• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

morality

What is morality/


  • Total voters
    63
To stay free, the "strong-willed" have to protect freedom of the "weak". Choose your own value set, by all means - but keep it off my lawn.

Ah, I see. The mantra of the right-libertarian rings again: freedom - as long as it's acted out in a way I'm comfortable with.

We are free because there is no morality. The existence of any morality would deny us our freedom, including a morality which proposes the highest moral good is the freedom to choose.
 
We are free because there is no morality.

Nonsense. If there's no morality, nobody is free: If there's no morality, there's nothing wrong with any kind of oppression.
 
Wait a sec - - - you are not kidding? You are really serious?

Like, my "fixation with anti-communism" (thank you, by the way) is actually an instinctual program?
You think animals don't change their behavior based on their environment?!? :lol:
If you own a dog you ought to know better than that!


BTW - Any kind of fixation blinds you and you've given a good demonstration.
 
Last edited:
Nonsense. If there's no morality, nobody is free: If there's no morality, there's nothing wrong with any kind of oppression.

Bilge. If there's a morality, we must, on some level, "render unto Caesar". If there's no morality, resistance is not limited to the impotent passive argumentation of a Ghandi.

The NAP is so shot full of holes that there's an NRA emblem in its center.
 
To stay free, the "strong-willed" have to protect freedom of the "weak". Choose your own value set, by all means - but keep it off my lawn.
And yet many "values" of Libertarianism would throw the weak under the bus in the name of individual freedom. LOL!



PS
Einzige - I never mean Libertarian left when I use the term.
 
In fact, all conquering societies throughout history have done so in the name of some 'higher morality' or another: Communism claims to be a moral system as much as a scientific/tautological one, particularly in the form of Humanist Marxism.

Max Stirner (who, unlike our modern pissant 'individualists' who are always and everywhere afraid of their own freedom) had it exactly right: "I do not step shyly back from your property, but look upon it always as my property, in which I respect nothing. Pray do the like with what you call my property!"
 
And yet many "values" of Libertarianism would throw the weak under the bus in the name of individual freedom. LOL!.

I have seen buses crushing the weak (and the strong alike), up close and personal, thank you. They were not driven by libertarians of any sort, and their destination had nothing to do with individual freedom by any definition.
 
I have seen buses crushing the weak (and the strong alike), up close and personal, thank you. They were not driven by libertarians of any sort, and their destination had nothing to do with individual freedom by any definition.
Everything I've read of Libertarianism leads me to that conclusion. Oh, I know, your "high and moral" goals say it would be otherwise but I believe you guys need to read a little more about game theory. The world will not work out the way you think it will. Even if you had things your way, the people would not fall in line with your beliefs the way you envision.
 
Last edited:
Even if you had things your way, the people would not fall in line with your beliefs the way you envision.


The people do not have to fall in line - that's the whole point.

But never mind. "Everything you have read" leads you to (drumroll and fanfares) A CONCLUSION!
Everything real people lived through in the last century or so - ha! - water under the bridge.

It was a water of reddish hue - in large part because our great-great-grandfathers were also big on reading, and kind of slow on checking with reality and elementary logic.
 
Last edited:
do you believe their should be no moral code, at all....be it religious or secular?

as a libertarian, government has no authority to make people moral or immoral.

This thread is growing long in tooth, but if you browse back a little, you will see details of my position on this.

In a nutshell: There should be a moral code, and a very demanding one, based on freedom of choice as the central value.

It's not a question of government "making" people moral or immoral: government is there to enforce and inspect, not to preach or teach.

Liberalism (libertarianism) becomes an empty shell without its moral imperatives. Sure, one may prefer to emphasize the pragmatic side of libertarian thought: the "diversification of risk", the realization that no government, corporation or individual can have all information necessary for successful manipulation of systems as complex as human society or economy. But even then, you have a moral aspect to it: the pretended knowledge of central planners and social engineers is, basically, fraud. Combatting coercion and fraud is the essence of libertarianism.
 
In a nutshell: There should be a moral code, and a very demanding one, based on freedom of choice as the central value.

Great. My freedom of choice says you have no freedom to your choice. Now what?
 
The people do not have to fall in line - that's the whole point.
Yes, for your extremely minimalist government to work, they do.


PS
In a nutshell: There should be a moral code, and a very demanding one, based on freedom of choice as the central value.
And in your very next post, you prove it.
 
Last edited:
Great. My freedom of choice says you have no freedom to your choice. Now what?

Now nothing. Your freedom of choice should stop being an idiot.

(Your freedom of choice has nothing to do with my choices).
 
