Pages: 1 2 [3] 
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: What is a SIN? (Read 12306 times)
|
|
FreedomFred
|
The obvious question is how can we be sure that our PBI matches closely with ABI? That simple question carries you straight into the center of epistemology, but it's a good and necessary question to ask. And we will probably never agree on that determination, either.
Exactly. But I do believe we can come to agreement. More importantly we MUST come to agreement. If my PBI causes destruction in any manner to the ABI maybe it's time to rethink it. By not rethinking it I'm claiming myself more important than humanity as a whole. This is wrong, or I prefer, bad. At times behavior's effects on others is not clear. You can ask yourself "what if everyone did it?" For instance: I throw my empty coffee cup out the window. I can justify it by saying "it's just one cup and it's biodegradable anyway" What if everyone did that? I think the "what if everyone did that?" argument to be weak because it'll almost never be the case that "everyone will do it". Speaking of throwing stuff out of the window, many smokers toss their cigarette butts out of the window despite having ashtrays in their cars to dispense of these NON-biodegradable things, and it just looks disgusting, especially when the rain and water over time washes all these non-biodegradable butts into one place, like along the curb, etc. Leaving their mess for someone else to clean up. Well, let's just throw any littering of anything non-biodegradable into the mix. It is in the Actual Best Interest of libertarian-minded to not do this, since it will only cause public works to spend money -- your tax dollars -- to clean the mess up, and thus gives greater justification for the government -- local and State in this case -- to keep the tax gun pointed at all of our heads. So that's the ABI. The PBI is that you don't have to deal with a messy ashtray or a car full of trash at the end of the day. But really, do you really want to see your neighborhood all trashed up or get ripped for even more taxes to have it cleaned up when all you had to do is not toss it on the road? I would like to think we can come to an agreement on the ABI here, but the rather heated discussion I had with some of the smokers here in this forum a while back tells me otherwise.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
PJM
 Offline
Posts: 35
choosing to live
|
The "what if everyone did it" question merely identifies what the effects may be on society as a whole. I don't think everyone needs to do something to determine that. I don't believe many people condoned throwing cig butts out the window. I have been guilty of that and now I'll rethink it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mdj
|
Aye... but God is love. What then? How do we legislate love?
Well said. How do we legislate love? No idea here. But in our flawed way of thinking of our present systems perhaps we can somehow mandate it. I understand the need to get away from laws of anykind, but since they aren't going away anytime soon we could replace them not with punitive varieties but with something else. Make it the law to help a little old lady cross the street or something. Anything at least in the right direction I would be willing to compromise on. edit: before anyone attacks me for that I am merely saying that a non-punitive system would be better than our present one. Plus there was some sarcasm too. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 07, 2010, 10:28:25 am by Mdj »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BagOfEyebrows
|
And it doesn't help that completely immoral behavior has been deemed, 'supremely', by mankind as 'legal', or, to put it another way, cited as 'morally justified' - academia sure has led to an egotistical and hostile regime over mankind's hearts and minds. I'm sickened by the ethical codes of atheists being imposed upon me just as I am by the ethical codes of certain Catholic religous sectors I find to be offensive and immoral being imposed upon me. Live by your ethical code, and pay for its administration, and leave me to me and mine. Ya know? I'll agree to be moral - I'll agree to do my best to not infringe on other people's rights - but I will not agree to live by any ethical code or 'ruling' that is in direct conflict with the laws of morality.
