Do you have a coherent ideology?

[Gori the Grey]

For me, hypocrisy would have to involve asserting one belief while benefiting somehow from its opposite. The benefit could be small: letting yourself do something that you preach against. You might initially be genuinely unaware of the discrepancy (though others will notice and soon point it out to you, so you can't plead innocence for long). I think your ideology might be inconsistent without your being a hypocrite (i.e. some elements of your ideology unresolved, possibly even unresolvable; some elements you aren't even aware are in conflict with one another).

By the way, Mac, you need a dot between the two rs in "irregardless" in your sig.

 

[brennan]

It's more than authorise to kill in self defense. You're authorizing them to tax me to help fund that killing.

It's not like I come to your house, take your kitchen knives, and go stab people on your behalf.

Loosely, we tend to find 'defense of innocents' an easy thing to allow, morally. Then, both Just War and the Death Penalty fall out of that. Step 2 is authorizing governments to do it.

I'm not 'authorising them to tax you' (what a strange way to put it). We both participate in a democratic society in which defence and policing is delegated and funded via taxation as per the unwritten social contract - the philosophies and ideals that underpin that society.

The right to and restrictions on personal self defence is defined by the written laws of that society.

The concept of 'Just War' is currently defined in a similar manner: agreement by the community of Nations on standards set down by the Geneva Conventions and in the UN Charter.

If we're talking about the execution of OBL. That was a crime in my view.

 

[MacAttack]

By the way, Mac, you need a dot between the two rs in "irregardless" in your sig.

Fixed.

 

[El_Machinae]

Obviously, but we're talking about state violence.

Oh, yes, I see. I agree. Conscripts are less obviously consenting. The gov't officials causing the conscription, though, definitely are.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm not 'authorising them to tax you' (what a strange way to put it). We both participate in a democratic society in which defence and policing is delegated and funded via taxation as per the unwritten social contract - the philosophies and ideals that underpin that society.

Then yes, you're authorizing them to tax me. You can put longer words around it, suggesting that they're implicitly allowed to tax me, but then you're just trying to hide the authorization.

 

[kochman]

That's the whole difference, in a nutshell... some condone the state's authority, other combat it...
When it's driven by people who think they have a clear ideology, look out!

 

[Joecoolyo]

I-de-olo-gy,
isn't it very silly?
The idea that a single train of thought,
can guide your life so thorough and taut.

Why bother thinking about stuff,
which requires work enough,
when you can have a template instead,
which provides all thoughts and action!

Boil the world down into simple things,
and suddenly life is a breeze!
Sure in the end, decisions might get muddy,
but hey, who cares if it makes things cruddy?

As said above, its kind of snide,
to think one idea can be universally applied.
Its far better to have a unique approach,
to each situation that may encroach.

 

[madviking]

i feel like ideologies try to shoehorn slightly different beliefs under one tent.

screw tents.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I guess the only coherent ideology I perhaps could claim to have is some sort of post-modern relativism. And the practical conclusion merely is that I am open to many views and very skeptical of or outright frown on dogmas.

I flirted with the idea of a fixed coherent morality and in deed I still do. But ultimately I don't feel bound by it or anything else constructed.

 

[Borachio]

I think coherence is a very good idea. I'll let you know if I ever manage it.

 

[El_Machinae]

I flirted with the idea of a fixed coherent morality and in deed I still do. But ultimately I don't feel bound by it or anything else constructed.

I absolutely believe in objective morality. I don't have the hubris to think we've found it yet.

The subjectivism kicks in once you realize how many of our principles are derived from instinctive heuristics developed during our primate days.

 

[kochman]

I think coherence is a very good idea. I'll let you know if I ever manage it.

And HOW!

 

[GenMarshall]

As I say...I don't know I don't care.

 

[brennan]

Then yes, you're authorizing them to tax me. You can put longer words around it, suggesting that they're implicitly allowed to tax me, but then you're just trying to hide the authorization.

I'm not trying to put longer words around anything. I entirely reject the way you are formulating this - I neither claim the right nor possess the power to 'authorise' anyone to do anything to you. I just find your statement bizarre.

 

[Global Skeptic]

Then yes, you're authorizing them to tax me. You can put longer words around it, suggesting that they're implicitly allowed to tax me, but then you're just trying to hide the authorization.

http://www.moralfoundations.org/

It is a part of human nature. We all given subjective reasoning/feelings/emotions for these categories and they always involve dilemmas.

I absolutely believe in objective morality. I don't have the hubris to think we've found it yet.

The subjectivism kicks in once you realize how many of our principles are derived from instinctive heuristics developed during our primate days.

I am curious - why do you believe in something, which haven't been found to exist since at least the 2000+ years it has been to be found/proven/given evidence for? I.e. philosophy is in part the general effort in trying to establish objective morality, where as science actually support subjective morality as a function/effect of the process of biological evolution. In other words to me objective morality is an extraordinary claim, which requires extraordinary evidence

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm not trying to put longer words around anything. I entirely reject the way you are formulating this - I neither claim the right nor possess the power to 'authorise' anyone to do anything to you. I just find your statement bizarre.

Okay. Well then, this discussion started with the gov't using force to defend innocent people, and whether we allow it. And, then, you seem to want them to do it. How are they paying for this defense of others you said was acceptable?

 

[Global Skeptic]

Okay. Well then, this discussion started with the gov't using force to defend innocent people, and whether we allow it. And, then, you seem to want them to do it. How are they paying for this defense of others you said was acceptable?

By stealing your money or through limited taxation with representation seem to be the two standard answers.

 

[El_Machinae]

Those two are basically the same thing, and they depend utterly upon my willingness to chip into a communal defensive force. It doesn't change the foundation of what I am saying, that the authority to tax me and fund my defense comes from the majority.

People who endeavour to insist that authority is legitimate are merely implicitly supporting the authority. I'm not saying they're wrong, except if they deny that they're helping provide the authority.

 

[El_Machinae]

I am curious - why do you believe in something, which haven't been found to exist since at least the 2000+ years it has been to be found/proven/given evidence for? I.e. philosophy is in part the general effort in trying to establish objective morality, where as science actually support subjective morality as a function/effect of the process of biological evolution. In other words to me objective morality is an extraordinary claim, which requires extraordinary evidence

We've discovered components of objective morality. We're imperfect beings, so expecting us to discover objective anything is a stretch. Plus, people are complicated. We don't know the perfectly true objective laws of gravity, we just have good appoximations.

I don't see any reason to assume objective morality doesn't exist. People objections seem to focus on the fact that there's a subjective component. Ehn, red herring.

 

[Camikaze]

We've discovered components of objective morality. We're imperfect beings, so expecting us to discover objective anything is a stretch. Plus, people are complicated. We don't know the perfectly true objective laws of gravity, we just have good appoximations.

I don't see any reason to assume objective morality doesn't exist. People objections seem to focus on the fact that there's a subjective component. Ehn, red herring.

I thought the objection was more that morality, as a concept, is entirely the product of language, which is entirely subjective, leaving no truly objective component. Can concepts exist without language?