Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Poll

Are you more of a libertine or a responsibilitarian?

Libertine: "If I want to do something, it's right to do it, so long as it doesn't violate anyone else's rights."
Virtue libertarian: "Beyond not violating others' rights, people also have responsibilities and obligations that may override pure self-interest."

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 [8] 9   Go Down

Author Topic: Libertine or virtue libertarian?  (Read 27513 times)

time4liberty

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 922
Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
« Reply #105 on: August 05, 2010, 03:52:02 pm »

Wow!  you actually believe you are the decider of morality don't you?

No, I don't. I believe that I have an ability to perceive morality, albeit imperfectly.

There is a God and He made the rules.

This may shock you, but I agree.

Or rather, "the rules" are quite literally the character of God.

Your condescending attitude toward the Bible shows just how arrogant and foolish you are. 

How was I condescending? The question I was asking is, why do you believe the god of the bible is the true one? Is it not, in part, because the content of the bible largely matches your own moral sense?

Suppose the bible claimed Jesus advocated all kinds of clear evil, and spent his life murdering innocent people. Certainly, you would have rejected the bible in this case, right? You would have concluded that the person described in the bible was not God at all, because his life was not good or admirable.

Have you ever read the Bible?  really read it?

Yes, a lot. Are you listening or thinking about anything I'm saying, or just reacting?

Let's test your basic moral sense:

I'm not going to answer these questions here, because I'm afraid the conversation will be sent too far afield. I'd be happy to answer them in a PM or another thread.

My ancestors didn't fight and die so that some spoiled brat bimbo can walk around without her top off...grow up!

1. Where did I advocate that, and what does that have to do with this discussion?

2. Don't you think calling someone a "spoiled brat bimbo" is pretty much the opposite of loving? Have YOU seriously read the bible?
« Last Edit: August 05, 2010, 04:28:55 pm by tremendoustie »
Logged

ONLYWAY

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 293
Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
« Reply #106 on: August 05, 2010, 05:21:44 pm »

You have got to be kidding.  Are you seriously asking me to prove from the Bible if nudity is a sin?  i guess you didn't get too far in your reading of the Bible.


Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
 
There are dozens of other verses speaking about woman being modest.

Have you ever read the Bible?  really read it?

Let's test your basic moral sense:
...
2.)  Is a girl walking around naked good or bad?

...

My ancestors didn't fight and die so that some spoiled brat bimbo can walk around without her top off...grow up!

So, you found that in the Bible, did you?  Because you "really" read it, huh?

Chapter and verse, please.

Joe
Logged
New Hampshire Charter:  "Considering with ourselves the holy will of God and our own necesity, that we should not live without wholesome laws and civil government amonng us, of which we are altogether destitute, do, in the name of Christ and in the sight of God, combine ourselves together to erect and set up among us such governments as shall be, to our best descerning, agreeable to the will of God..."

ONLYWAY

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 293
Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
« Reply #107 on: August 05, 2010, 05:43:04 pm »

NO.  The content of the Bble does not match my moral sense...it is closer now then it was.  I was a drunk whore when I got saved.  The teachings of the Bible didn't line up with my ideas at all.  I thought I was a pertty good guy...I didn't hurt anyone but I was wrong.  God shapes us into His image through His word and the Holy Spirit.

BTW - go read Romans 1 and see the terms God uses to describe homosexuals and go count how many times he uses much harsher words then bimbo regarding woman's modesty ( ie harlot, whore, etc)

Wow!  you actually believe you are the decider of morality don't you?

No, I don't. I believe that I have an ability to perceive morality, albeit imperfectly.

There is a God and He made the rules.

This may shock you, but I agree.

Or rather, "the rules" are quite literally the character of God.

Your condescending attitude toward the Bible shows just how arrogant and foolish you are. 

How was I condescending? The question I was asking is, why do you believe the god of the bible is the true one? Is it not, in part, because the content of the bible largely matches your own moral sense?

Suppose the bible claimed Jesus advocated all kinds of clear evil, and spent his life murdering innocent people. Certainly, you would have rejected the bible in this case, right? You would have concluded that the person described in the bible was not God at all, because his life was not good or admirable.

Have you ever read the Bible?  really read it?

Yes, a lot. Are you listening or thinking about anything I'm saying, or just reacting?