Last edited:
Yes, for your extremely minimalist government to work, they do.

This is not falling in line: this is agreeing that all are free to follow their own "lines". Does this freedom need to be guarded and defended? Of course.
 
This is not falling in line: this is agreeing that all are free to follow their own "lines". Does this freedom need to be guarded and defended? Of course.
And 200 years down the line, IF it even makes it that far, we'd be worse off than we are now. People aren't going to follow "a very demanding [moral code]" unless you're willing to - how do you guys put it? - initiate interpersonal violence to enforce it. What you're proposing is a pipe dream, especially if it relies on a moral code to succeed.
 
And 200 years down the line, IF it even makes it that far, we'd be worse off than we are now. People aren't going to follow "a very demanding [moral code]" unless you're willing to - how do you guys put it? - initiate interpersonal violence to enforce it. What you're proposing is a pipe dream, especially if it relies on a moral code to succeed.

Why granting others the same freedoms you value requires initiation of violence, I don't quite understand.

But in practical terms, you are obviously wrong. So far, historically, the more liberal (libertarian) society has been, the more stability and success it had enjoyed.
 
Why granting others the same freedoms you value requires initiation of violence, I don't quite understand.

But in practical terms, you are obviously wrong. So far, historically, the more liberal (libertarian) society has been, the more stability and success it had enjoyed.
No, I'm sure you don't or you wouldn't believe as you believe. How many times does the Bill of Rights go to court in this country? Hundreds of cases a day. Why is that, if it's so obvious?


Really? You can cite some examples but I'd bet you're wrong. According to that theory we should all be speaking Greek.
 
Last edited:
How many times does the Bill of Rights go to court in this country? Hundreds of cases a day. Why is that, if it's so obvious? .

And why does it win, over and over (although not always), if it is not?


Really? You can cite some examples but I'd bet you're wrong.

Really? I have to elaborate?

Compare Switzerland, Canada, America, Australia, Iceland, New Zealand, Denmark et al with any collectivist, anti-libertarian polity. Compare the progress Chile or Estonia made in the recent times with the lack thereof in Venezuela or Ukraine.

C'mon, is this even open to discussion?
 
According to that theory we should all be speaking Greek.

We kind of are.

A few years ago, I was visiting my friends in Tallinn. A bunch of loud Russians barge into the café, swearing in their native tongue. The waitress goes: "Hey, you, speak English! This is Estonia!"
 
Now nothing. Your freedom of choice should stop being an idiot.

(Your freedom of choice has nothing to do with my choices).

My freedom of choice could be rejecting your freedom of choice and vice versa.
 
I am late to the poll.

It is an extension of our emotional survival gear. A result of a necessity for our survival as social animals that eventually allowed us to thrive as social animals.

In a word - at its basal form - it is empathy.

Now how that empathy came to be is a fair point to argue. Personally i think it is a combination of both our evolutionary and social heritage. We are not the only animals to possess empathy.
 
Incorrect. I've consistently asked for evidence of your positive claim that objective morality exists. If it's truly objective then you should have plenty of objective evidence for it's existence.

"Can anyone prove that it doesn't exist? No." - That's either asking someone to chase teapots in orbit or it's stating the obvious, that there's never any way to prove something like this doesn't exist, which in no way promotes the case for it's existence.
When it comes to core values, neither side should be asking the other for proof.
 
Incorrect. I've consistently asked for evidence of your positive claim that objective morality exists. If it's truly objective then you should have plenty of objective evidence for it's existence.

"Can anyone prove that it doesn't exist? No." - That's either asking someone to chase teapots in orbit or it's stating the obvious, that there's never any way to prove something like this doesn't exist, which in no way promotes the case for it's existence.

there will be no proof because it in fact doesnt exists. I also have invited anybody who disagrees to bring forth factual proof. nobody has and nobody can.

Morals are subjective and this fact will never change.
 
And why does it win, over and over (although not always), if it is not?
You're the one that invoked morality as a requirement in the New Order, not me, then you asked why laws would be required to enforce it - and I answered. You can't take a moral stance or violation to court.

Really? I have to elaborate?

Compare Switzerland, Canada, America, Australia, Iceland, New Zealand, Denmark et al with any collectivist, anti-libertarian polity. Compare the progress Chile or Estonia made in the recent times with the lack thereof in Venezuela or Ukraine.

C'mon, is this even open to discussion?
Yes, you do (and it is open) because as I suspected you weren't really talking about "history" - you are talking about recent history. You're trying to use the last couple of hundred years to draw a conclusion about 10,000 years of civilization.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom