Anda di halaman 1dari 28

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 5:26 AM

Shall we debate socialism?

Union - Today at 5:26 AM

The goal of socialism is communism

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 5:27 AM

First of all: who owns your body?

Union - Today at 5:28 AM

God

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 5:28 AM

Oh dear.

Rough start.

Union - Today at 5:28 AM

Dude I'm kidding

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 5:28 AM

Good

Union - Today at 5:28 AM

God doesn't approve of me

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 5:28 AM

So, seriously.

Who?

Shush - Today at 5:28 AM

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/324293687137796097/354254733776519169/chart.p
ng

Mine

Union - Today at 5:29 AM


You do

Phantom - Today at 5:29 AM

You do.

Union - Today at 5:29 AM

I can't send pictures:stuck_out_tongue:

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 5:29 AM

The self; the consciousness, right?

Good.

So, with that in mind, can you agree that no one else owns you?

Union - Today at 5:29 AM

No

Phantom - Today at 5:29 AM

Not quite?

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 5:29 AM

You being an 18 year old man.

Union - Today at 5:29 AM

You are being restricted and governed by the government

Phantom - Today at 5:30 AM

Granted, I'm military.

Whoa, children are not owned by their parents.

Union - Today at 5:30 AM

You can't get arrested for murder and say 'its my body'

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 5:30 AM

No, that's someone else's body

That you are violating


Union - Today at 5:30 AM

But it's your body they're handling

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 5:31 AM

That's irrelavant to this, for now. We're talking about just your body.

Only you own it, right?

Phantom - Today at 5:31 AM

Bodily autonomy itself isn't necessarily violated by detainment. You might argue that another
basic right might be.

Union - Today at 5:31 AM

If you murder someone you have very few rights besides the legal ones

Shush - Today at 5:33 AM

It depends on who you ask if you ask the question as to who owns it

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 5:33 AM

Stop triggering me with these strawmans

I'm asking you who owns your body.

That's it

Shush - Today at 5:33 AM

Its a more complicated question than youd figure

Because theres no legal ownership of a body

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 5:34 AM

Who should own your body?

Union - Today at 5:34 AM

You we've already answered

Shush - Today at 5:34 AM

That is highly dependant on who you ask

Some people may say god owns your body and you just borrow it from him
Union - Today at 5:34 AM

Now what if you ask a person that is enslaved

Shush - Today at 5:34 AM

And therefore you may not alter it

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 5:36 AM

You guys are the worst

honestly xD

Union - Today at 5:36 AM

We are

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 5:37 AM

Besides God or any other non-provable entities, we can agree that you own your body, and no
one else, right?

Union - Today at 5:37 AM

We've already answered that like three times

Shush - Today at 5:37 AM

I dont think one legally owns their own body(edited)

if you look at current laws

I dont think it specifies ownership(edited)

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 5:38 AM

But they should do

Is what I'm saying

Shush - Today at 5:39 AM

I dont think theres a need for such legal framework

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 5:39 AM

So slavery is ok?

Shush - Today at 5:39 AM


Im not saying that

You are

slavery is banned specifically

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 5:39 AM

Either you own yourself, or you are free to be exploited by anyone.

Shush - Today at 5:39 AM

That is untrue

Union - Today at 5:40 AM

Shush - Today at 5:40 AM

Some things just do not belong to anyone

Its deliberatly vague in law

I gather

Union - Today at 5:40 AM

"pimpin' ain't easy"

Phantom - Today at 5:40 AM

I think it's probably significant, philosophically, that I'm framing the question in terms of bodily
autonomy and not of ownership. I'm not entirely convinced the idea of owning one's own
person in the same sense that one owns a piece of property is even coherent. My flesh and bone
is mine in the sense that it is a part of me, at the very least in a practical sense that doesn't really
interact with "I am not my body" mindsets. The objects surrounding me in my room are mine in
the sense that I am considered to have certain kinds of authority over and responsibility for
them to various degrees by law and convention. I'm trying to say this without getting bogged
down in the boundaries of self or questions of person-hood.

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 5:40 AM

This isn't about law; this is about philosophy

Union - Today at 5:41 AM

If it's attached to you it's yours


ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 5:41 AM

You own yourself, thus no-one else has a right to exploit you or use you as they wish.

Shush - Today at 5:41 AM

It is yours as in it is part of the menifestation that you call you, yes.

Union - Today at 5:41 AM

Someone can't just rip out your kidneys while you're awake and aware of it without being
restrained

Phantom - Today at 5:42 AM

At least, I'd argue that the "ownership" I have over my right hand is fundamentally different from
the "ownership" I claim over my laptop or the books on my shelf.

Shush - Today at 5:42 AM

But as in ownership that doesnt make much sense

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 5:42 AM

With that being said, no one can tell you what to do with your body, as it belongs to you and no
one else.

Shush - Today at 5:42 AM

Thats a whole different conversation Luz

Union - Today at 5:42 AM

So what you're saying @ℓυz яαρσѕα is you shouldn't follow laws

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 5:42 AM

No

Union - Today at 5:42 AM

Yes

"With that being said, no one can tell you what to do with your body, as it belongs to you and no
one else."

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 5:43 AM

I'm saying the only real law is to not prevent anyone else from doing what they want to do with
their property.

Union - Today at 5:43 AM

You sound like an anarchist ngl

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 5:43 AM

I'm almost an anarchist.

But I'm also not insane.

Shush - Today at 5:44 AM

I dont believe in anarchism

Nor any of its offshoots

Phantom - Today at 5:44 AM

Ah. No, I absolutely disagree with that. The foundation for bodily autonomy does not rest in
property rights.

Shush - Today at 5:44 AM

Autonomy is a whole different conversation as to ownership

Yes, only you may decide what happens to your body or those you entrust with the power to
make choices on your behalf.

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 5:45 AM

Can we at least agree that you can own things, and that, when you own something, it is yours
and only yours?

ShellNotSpeak - Today at 5:45 AM

my staff team are agureeing..

Shush - Today at 5:45 AM

Shared property?

ShellNotSpeak - Today at 5:45 AM

What shell do...

Y~Y
ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 5:46 AM

Only voluntarily, Shush.

Phantom - Today at 5:46 AM

Not really. Not as a fundamental conceit.

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 5:46 AM

No forced-sharing.

Union - Today at 5:46 AM

We aren't arguing we're debating

Shush - Today at 5:46 AM

Sometimes things need to be coerced(edited)

ShellNotSpeak - Today at 5:46 AM

Union - Today at 5:46 AM

@ShellNotSpeak

ShellNotSpeak - Today at 5:46 AM

shell ok with that

Union - Today at 5:47 AM

My little pony is better as our little pony

Shush - Today at 5:47 AM

I dont really like dealing in absolutes when talking about reality, there is always some grey area

Union - Today at 5:47 AM

Comnism

Shush - Today at 5:47 AM

MLP is terrible and you know it.

Union - Today at 5:47 AM


You right

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 5:49 AM

I'm sort of stuck now, since I've never met anyone who disagrees with the fact that no one but
yourself owns your body.

It seems so ludicrous to me.

Shush - Today at 5:50 AM

Well if I want to cut my arm off I shouldnt be able to be allowed to do such a thing

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 5:50 AM

Why?

It's your body.

Shush - Today at 5:50 AM

Because thats lunacy

those people clearly need mental aid

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 5:50 AM

But why does anyone have a right to stop you?

Shush - Today at 5:50 AM

And not a bonesaw

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 5:50 AM

They have a right to help you.

But not to use force.

Shush - Today at 5:51 AM

Same reason you shouldnt push people who are on the ledge of a sky scraper

You dont allow others to engage in self destructive actions of such magnitudes(edited)

If force is needed, so be it.

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 5:52 AM

I would allow anyone to engage in whatever they want, as long as they aren't preventing anyone
else from doing the same.

If they want to commit suicide, let them.

Shush - Today at 5:52 AM

Ive had to physically remove a knife from someone once wanting to end it

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 5:52 AM

Persuade them otherwise, obviously.

Shush - Today at 5:53 AM

They werent very happy with me, at first anyway.

sometimes people need protection from themselves

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 5:54 AM

I would have to disagree. Without the ability to do what you want with your own body, there is
no freedom.

Shush - Today at 5:54 AM

your version of freedom is very much focused on just yourself and not the people around you or
the effects you may have on them

You dont only have a responsibility towards yourself but also to the people who love and care for
you

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 5:55 AM

I'm not saying you shouldn't try to help them in every way possible; I'm saying you shouldn't
force them not to, or use aggression to prevent them from doing what they want to do.

Unless, of course, what they want to do prevents others from doing the same.

Shush - Today at 5:56 AM

If I have to physically restrain someone or even injure them to have them not kill themselves due
to a sudden bout of manic depression there is only one choice and thats to not allow them to do
it

Union - Today at 5:57 AM

If someone wants to commit suicide you should help then even if it means dragging them off the
dang ledge and to safety
Their life matters as much as yours

Phantom - Today at 5:57 AM

Most of what I disagree with is speaking as if property rights are something fundamental, or as if
it's reasonable to equate one's relationship to their own body and person with their relationship
to property. Claiming a physical object as "mine" is an arbitrary concept and the exact
implications of that claim vary wildly depending on specific laws and conventions. There are
languages in which the concept of property and ownership simply don't exist- the words that
translate into "mine" and "yours" are strictly relational, as in "my body," "my thoughts," "my
relative," with such ideas as "my rock," "my tool," "my land," being foreign to the language and
likely a bit absurd to the people who developed it.

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 5:57 AM

Yes, but their choice and ability to end their own life also matters.

Union - Today at 5:57 AM

Did you c&p that lol

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 5:57 AM

Their body is theirs.

Phantom - Today at 5:57 AM

....I've been typing.

Shush - Today at 5:57 AM

Yes people should be able to take their own lives

But after months of consideration

Union - Today at 5:57 AM

It's their choice but it's your responsibility to help them as a good citizen

Shush - Today at 5:57 AM

Not mere minutes

And under guidance of a psychologist

Union - Today at 5:58 AM

Because things get better and they don't know that yet
ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 5:58 AM

So, you're only allowed to commit suicide if you suffer an extra month or so?

Shush - Today at 5:58 AM

Yes

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 5:59 AM

What about people in severe agony who would prefer to die than feel more pain?

Shush - Today at 5:59 AM

What does an extra month matter when youll kill yourself anyway

Thats what doctor assisted suicide is for(edited)

Shush - Today at 6:00 AM

I am not against euthanasia

But there needs to be proper reasoning and logical thinking behind it

Not mere whims

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 6:01 AM

Why, though? They only have a right to do what they want with their body if you think it's
acceptable?

Phantom - Today at 6:01 AM

I'm not sure I'm comfortable even touching on the Right to Die question, honestly, but I do think
the degree of personal freedom you describe is extreme, Luz(?). Even most actual right to die
advocates don't believe suicide should always be facilitated. I say this as someone who's been a
victim of psychiatric abuse and faced involuntary detainment and the loss of bodily autonomy in
the form of forced injections.

Shush - Today at 6:01 AM

Let me put it like this.

I would have 5 dead friends if it were for your views to be codified into law

Instead I now have 5 happy friends who are happy they got talked out of ending it all

Logic and reasoning before emotion


Science tells us depression is usually not chronic and even if chronic able to be treated with
medications.(edited)

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 6:03 AM

So, 5 anecdotes is enough for you to be able to tell people what they can / cannot do with their
body?

Shush - Today at 6:03 AM

Not just 5 anecdotes.

Also clinical science

Phantom - Today at 6:04 AM

I don't think we've come anywhere close to establishing what a person's rights over their own
body actually consist of, Luz. You phrase it very simply as a fundamental rule that people should
be allowed to do whatever they want with their own bodies, but so far I think you're the only
one here who actually thinks it can be boiled down to that one law.

Shush - Today at 6:04 AM

There has been studies done on this

And if you want to just put away proper science because of your feeling of right and wrong be
my guest.

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 6:05 AM

Yes, I can agree Phantom. This debate was supposed to be about socialism, but somehow you
people are all anti-freedom.

Shush - Today at 6:05 AM

Freedom is relative

Full freedom would also be freedom to kill and rape.

Yet those choices are not viable because we get detained.

ShellNotSpeak - Today at 6:06 AM

there is slab city..

That is a free place.

Where there is no rules..


Just alot of stealing happens

Shush - Today at 6:06 AM

So would you argue any rule of law to be inherently against freedom?

ShellNotSpeak - Today at 6:06 AM

Its pretty mad max like its seems cule..

It is yes.. Rules is inherently against free will..

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 6:07 AM

The only law I support is that of natural law and the NAP.

ShellNotSpeak - Today at 6:07 AM

Its a soical thing pushed on most humans..

Phantom - Today at 6:07 AM

What is natural law in this context?

ShellNotSpeak - Today at 6:07 AM

So we act on behaif of the whole.. an d not the one..

Shush - Today at 6:07 AM

Define it.

Phantom - Today at 6:07 AM

NAP?

Shush - Today at 6:07 AM

Non Agression Principle(edited)

ShellNotSpeak - Today at 6:08 AM

Well again..

Look at slab city..

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 6:08 AM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-rights_libertarianism
Natural-rights libertarianism

Natural-rights libertarianism, also known as deontological libertarianism, philosophical


libertarianism, deontological liberalism, rights-theorist libertarianism, natural rights-based
libertarianism, or libertarian moralism, refers to the view th...

ShellNotSpeak - Today at 6:08 AM

Worst thing happen is stealing..

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 6:08 AM

Stealing violates the NAP

I'm not an AnCom

ShellNotSpeak - Today at 6:08 AM

Slab city does not have any rules..

Shush - Today at 6:08 AM

Does it violate it though?

Because its not physical harm

ShellNotSpeak - Today at 6:08 AM

Legit is rule free so a non agresstion pol is non in effect in there

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 6:09 AM

It's force against another's property.

Yeah, Slab City is ancom

ShellNotSpeak - Today at 6:09 AM

Its my party and ill cry if i want to..

>;

Shush - Today at 6:09 AM

But you say you believe in the law of nature

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 6:09 AM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-rights_libertarianism
Natural-rights libertarianism

Natural-rights libertarianism, also known as deontological libertarianism, philosophical


libertarianism, deontological liberalism, rights-theorist libertarianism, natural rights-based
libertarianism, or libertarian moralism, refers to the view th...

Natural Law

ShellNotSpeak - Today at 6:09 AM

pesonally i want to go to SC but mikes like

NOPE

fuck that shit

lol

mostly because people tend to get stuck there..

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 6:10 AM

Slab City is anarchism without capitalism.

Union - Today at 6:11 AM

SC is right beside my state and it is amazing

Shush - Today at 6:11 AM

Capitalism is one of the most successful systems we have ever tried especially mixed with
restrictions on the free market

Union - Today at 6:11 AM

Communism is good on paper

But people take advantage of it

Shush - Today at 6:11 AM

Tell that the dead peasants

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 6:11 AM

Indeed

Union - Today at 6:11 AM

I can't they're dead


ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 6:12 AM

Communism is far too idealistic

Union - Today at 6:12 AM

And that wasn't true communism

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 6:12 AM

Same with socialism

Shush - Today at 6:12 AM

Same with your wing of libertarianism

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 6:12 AM

How so?(edited)

Shush - Today at 6:12 AM

the NAP is against nature basically

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 6:12 AM

How

It's the most natural law in existence lol

Shush - Today at 6:13 AM

It is not

Not every animal is a cow

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 6:13 AM

Laws are supposed to protect freedom

That is their purpose

Shush - Today at 6:13 AM

Laws make sure you cant encroach on another's freedom

Freedom through leglislation is certainly a thing


Phantom - Today at 6:14 AM

You have the right to do what you want with your own property, including your body, in your
expression (what I would describe very differently as bodily autonomy), so long as you do not
directly violate the same right in another, right? But taking that as a fundamental rule, or even
the only rule, doesn't actually leave you with a coherent system for gauging the validity of a
person's claim to ownership over something. You take it as fundamental that a person
unquestionably has ownership over their own body, which sounds more than reasonable on the
face of it- but bodily autonomy is complicated. Exactly when does a child gain the right to refuse
a medical procedure? Exactly when does a guardian lose the right to make medical decisions for
a child? The particular age you choose will always be arbitrary, somewhere after being physically
incapable of making decisions because you're an infant is an easy ballpark, but you're left with
finding a point you happen to be comfortable with after that.

Laws have many purposes.

Shush - Today at 6:14 AM

Luz, you use too many blanket statements.

A lot of things are multi-faceted

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 6:15 AM

@Phantom Normally around 16

Phantom - Today at 6:15 AM

Why that age?

Shush - Today at 6:15 AM

Why not 14?

Phantom - Today at 6:15 AM

Which medical decisions should a thirteen year old be allowed to make? Which ones should a
parent be allowed to make for an infant?