Let's test your basic moral sense:

I'm not going to answer these questions here, because I'm afraid the conversation will be sent too far afield. I'd be happy to answer them in a PM or another thread.

My ancestors didn't fight and die so that some spoiled brat bimbo can walk around without her top off...grow up!

1. Where did I advocate that, and what does that have to do with this discussion?

2. Don't you think calling someone a "spoiled brat bimbo" is pretty much the opposite of loving? Have YOU seriously read the bible?
« Last Edit: August 05, 2010, 06:37:42 pm by ONLYWAY »
Logged
New Hampshire Charter:  "Considering with ourselves the holy will of God and our own necesity, that we should not live without wholesome laws and civil government amonng us, of which we are altogether destitute, do, in the name of Christ and in the sight of God, combine ourselves together to erect and set up among us such governments as shall be, to our best descerning, agreeable to the will of God..."

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
« Reply #108 on: August 05, 2010, 06:36:28 pm »

You have got to be kidding.  Are you seriously asking me to prove from the Bible if nudity is a sin?

Yup, that's exactly what I'm asking you to do.  Lots of folks go around saying, "the Bible says X," when they are just listing their own beliefs, with no Biblical backing.

i guess you didn't get too far in your reading of the Bible.

I've read it.  As an outsider, I've likely read it with more care than someone brought up in that religion.

Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them

Given that Adam and Eve had just committed a major sin, their behavior can hardly be taken as an example to follow, eh?

There are dozens of other verses speaking about woman being modest.

Good.  Among these "dozens of other verses," maybe you can find some that actually define nudity as a sin.

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

time4liberty

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 922
Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
« Reply #109 on: August 05, 2010, 07:29:18 pm »

NO.  The content of the Bble does not match my moral sense...it is closer now then it was.  I was a drunk whore when I got saved.  The teachings of the Bible didn't line up with my ideas at all.  I thought I was a pertty good guy...I didn't hurt anyone but I was wrong.  God shapes us into His image through His word and the Holy Spirit.

Are you asserting that man has no sense of right and wrong whatsoever? Because if so, isn't it a remarkable coincidence that the morals exhibited by Christ so closely match the belief most people have of what's right? I mean, I don't know of many people who think the ideal is to be a murderous thieving miserly hateful arsonist.

It would be a strange thing, if a god with a strong moral character created a bunch of creatures "in his own image", who had no moral sense whatsoever, would it not?

Apparently you haven't read much cs lewis. Perhaps he's "arrogant and foolish" too.

I can tell you right now that if the New Testament advocated murder and arson, I would immediately recognize it as wrong, and not believe a word of it.

BTW - go read Romans 1 and see the terms God uses to describe homosexuals and go count how many times he uses much harsher words then bimbo regarding woman's modesty ( ie harlot, whore, etc)

-That was written by Paul, not God.
-Romans 1, in no translation I've heard of, uses either the word harlot or whore.
-Harlot and whore are translations of literal words for prostitute, not slurs intended to demean.
-You called her a "spoiled brat bimbo", just to be clear.

I don't want to beat you over the head about this ... but somehow I can't see Christ calling people "spoiled brat bimbos". In fact, he tended to hang out and have drinks with the kind of people you'd call "spoiled brat bimbos". The closest he came to any sort of insult was when he described the pharisees as "whitewashed tombs -- which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean", to others, in order to warn them of them.

And those folks, you may recall, where the ones who spent most of their time running around pointing fingers at others.

Perhaps I misperceive your attitude -- it's easy to misunderstand a person on a forum -- but you're sounding a lot more like a pharisee to me right now than like Christ.


Also, you didn't respond to any of my other questions.
Logged

Ed

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 728
Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
« Reply #110 on: August 05, 2010, 07:34:09 pm »

ok...

I'm not particularly religious, but I remember my Bible and Sunday School...

that's like the most basic thing in the Bible. I mean that's not even up for discussion. Adam and Eve ate from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and then could tell the difference from good and evil, and then it is written that they then "knew" that being naked was wrong. It's written in such a way that it assumes that nudity is wrong. It takes it as a given.

The only other one I remember is that Noah or one of his sons or something found him naked, passed out drunk in his tent and was embarassed him and covered him up.

It would take some liberal damned interpretation to say that those passages say anything other than nudity is wrong.
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
« Reply #111 on: August 05, 2010, 09:17:50 pm »

I'm not particularly religious, but I remember my Bible and Sunday School...

that's like the most basic thing in the Bible. I mean that's not even up for discussion.

"I just know it!" isn't a rational argument.

Adam and Eve ate from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and then could tell the difference from good and evil, and then it is written that they then "knew" that being naked was wrong. It's written in such a way that it assumes that nudity is wrong. It takes it as a given.

Chapter and verse.  It says they knew they were naked.  It never says anything about it being wrong, in any of the translations I've read.

The only other one I remember is that Noah or one of his sons or something found him naked, passed out drunk in his tent and was embarassed him and covered him up.

The Hebrew word translated as "naked" in that passage, if I recall correctly, actually means, "with an erection."  Which is a bit different from simply being without clothing.

Plus, Christians always seem to tell me that the Old Testament no longer applies, and the only rules are the Ten Commandments, and the words of Jesus.

I mean, if we're going to go Old Testament, here, let's start with the explicit rules, like keeping kosher, or the other fun bits in Leviticus, like how it's a sin to wear clothing of blended fibers (no cotton/polyester weaves for the devout, right?).

Two thousand years ago, nudity was commonplace.  Many of the poorer folks couldn't even afford clothing.  Bathing in rivers, in full view of others, was also common.  Remember, this was the Roman empire we're talking about, where public orgies were not unheard of.  If nudity was verboten, I'd expect Jesus to be giving quite a number of sermons against it.  Can't seem to find that.

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

Ed

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 728
Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
« Reply #112 on: August 05, 2010, 09:31:32 pm »

Quote
I just know it!" isn't a rational argument

I obviously didn't say that. Try not to be so obnoxious.

as to the direct translation - well yeah, sure, it says they knew they were naked and then covered themselves up. But the implication is clearly that there's at least something off about being naked - all of a sudden they didn't want to be naked. If this weren't significant they wouldn't have mentioned it.

Your old testament/new testament rules double standard actually makes more sense. But the fact that Jesus didn't talk about it directly doesn't mean it wasn't understood or accepted as part of normal society (wearing clothes). If you're preaching about newer, complex ideas, you tend not to focus on stuff that's already been accepted.
Logged

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
« Reply #113 on: August 05, 2010, 09:48:08 pm »

then could tell the difference from good and evil, and then it is written that they then "knew" that being naked was wrong. It's written in such a way that it assumes that nudity is wrong. It takes it as a given.

1. It doesn't say they could tell the difference between good and evil.
2. It doesn't say being naked is wrong.

Keep in mind "good and evil" doesn't literally mean good and evil. Translation problem. It means a complete knowledge or wisdom. Contrast it with the creation of Adam and Eve in Gen 2, where they are created in the nude but do not have knowledge that they should be ashamed. Sure, there are probably contemporary social standards incorporated in the text. But, recall in the original Hebrew text, they covered only their genitals.

Since it's all allegorical about Man's moral imperfection and explanatory for why he doesn't live in a perfect world, no one really knows what the exact meanings of the phrases are. Why, you'd have to ask whoever wrote the Epic of Gilgamesh... The attitude toward nudity varies wildly throughout the Bible.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2010, 09:54:21 pm by B.D. Ross »
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
« Reply #114 on: August 05, 2010, 09:49:40 pm »

Quote
I just know it!" isn't a rational argument
I obviously didn't say that. Try not to be so obnoxious.

That's the logical meaning of the sort of argument you used.

as to the direct translation - well yeah, sure, it says they knew they were naked and then covered themselves up. But the implication is clearly that there's at least something off about being naked - all of a sudden they didn't want to be naked. If this weren't significant they wouldn't have mentioned it.

But it wasn't a sin, before then, was it?  God, after all, created then in the nude, and didn't tell them to wear clothing.  That's something they came up with, in the course of sinning.  The obvious implication is that the need for covering is something that sinners feel, not something that those in a state of grace feel.

Your old testament/new testament rules double standard actually makes more sense. But the fact that Jesus didn't talk about it directly doesn't mean it wasn't understood or accepted as part of normal society (wearing clothes). If you're preaching about newer, complex ideas, you tend not to focus on stuff that's already been accepted.

No, it was normal for folks to not wear clothing (at least occasionally).  If he was trying to change that, so that folks wore clothing all the time, he would have had to say something.

