Common sense knife regulation

[Berzerker]

a natural right is a valid claim of moral authority

you have the right to live, not because society said so, but because society (and others) doesn't own you.

this right may be negated if you do something like kill other people

 

[TheMeInTeam]

a natural right is a valid claim of moral authority

you have the right to live, not because society said so, but because society (and others) doesn't own you.

this right may be negated if you do something like kill other people

All of this is so because society enforces it, and most of the people in that society prefer it that way.

People have faced material harm/outright imprisonment from society despite doing nothing wrong in some cases, and in these cases their rights were not protected by any power greater than said society.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Hmmm something just occurred to me Help me with this one CFC pals...

If there is a right to life (there is, for purposes of this question) but there is no right to sex... then theoretically, if all the menses (or womenses) decided that they would heretofore, be celibate (and would not donate their reproductive cells)... then does that mean that there is a right to life as individuals but humanity has no collective right to survive/exist as a species?

Yes.

 

[Berzerker]

All of this is so because society enforces it, and most of the people in that society prefer it that way.

People have faced material harm/outright imprisonment from society despite doing nothing wrong in some cases, and in these cases their rights were not protected by any power greater than said society.

And what if society didn't enforce it? Would the valid claim of moral authority disappear? No, it exists regardless of what society says. Societies that committed genocide and slavery violated the natural rights of their victims.

As for a right to sex, no... Rights cannot burden others. A right to speak does not translate into a right to have others listen. A right to live does not translate into a right to procreate - those fall under the freedom of association which also protects the freedom not to associate.

 

[Lexicus]

If there is a right to life (there is, for purposes of this question) but there is no right to sex... then theoretically, if all the menses (or womenses) decided that they would heretofore, be celibate (and would not donate their reproductive cells)... then does that mean that there is a right to life as individuals but humanity has no collective right to survive/exist as a species?

Prior to, at the earliest, conception, there is no entity to which to assign a right to life.

 

[EnglishEdward]

I find a short pointy knife useful for all sorts of things; varying from cutting the cellophane off a compact disc
case, to piercing washing powder cartons; and apart, from cutting bread, I have no use for long knives.

But there is a problem in that UK supermarkets sell knives in sets and so the competition is at set level.
This means it is difficult to buy a short knife, a medium length knife for cutting steak and a long sawing
knife with a blunt end suitable for cutting bread, for less than the cost of buying a set of five or more.
And the set of five or more has long pointy knives so people end up buying them without necessarily wanting to.

It would not be a bad idea to change the balance in sets sold to the public to include more with rounded ends.

So I think that the judge has a point.

 

[BenitoChavez]

And what if society didn't enforce it? Would the valid claim of moral authority disappear? No, it exists regardless of what society says. Societies that committed genocide and slavery violated the natural rights of their victims.

Claims of validity and morality can only be made by people/society and if the people/society deem something to no longer be valid or moral, then the valid claims of moral authority would indeed disappear.

 

[Berzerker]

the majority doesn't define morality...if it did slavery and genocide can be deemed moral

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Would the valid claim of moral authority disappear?

What makes a claim of "moral authority" valid? I'm assuming you're not channeling spud king doctrine, but there must be some criteria.

As for a right to sex, no... Rights cannot burden others.

They can burden others and do (fortunately not in the quoted way), and depending on context the burden may or may not be appropriate. This is regardless of whether you consider the right in question "natural".

Prior to, at the earliest, conception, there is no entity to which to assign a right to life.

It's not that you can't do so, it's just that you can't *reasonably* do so.

the majority doesn't define morality...if it did slavery and genocide can be deemed moral

They *WERE* deemed moral and no amount of religion or other sources of "natural rights" conceptual framework stopped either for centuries on end.

That's an important lesson if we're to avoid repeating that kind of mistake. Not doing so well on the genocide front as a species even today.

 

[Ryika]

the majority doesn't define morality...if it did slavery and genocide can be deemed moral

There is no such thing as objective morality, only societal values that change over time. As such, slavery and genocide can indeed be "deemed moral", but that does not "make them moral".

 

[Berzerker]

What makes a claim of "moral authority" valid? I'm assuming you're not channeling spud king doctrine, but there must be some criteria.

Being superior to other claims. For example, if you have a natural right to live, me and my buddies cant morally kill you. But if you try to kill us, we also have the right to live and can morally kill you in self defense.

They can burden others and do (fortunately not in the quoted way), and depending on context the burden may or may not be appropriate. This is regardless of whether you consider the right in question "natural".

The burden is compelling one to act... What burden did you have in mind? I have the right of religious freedom. I dont have the right to make you join my religion. That burden violates your religious freedom.

They *WERE* deemed moral and no amount of religion or other sources of "natural rights" conceptual framework stopped either for centuries on end.

That's an important lesson if we're to avoid repeating that kind of mistake. Not doing so well on the genocide front as a species even today.

Deemed by whom? The slavers and murderers? They dont get to decide what is or isn't moral even when they are the majority.

There is no such thing as objective morality, only societal values that change over time. As such, slavery and genocide can indeed be "deemed moral", but that does not "make them moral".

Subjective morality = I say it is moral
Objective morality = we agree it is moral

 

[Sommerswerd]

Sound policy takes into account the way things *are*, yes. When that conflicts with emotion (which is not always), reality is what wins under competent policy.

But the fact that people believe in god is part of "the way things are", and so a competent policymaker has to account for this, don't they?

No. In reality, there is no god guaranteeing any right. In reality, what happens is dictated by what people choose to do, regardless of their belief framework or even whether their reasoning is coherent. That's not how things "should be", that's how things actually are. Claiming the opposite is silly.