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 6:16 AM

The argument here is, at what point does a child become fully in control of themselves.

Phantom - Today at 6:16 AM

No, because that's nonsense.

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 6:17 AM


I would base it upon science and case studies, personally; the age at which people are most
capable of making decisions for themselves seems appropriate to me.

Shush - Today at 6:18 AM

Historically the age has been 14 in nordic culture if Im not mistaken

and 12 elsewhere

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 6:18 AM

Again, it's better to base it off of case studies, etc.

Shush - Today at 6:18 AM

But I am not sure on those numbers so take them with a grain of salt

Union - Today at 6:20 AM

Phantom is still on the owning your own body thing lol

Phantom - Today at 6:21 AM

Infants aren't in control of themselves because they're still learning basic motor skills. Toddlers
are more in control of themselves because they've got some motor skills and a better
understanding of the world. Thirteen year olds generally have most of the broad control over
their own bodies you'd expect from a healthy adult. You want to go with the age where you're
most capable of making decisions for yourself? Fine. That'll be sometime much later into
adulthood, which probably changes the question to exactly how old is too old for a caretaker to
be making medical decisions in their name?

Shush - Today at 6:21 AM

13 year olds are fine motorfunction wise but their brain isnt done devloping yet

They cannot make long term plans or make proper risk-benefit analyisis

Phantom - Today at 6:23 AM

You can say you'll base it on case studies and research, but that doesn't solve the problem. There
isn't a great answer, because the point you're looking for is a nebulous, arbitrary one- the age
where we feel comfortable granting that person full bodily autonomy.

Shush - Today at 6:23 AM

And let me say this, be very careful about wanting to change everything, theres a reason some
things have taken hundreds of years to get just right, and assuming you can do better straight off
the bat is quite some claim.
ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 6:24 AM

I'm no expert on this, nor do I claim to be, but I would base it on the age at which they are most
capable of making choices for themselves.(edited)

Shush - Today at 6:24 AM

That would technically be someone past the age of 23

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 6:24 AM

Within reason

Shush - Today at 6:24 AM

Isnt that reasonable?

Phantom - Today at 6:24 AM

That will be late into what we consider adulthood, accounting for development as a person as
well as brain development, yeah.

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 6:25 AM

I don't know, actually. I haven't given this much thought, before.

Shush - Today at 6:25 AM

Science says out ability to make long term plans finishes developing around 23 years of age

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 6:25 AM

I'll look into it.

Phantom - Today at 6:26 AM

You're talking about brain development, but it's also a learned skill people develop to different
degrees at different points in life.

Shush - Today at 6:26 AM

True, but we need a hamfisted one size fits all kind of deal dont we?

Phantom - Today at 6:26 AM

I'm not suggesting any radical changes. (Though I think it's just as wild to assume that we arrived
where we are as much through fine tuning as random cultural shifts.) I'm criticizing what sounds
like a moral philosophy built on an oversimplified foundation.
Shush - Today at 6:27 AM

Is it perfect, no. Is it useful, not very. Does it work? Well enough.

Phantom - Today at 6:27 AM

We probably do. My point is that it doesn't sound like any such solution can be compatible with
the philosophy Luz has described.

Sorry if that seems circuitous.

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 6:28 AM

Well, my philosophy is based off of an Alan Watts style absurdism, and existentialism.

Shush - Today at 6:28 AM

No I agree with you.

Absurdism doesnt get you very far when talking to realists.

ShellNotSpeak - Today at 6:29 AM

everyone having a meaningful talk and im just hear playing sax >;

Shush - Today at 6:29 AM

There is a reality we need to confine to, and it might be inconvenient and messy

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 6:29 AM

Indeed.

Existentialism is based off of what we can prove, after making assumptions, such as how models
with predictive capabilities are more useful than those without.

The most basic example is the self's existence.

The self exists, as a product of biology and environment.

Alongside this, we know that the self can feel both negative and positive emotions.

Thus, our purpose is to maximise the positive ones.

Phantom - Today at 6:32 AM

That sounds more like utilitarianism.

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 6:32 AM


The best way of achieving this is with the NAP

I can't prove that anyone else experiences consciousness in the same way that I do

But I can prove that, by respecting the NAP, I can do what I want, without aggression or force
preventing me from doing so.

So long as I allow the same for others.