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

anon37268573

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 553
  • First1000
Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
« Reply #115 on: August 05, 2010, 09:51:28 pm »

I'm trying to frame these options as neutrally as possible, so that it's not the equivalent of a "push poll." Which option fits you better?

Libertines believe that libertarianism is a complete theory of the good. In other words, whatever you do is fine, so long as it doesn't violate anyone else's rights. A friend of mine calls this "smoke 'em if you got 'em" libertarianism. This point of view is consistent with "enlightened self-interest," that is, that you should pursue your own interests, but with an eye to the long run. However, libertines don't believe that they ought to consider the interests of others or the "greater good," beyond not violating other people's rights.

Virtue libertarians (or "Responsibilitarians") think that people have obligations that go beyond not violating other people's rights. A responsibilitarian would likely think that drugs should be legal, but also that we should avoid drug abuse drug use that limits one's ability to lead a fulfilled, rational life. Another term for this philosophy is "fusionism," coined by Frank Meyer, who thought that a free society also had to be a virtuous society (a "fusion" of liberty and virtue).

I'm not sure how firm your line is here between choices.  It seems blurry.  There's a middle ground beyond the "greater good" and not violating others' rights.

For example, one perspective I see missing here is committing to decisions that may not violate others' rights at the time but that will eventually lead to the violation of others' rights.  I've never known a junkie whom wasn't a thief.  But, using heroin the first time doesn't violate others' rights.  And heroin use leads to poor decision making that results in public health risks - like the spread of HCV.  I've never known anyone whom used heroin and didn't perform activities that could result in the spread of HCV and HIV.  So, would considering future theft and public health count as "some 'em if you got 'em" or "virtue libertarianism"?

I had a college roommate die of a heroin overdose.  So, I have a good bit of experience with this.  And, I can tell you that there are chemical forms and structures that can defeat any form of logical argument.  Oxycodone swept through South Boston like a tidal wave when I lived there.  I believe that it's more addictive than heroin.  Something more addictive than Oxycodone will be engineered in the near future.

Logged

Ed

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 728
Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
« Reply #116 on: August 05, 2010, 09:52:54 pm »

Quote
That's the logical meaning of the sort of argument you used

No it's not. That was just my starting off point before I laid out what I had to say.

Why do you have to go out of your way to make a swipe at someone else in every post?

Logged

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
« Reply #117 on: August 05, 2010, 09:55:21 pm »

I'm trying to frame these options as neutrally as possible, so that it's not the equivalent of a "push poll." Which option fits you better?

Libertines believe that libertarianism is a complete theory of the good. In other words, whatever you do is fine, so long as it doesn't violate anyone else's rights. A friend of mine calls this "smoke 'em if you got 'em" libertarianism. This point of view is consistent with "enlightened self-interest," that is, that you should pursue your own interests, but with an eye to the long run. However, libertines don't believe that they ought to consider the interests of others or the "greater good," beyond not violating other people's rights.

Virtue libertarians (or "Responsibilitarians") think that people have obligations that go beyond not violating other people's rights. A responsibilitarian would likely think that drugs should be legal, but also that we should avoid drug abuse drug use that limits one's ability to lead a fulfilled, rational life. Another term for this philosophy is "fusionism," coined by Frank Meyer, who thought that a free society also had to be a virtuous society (a "fusion" of liberty and virtue).

I'm not sure how firm your line is here between choices.  It seems blurry.  There's a middle ground beyond the "greater good" and not violating others' rights.

Second!

I'm getting hung up because the difference, as expressed, really seems to be a choice between "everything that isn't forbidden is allowed" and "some things may be better to do than others". That is, statements of permissibility and desirability. One could say both statements are true.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2010, 10:01:54 pm by B.D. Ross »
Logged

ONLYWAY

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 293
Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
« Reply #118 on: August 05, 2010, 11:00:29 pm »

First of all this is not allegory!  This is a literal account.   If someone hides from god and then tries to shift blame to someone else they udnerstand they did wrong.  Of course they udnerstood the difference between good and evil - even before they sinned - obviously!  After they sinned they gained a sin nature which led them have feelings of lust, guilt, selfishness, shame , etc.  That is why they covered themselves and hid from God.  Only eve was deceived - adam knew what he was doing when he did it but both intentionally and knowilngly sinned.

