Too late.
Posted on 09/21/2003 6:25:48 PM PDT by cpforlife.org
Good grief, OWK, what a muddle! Or am I misunderstanding you? It seems to me you're saying that a man is free to do whatever he wants to, regardless of whether his values are good or corrupt; and that it is wrong in principle to violate his freedom to do whatever it pleases him to do by means of force (or "fraud").
But what if the man is a child rapist, or a cannibal? Your moral theory leaves society utterly defenseless to restrain that person from perpetrating such atrocious acts. Yet it is precisely here that society requires forceful restraint of such a person. For he endangers the society, and society has the right, even the duty, to defend itself against such creatures.
This is not a question about the "pursuit of happiness" on society's part here. This is a pursuit of basic safety and security, and any sane person would understand that restraining force can be legitimately invoked in such cases.
Is it a correct understanding of your moral code to say that the child rapist/cannibal has all the rights, and society has none?
Surely you understand that these things initiate force.
Human genetic engineering has been going on for thousands of years.
He was in spirit, though not in person.
We look to you for leadership by example....
Too late.
And so they are wrong solely by virtue of the fact that they require initiation-of-force in order to take place?
Is there no other way to understand the wrongfulness of child rape, for instance, than as a projection of force? The force part doesn't seem to be the only, or even the main reason why such acts horrify us; what horrifies is that someone would choose to damage a helpless, innocent child (physically, emotionally, psychologically, spiritually) simply for his own cheap self-gratification.
The force part is a necessary, yet comparatively negligible part of the great enormity of such crimes. It is the means to an end; yet in the final analysis, it is the end that horrifies us.
Why do you need one? Wrong, is wrong.
Since the "muddle" was at least partially an attempt to explain my meaning of the assertion, "the purpose of a human beings life is their enjoyment of it," and I too was a bit confused by the explanation, maybe I ought to speak for myself.
In the first place, almost all discussions of moral or ethical principles begin in the worng place. They don't begin with our relationships with others, first what must define what is morally right for individuals, then we can determine how those individual moral principle apply socially. You cannot make a moral society with immoral people by any system.
I quote some of my personal notes, which are a prelude to a detailed discussion of specific ethical principles, which I spare you.
| Ideals What purpose, what goal, what objective is it human beings desire to achieve or reach that requires moral values to accomplish? Values presuppose some goal or purpose, and values are the means of determining what things further the pursuit of that purpose or goal (and are therefore good) and what things inhibit or prevent the pursuit of that purpose (and are therefore bad). The ultimate purpose of all life is the life itself, but more specifically, the purpose of every living organism is the life of that organism as the kind of organism it is. The ultimate purpose of human life is the life of the individual human as a human, that is, the fulfillment of their nature as human beings. We say, the purpose of your life is your enjoyment of it, but that purpose can only be fulfilled as a human being, as fully human in every way as possible, because that is what the nature of human life requires. What is a human being, and what is it about human nature that defines fulfillment? It is human potential as determined by those characteristics that are uniquely human. Every animal eats, for example, but human beings become gourmets. It is human nature that determines what is possible and necessary to achieve the human ideal, it is those same abilities and necessities that make that ideal achieveable. These characteristics of human nature that define the human ideal can be reduced to these four essential aspects of human nature: volition, knowledge, creativity, and enjoyment.
|
Hank
But how do you know that something is "wrong?" That is, by what standard do you judge an act to be wrongful? You seem to indicate this has something to do with the initiation of force. Further you seem to suggest that a person is free to do as he chooses, regardless of whether the values informing his actions are good or bad ones, but that it is wrong to restrain that person from committing actions informed by bad values in principle.
Beyond that, your exposition falls silent. I would have liked to learn your criteria for distinguishing good from bad, beyond the simple construction "freedom = good, force/fraud = bad."
So, you can see why I'm a little confused about your moral theory.
How many times to we have to cover the same ground?
If an act initiates force or fraud, it is wrong.
Else, not.
I state categorically that it is immoral to initiate force or fraud.
And that acts initiating force or fraud, morally empower the use of restraining and or punative force in defense of the rights of the victim.
Why is this confusing to you?
Looks like you've changed your mind about accepting my invitation.... :^)
BTW, this is very interesting material, IMO. I hope to return to it later.
Hmm, linking 3 elements. Each element is failure prone, so the combination of the 3 is failure prone to the 3rd power. Not to mention the weak link, which is human reason.
Sounds like a bad idea.
Shalom.
So if society, via its duly-constituted public safety officials, initiates and projects force to restrain a child rapist, the society is committing a wrong?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.