Phantom - Today at 6:34 AM

It’s a concession most functional world views have to be built on, however.

I’m still wary of the natural rights you keep referring to. I’m unfamiliar with what they specifically
are and that’s why I haven’t said more, but appeals to nature are a flaming red flag to me.

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 6:38 AM

Ok, what I'm suggesting is that, you have the ability to own things, including your physical body.
With this comes the ability to do as you please with your things, so long as you don't prevent
others from doing the same.

Force, aggression, etc, all violate this, thus are disallowed.

Phantom - Today at 6:43 AM

The ability to own things other than your body is a product of social convention and acceptance,
though, and hasn’t even existed as a concept in every culture. That doesn’t invalidate the utility
of what you’re saying, but I feel like we ought to be able to agree that describing it as natural is
questionable?

Another thing that bothers me is that this framework doesn’t seem to leave room for moral
obligation whatsoever. Is that correct?

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 6:44 AM

Call it what you will; 'natural' primarily refers to the self's ownership of the body, such is the
mechanism of the self.

What do you mean by moral obligation?

Phantom - Today at 6:45 AM

When are you obligated to take positive action, as opposed to being obligated not to do
something?
When is there a moral obligation to provide aid to another?

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 6:46 AM

Ah, I see what you mean.

I'd reccomend you read Richard Dawkin's 'The Selfish Gene'

Aid and morality is itself inherently selfish

Union - Today at 6:46 AM

I thought you said Darwin:joy::joy::joy:

I was like wt

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 6:47 AM

Not to mention it is also subjective.

Phantom - Today at 6:48 AM

I'm familiar with the notion. I'm not sure I agree at all, but I feel like that's beside the point. I'm
asking if I'm correct in thinking the outlook you describe rejects obligation to aid others entirely.

And if not, when are those obligations justified, in that framework?

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 6:48 AM

People don't instantly lose all morality because of changes to the law.

Phantom - Today at 6:49 AM

I didn't suggest they do.

I also didn't restrict this to law- it sounded like you were presenting an ethical foundation
independent of the question of what the most pragmatic way to apply it as law would be.

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 6:50 AM

I suppose I was.

It is the philosophical basis of my pragmatism and political stance.

Phantom - Today at 6:52 AM

The way I'm asking that is a bit leading, and to an uncomfortable direction, sorry. More directly,
is the basis you describe inconsistent with the idea that a person has, in general or under specific
situations, an obligation to give positive aid to another?
ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 6:54 AM

The obligation wouldn't exactly change from what we have now, in theory.

Phantom - Today at 6:54 AM

Still sounds harsh wording it plainly. I promise I'm not asking because of the emotional weight
the answer can have, but because I think it's an important question that what you're describing
raises, and the answer to it is probably what makes the difference for a lot of people in whether
or not they can see it as an acceptable, functional framework. (On both sides.)

Right, I don't want to make an argument from an absurd perspective.

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 6:55 AM

Again, I really recommend that you have a look at 'The Selfish Gene'

You'll find that morality is based off of selfishness

And that selfishness is only human nature, but, when combined with pragmatism, results in
morality and 'empathy'.

Every action has a selfish cause.

Adnol - Today at 7:01 AM

"the selfish gene" is tl;dr

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 7:03 AM

I can't really summarise it

Phantom - Today at 7:03 AM

I'm not unfamiliar with the concept, and to be honest I consider it more than a little pedantic.
My compassion for the people I care about is fundamentally selfish because caring for them
satisfies both my innate, hard-wired impulses and needs, including needs for approval, and
socialized and chosen values. It's a step above wordplay because it's not entirely useless to
examine, but it also isn't particularly revelatory and doesn't really impact the ways we value
empathy and compassion or alter the meanings we apply to them as observers. Analyzing the
evolutionary cause for human behavior is generally orthogonal to the values and meanings we
place on those behaviors. But again, that's all tangential to my question.

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 7:03 AM

I won't be able to do it justice

Phantom - Today at 7:04 AM


And I don't want to be too leading in asking it, I understand that it's difficult to word it in a way
that doesn't come across harshly.

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 7:05 AM

With identified causes, however, you can see how such morals and ethics would not suddenly
change under this philosophy.

No?

Phantom - Today at 7:06 AM

I never suggested those behaviors would. But saying that those behaviors will occur anyway
sidesteps the question of whether those behaviors are ever ethically necessary in the ethical
framework you've provided.