While this is a literal account of the fall of humanity it is also a great picture of our saviour!  Yes, they only covered themselves partially (notice the word aprin) and they used fig leaevs (vegetation repersents mans attempts to cover sin with good deeds - see cain and able) BUT God made them COATS (covered completely) of animal skins (these where first animals ever killed) - without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.  to cover their nakedness...nakedness is not only a sin but is the classic picture of sin. 

read gen 3:15 - it is the first time the Gospel is ever shared - directly after first sin ever occured. 


then could tell the difference from good and evil, and then it is written that they then "knew" that being naked was wrong. It's written in such a way that it assumes that nudity is wrong. It takes it as a given.

1. It doesn't say they could tell the difference between good and evil.
2. It doesn't say being naked is wrong.

Keep in mind "good and evil" doesn't literally mean good and evil. Translation problem. It means a complete knowledge or wisdom. Contrast it with the creation of Adam and Eve in Gen 2, where they are created in the nude but do not have knowledge that they should be ashamed. Sure, there are probably contemporary social standards incorporated in the text. But, recall in the original Hebrew text, they covered only their genitals.

Since it's all allegorical about Man's moral imperfection and explanatory for why he doesn't live in a perfect world, no one really knows what the exact meanings of the phrases are. Why, you'd have to ask whoever wrote the Epic of Gilgamesh... The attitude toward nudity varies wildly throughout the Bible.
Logged
New Hampshire Charter:  "Considering with ourselves the holy will of God and our own necesity, that we should not live without wholesome laws and civil government amonng us, of which we are altogether destitute, do, in the name of Christ and in the sight of God, combine ourselves together to erect and set up among us such governments as shall be, to our best descerning, agreeable to the will of God..."

ONLYWAY

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 293
Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
« Reply #119 on: August 05, 2010, 11:06:33 pm »

right and wrong, SIN, are absolute...explained clearly in the Bible.  However, not all sins should be illegal.  God gave everyone a free will so why should we take away the opportunity God gave to all?  However, however, some sins do need to be "illegal". 

I'm trying to frame these options as neutrally as possible, so that it's not the equivalent of a "push poll." Which option fits you better?

Libertines believe that libertarianism is a complete theory of the good. In other words, whatever you do is fine, so long as it doesn't violate anyone else's rights. A friend of mine calls this "smoke 'em if you got 'em" libertarianism. This point of view is consistent with "enlightened self-interest," that is, that you should pursue your own interests, but with an eye to the long run. However, libertines don't believe that they ought to consider the interests of others or the "greater good," beyond not violating other people's rights.

Virtue libertarians (or "Responsibilitarians") think that people have obligations that go beyond not violating other people's rights. A responsibilitarian would likely think that drugs should be legal, but also that we should avoid drug abuse drug use that limits one's ability to lead a fulfilled, rational life. Another term for this philosophy is "fusionism," coined by Frank Meyer, who thought that a free society also had to be a virtuous society (a "fusion" of liberty and virtue).

I'm not sure how firm your line is here between choices.  It seems blurry.  There's a middle ground beyond the "greater good" and not violating others' rights.

For example, one perspective I see missing here is committing to decisions that may not violate others' rights at the time but that will eventually lead to the violation of others' rights.  I've never known a junkie whom wasn't a thief.  But, using heroin the first time doesn't violate others' rights.  And heroin use leads to poor decision making that results in public health risks - like the spread of HCV.  I've never known anyone whom used heroin and didn't perform activities that could result in the spread of HCV and HIV.  So, would considering future theft and public health count as "some 'em if you got 'em" or "virtue libertarianism"?

I had a college roommate die of a heroin overdose.  So, I have a good bit of experience with this.  And, I can tell you that there are chemical forms and structures that can defeat any form of logical argument.  Oxycodone swept through South Boston like a tidal wave when I lived there.  I believe that it's more addictive than heroin.  Something more addictive than Oxycodone will be engineered in the near future.


Logged
New Hampshire Charter:  "Considering with ourselves the holy will of God and our own necesity, that we should not live without wholesome laws and civil government amonng us, of which we are altogether destitute, do, in the name of Christ and in the sight of God, combine ourselves together to erect and set up among us such governments as shall be, to our best descerning, agreeable to the will of God..."
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 [8] 9   Go Up