What "ethical codes" are we Atheists imposing on you? In case you haven't noticed, there is still a strong resentment against Atheists in the general "believing" public, and very few of us, if any, are ever elected to office. Our government is driven and influenced largely by Christian morals and sentiment, in case you haven't noticed. Only in recent times have some of the worst of that influence been removed, but Adultery, for instance, is still illegal in New Hampshire regardless if the other spouse consents or not. Swearing to "God" is still practice in courts, though surprisingly I've started seeing less of this, and only VERY recently, as within the past 4 years or so. It still says "In God We Trust" on all the fiat currency. And various religious customs are still practices in many public schools around the country despite the "separation" of Church and State. We Atheists have very little political clout in this country, as is demonstrated by the fact that George Bush Sr. got away with saying "Atheist do not deserved to be citizens of this country". The day we are in a position to "impose our ethical codes" on you, if we have any, would be a truly remarkable day indeed. But then let's talk about that. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in any deities. As a group, that's the only common thing we have. There is no common set of "ethical code" among us. We, like Libertarians, tend to be very individualistic and free-thinking. very anti-Collectivist and the like. We have no common set of "ethical codes" as a collective group. Abortion is deemed 'legal' (re: MORALLY JUSTIFIED) on a federal level - this irritates the hell out of me, and I'M PRO-CHOICE! (not to suggest that all atheists are pro-choice and that it was the atheist's doing, but it certainly wasn't the pro-life Catholics and Christians who influenced that ruling with their ethical codes...) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BagOfEyebrows
|
Aye... but God is love. What then? How do we legislate love?
Well said. How do we legislate love? No idea here. But in our flawed way of thinking of our present systems perhaps we can somehow mandate it. I understand the need to get away from laws of anykind, but since they aren't going away anytime soon we could replace them not with punitive varieties but with something else. Make it the law to help a little old lady cross the street or something. Anything at least in the right direction I would be willing to compromise on. edit: before anyone attacks me for that I am merely saying that a non-punitive system would be better than our present one. Plus there was some sarcasm too. I don't mind rules, I'm actually pretty partial to them - I like to know what the expectations are - but I've already got a simplified little code I live by and when folks try to tinker with the details of every human interaction, including my own, and when it conflicts with the code of morality - that's when I go "WHOAH! WTF!!" Some town making a law that one must help little old ladies cross streets without punishment if one didn't would be amazingly humorous to me... as well as horrifyingly heartbreaking. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ed
|
Abortion is deemed 'legal' (re: MORALLY JUSTIFIED Poppycock. Nobody ever said that legality implies morality. The law makes no such presumption. Legislators speak morally when passing laws. But the law is only concerned with whether things are legal or not, it says nothing about whether they are moral. There is a general consensus among most people that governments do morally have the right to make laws, within reason. And that said laws should be followed, for the most part. That is, you shouldn't expect to be able to do whatever you want in clear violation of the law, when your violation is indeed clear. e.g. I think drug legalization is certainly worth a try at some point in the future if it's set up right, but that doesn't mean the Free Keeners aren't being comnplete asses. Or, I think having building codes seems reasonable, but if a homeowner wants to do his own thing with his own signle family home where he only risks his own life and his own family's lives, then that's fine, not to mention that the codes might not always be clear between the code enforcers and the state and the feds. Furthermore, most people see a difference between what might be theoretically right, and how we can actually create a more libertarian (classical liberal) world, in the context of the limitations of laws, courts, and other human institutions. E.g. Rand Paul and the Civil Rights Act. A lot of libertarians can't seem to grasp these distinctions. And that has a lot to do with why they so often fall into saying silly and stupid things, and eventually into full-on jackassitude. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ed
|
to further elaborate in the context of the original example, the Supreme Courts ruling in Roe v. Wade, made no direct moral claims, like most other court rulings. It only made rulings on what is or is not legitimate in the context of the state's police power, and what might be it's legitimate interests. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v_wadeRead the first paragraph, that's a good summary. By the same token, a court also recently ruled against a town's (somewhere in the South, I think) complete ban on tattoo parlors. The court said that the town's complete ban was overstepping its bounds with a complete ban. Usually it's reasonable for a town to regulate "Manner, time, and place" - but they found a complete ban was unreasonable, was going beyond its legitimate police powers. None of this says anything about what governments should within those bounds of power. Different states and towns, and different political movements have different ideas about that. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