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 7:07 AM

They are necessary in the sence that they are pragmatic

Phantom - Today at 7:08 AM

Arguable.

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 7:08 AM

For example, some big businesses paid for their worker's healthcare, in the past, not out of love
or compassion or emotion, but because it was pragmatic for them.

Phantom - Today at 7:08 AM

But you don't consider them to be as fundamental to this framework as valuing the freedom to
do so or not as one wishes.

I understand that.

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 7:10 AM

It is in our best interests, as individuals, knowing how we can experience both negative and
positive emotions, to try to prevent the former and minimise the latter.

Phantom - Today at 7:10 AM

It really is okay to say no. I get that these questions sound leading, and the question is impactul
to whether or not I can consider it a satisfactory framework, but there are other people I know
who would consider it just as impactul but in the opposite direction.

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 7:10 AM


Say it in simpler terms.

Phantom - Today at 7:10 AM

Yes. I understand this. Very few people would argue otherwise.

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 7:10 AM

Your use of larger words complicates it.(edited)

Phantom - Today at 7:11 AM

I'm choosing my words carefully to be specific. That's quite the opposite. But I'll try.

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 7:16 AM

"...this framework doesn’t seem to leave room for moral obligation whatsoever. Is that correct?"

Phantom - Today at 7:18 AM

To put it more simply, say there's a very young child in a community that's lost its parents.
Accept, for the sake of this example (to avoid an undue emotional weight to the argument) that
any reasonable expectation of human behavior will lead to someone in this community offering
some form of shelter, aid, and eventually guardianship to this child. The point I'm trying to clarify
is that the ethical framework you've presented is one where it is fundamentally, morally
necessary for that community to respect each others' freedom to do what they wish so long as
they aren't actively infringing on others- on the other hand, providing shelter and aid to this
child might be pragmatically necessary for a functioning society, might be something that would
simply happen anyway by any reasonable expectation of human behavior, but it is not a
fundamental moral necessity in the same way that respecting the autonomy of others is.

From my perspective, that still makes it entirely inadequate as an ethical framework. I do


understand and accept why others would see it as acceptable- I really did ask the original
question to clarify, not to lead.

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 7:20 AM

I'm not an ancap; I still believe that we need a government to supply and cater to the needs of
those in such a situation.

I sort of see what you mean.

Phantom - Today at 7:22 AM

As a matter of pragmatism, though.

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 7:22 AM


It isn't a necessity because you can't force anyone to do anything that they aren't willing to do.

However, pragmatism dictates that you should care for them, and, if not, the government would.

Phantom - Today at 7:23 AM

Right. I can understand, and respect that.

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 7:23 AM

The philosophy on its own implys that you ought to, but you don't have to.(edited)

And, in practice, people still would.

Phantom - Today at 7:39 AM

I can see that a society built on this framework could be a functional one. I do still have to reject
it as a complete ethical foundation. I can't quite accept a moral outlook in which compassionate
action is relegated to a probable consequence of pragmatism. Part of that's probably because
I'm not quite utilitarian enough for it, but another part of it is skepticism. I recall multiple
conversations I've had with people who insisted that business owners should be free to refuse
service to anyone they want, for any reason, because anything else is an undue violation of their
freedoms. Always, this argument was accompanied by an explanation that no business could
deny service to members of a marginalized group and still be successful in a free market.(edited)

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 7:39 AM

tl;dr

Phantom - Today at 7:40 AM

That is shown to be false by so much as looking back at the reason those laws are in place today,
but I stumbled at the obvious answer because something else bothered me much more deeply
about the argument- even if it were true beyond a shadow of a doubt that allowing businesses
to engage in discriminatory practices would not actually result in any increase in discriminatory
action, the speaker still had to toss it in solely to pacify the listener after suggesting what is
essentially a moral framework in which the freedom to engage in discriminatory practices is a
more fundamental value than protecting members of marginalized groups from discrimination,
which is relegated to a matter of pragmatism- to something that will, in practice, happen
anyway. (Supposedly.)

Easier? d:

ℓυz яαρσѕα - Today at 7:40 AM

danke
Phantom - Today at 7:43 AM

My point is that I do understand why someone could accept this foundation, I hope you can see
why, from my perspective, it feels like it misses the mark regarding which principles ought to be
considered fundamental?(edited)