuitionism I would need to solve meta-ethics.
Good luck with that one pal, not many people are pure teleos or deontological.
I accept that there's this void that no person, none at all, have managed to clearly rationalise or define. Doesn't mean I'm contradictory.
A clever trap, though!
Taxation is a necessity of a government. The choice you are offered is to drop everything and live without governance.radioactive lemur said:
While I agree that gun control's dangerous, I disagree with the principles you put forward. For the love of god can we not avoid a Reductio Ad Hitlerum at all? Jesus. That doesn't address anything though, it's just lazy and boring. Whether or not the ends could justify the means later on in the future doesn't seem relevant, it's more to do with the contradiction of promoting liberty and preventing people from protecting themselves (I'm looking at you, "Liberal" thinkers!).
Also I highly doubt the UK police will go rogue in 10 years. I'll put a lot of money down on this, if you're willing. Police aren't bad people, they're just guys there for a job. If you gave everyone a rifle some crazy fucker might shoot the place up, but it's not like we're holding everyone back from self destruction.