What you seem to be saying is that a competent policymaker can say "God doesn't exist you herp-derps so I'm not taking your silly superstitions into account when I make policy that affects your hoodoo houses." And when people protest and/or riot and or vote him out of office, he says what? "I can't be held responsible for this civil unrest/election loss because I shouldn't have had to take these dumb-dumbs sensibilities, needs and beliefs into account, when I crafted the policies that determine the rules of the society they live in" ?

You keep going back to the "god doesn't exist/do anything" point. What I am telling you is that is irrelevant. Your constituents believe in god and care about their religion. You can't craft policy that they will peacefully accept if you are going to pretend that their belief in god and love for their religion doesn't matter. I get that you think that it shouldn't matter... but it does, so you need to account for that in crafting your policy, or you won't be meeting your constituents needs, and they will complain, protest, riot, vote for demagogues to replace you etc... which means your policy making was not sound.

I suppose I should disambiguate between competence in terms of "actually running the place" vs competence in "securing votes and gaining power". Unfortunately, these incentives don't align and politicians are much better at the latter by necessity.

You can't make policy at all if you don't hold office. The "sausage-making" saying is apropos, because in reality, policymaking does not exist in a vacuum. There must be compromises, you must keep your constituents happy and content and you must administer to their needs, regardless of how "emotional" you find them. That is the way things are. What you seem to be focused on is the way you think things should be, where the mathematically/statistically "correct" policy can be instituted by the "wise" policymaker in every instance, with no consequence to the policymaker whatsoever and no ability for the governed to resist or thwart his learned decision. A benevolent dictatorship, could work that way for instance, but I'm pretty sure that's not what you had in mind.

 

[BenitoChavez]

the majority doesn't define morality...if it did slavery and genocide can be deemed moral

Agree to the first part. Morality is determined by each individual. Individuals with like moralities tend to come together and form groups. What is moral to one group can be immoral to another group.

You mention slavery. Early 19th century Americans thought slavery was moral because in their view there was a hierarchy of human races therefore the lower races need to be subjugated in order to "civilize" them. Early 21st century Americans think the exact opposite, that any difference between the races are trivial therefore subjugating a person of any race is a crime against basic human dignity. Different groups, different moralities.

 

[Berzerker]

Agree to the first part. Morality is determined by each individual. Individuals with like moralities tend to come together and form groups. What is moral to one group can be immoral to another group.

You mention slavery. Early 19th century Americans thought slavery was moral because in their view there was a hierarchy of human races therefore the lower races need to be subjugated in order to "civilize" them. Early 21st century Americans think the exact opposite, that any difference between the races are trivial therefore subjugating a person of any race is a crime against basic human dignity. Different groups, different moralities.

People can disagree on what is moral, but somebody's right and somebody's wrong. How do we know which is which? Ask the slavers if they want to be enslaved. The Golden Rule seems like a simple test...

 

[Ryika]

Subjective morality = I say it is moral
Objective morality = we agree it is moral

I can agree with this, but it makes objective morality a purely theoretical thing. A standard that cannot be met, because there is nothing every single person agrees is moral or immoral.

 

[Ryika]

People can disagree on what is moral, but somebody's right and somebody's wrong. How do we know which is which? Ask the slavers if they want to be enslaved. The Golden Rule seems like a simple test...

Is abandoning slavery moral? Ask the slavers if they want to lose their free labor. The Golden Rule seems like a simple test...

 

[BenitoChavez]

People can disagree on what is moral, but somebody's right and somebody's wrong. How do we know which is which? Ask the slavers if they want to be enslaved. The Golden Rule seems like a simple test...

I think you mean "Ask the slaves if they want to be enslaved".

Right and wrong are moral judgements. There is no objectively right and wrong thing because like Ryika says, there is nothing every single person agrees on.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

This is a many centuries old debate guys. Iuspositivism vs iusnaturalism. Not the best philosophers or jurists have found the definitive answer that makes everyone happy.

The solution given in the Universal Human Right Declaration of 1948 is that there is some inherent dignity in human being that must be protected. That is basically an iusnaturalist approach but it is more a need than a conviction, the need to prevent any future iuspositivist monsters as the ones seem along WW2 in the form of fascism, nazism and other isms. So it avoids any further reference to natural rights or religion. Lets dont forget that too much Iusnaturalism has lead to similar monsters in the past, since any arbitrary opinion and point of view can be elevated to the status of untouchable natural or divine truth. So as always the best way is to avoid the extremes and be pragmatic.

 

[Berzerker]

I think you mean "Ask the slaves if they want to be enslaved".

That'll work too, but the Golden Rule would ask the slavers if they want done to them what they're doing to others.

Right and wrong are moral judgements. There is no objectively right and wrong thing because like Ryika says, there is nothing every single person agrees on.

Do the slavers want to be enslaved? I know some people are just downright crazy and somebody out there might harbor fantasies about being brutally murdered. But I suspect even they dont believe others share their desire. If most everyone agrees slavery is immoral - including the slavers - then objectively, it is.

 

[BenitoChavez]

That'll work too, but the Golden Rule would ask the slavers if they want done to them what they're doing to others.

Ah I see. My bad there

Do the slavers want to be enslaved? I know some people are just downright crazy and somebody out there might harbor fantasies about being brutally murdered. But I suspect even they dont believe others share their desire. If most everyone agrees slavery is immoral - including the slavers - then objectively, it is.

I think the slavers response would be that they don't see themselves as being equal to a slave, that they are somehow superior to their slaves. Therefore the golden rule doesn't apply and enslaving them would be a crime, but enslaving the slaves is ok.