Finally sick of this: Minimal-state Jesus

[Traitorfish]

And, again, I can respond: if killing political dissidents is murder and killing people is beneficial, we should not reevaluate the moral implications of killing political dissidents, we should reevaluate the moral implications of murder.

That Denmark doesn't kill political dissidents doesn't have any bearing on the validity of this logic. I mean, maybe it should start? Not like there's anything inherently wrong with it, or so you seem to be suggesting.

 

[Global Skeptic]

To cause death or to say this is not your money, but society's are acts. That is not the same as they are right or wrong.

 

[classical_hero]

Since when did Jesus become Libertarian?

 

[WindFish]

Since when did Jesus become Libertarian?

Since Bible Bashers became Randriods.

 

[Angst]

And, again, I can respond: if killing political dissidents is murder and killing people is beneficial, we should not reevaluate the moral implications of killing political dissidents, we should reevaluate the moral implications of murder.

That Denmark doesn't kill political dissidents doesn't have any bearing on the validity of this logic. I mean, maybe it should start? Not like there's anything inherently wrong with it, or so you seem to be suggesting.

I don't see killing people a beneficial thing. How is it? I support no deaths but I didn't even claim any moral implications of murder. I don't see how I'm suggesting anything of this sort you're saying. How did you construe this from what I said? Why did you utilize my arguments as logical-idealist necessities when I just, a few posts before, said that such idealist necessities weren't really that important? It's especially idealist stuff like that - "You support X therefore Y and you should do Z to appeal the abstract moral system we're constructing right now" - is not only dangerous, it's also stupid. edit: and yeah, i know i did the same, but it was mostly to people like, well, GhostWriter16 (and perhaps ParkChungHee, I'm not sure whether he was critical, curious or disagreeing) that do utilize logical knots to archieve their ends; it was not for your post.

Anyways, killing dissidents is to me the equivalent of lynching, and the democratic arguments against dissident killing are the same as the arguments against lynching: Advocating democracy should not advocating mob rule and undercurrents of differing interests need protection. And things vary case by case. You can't just comb over all dissidents - everything from the Tea Party to the Tamil Tigers, the Greenland independence movement to the Indian decolonization, the Lord's Resistance Army to the Danish Christianites. A "dissident" is such a vague plasticist term and if I refuse to construct a moralist-idealist logical argumentative necessity within my personal political ideals, why would I submit to your strawman about Basque rebels and make a vague assumption about killing off the pot smokers in Nyhavn, Copenhagen?

This is a great example why I refuse to assume any kind of moral set for myself. Call me hypocritical to vary between consequensialism and intentionalism or whatever, I wish to stick to just be "amoral" and leave it at that.

So yeah. Saying "What Denmark does is fine" is actually a fine reply because Denmark is not a hypotheticalized idealist moralism, but rather an actual real thing - well as much as a state is, you know.

Lastly, I have to point out, even if I need to make proper arguments for my case when you probably ask me again for a straight answer, I was discussing the intrinsic moral value of "a state". And as "a state" is really a thing as much as "a school" is, it's dumb to attribute a predefined moral value to it.

 

[Traitorfish]

My point is just that if you're going to take a utilitarian position on these things, you should be consistent about it. If an act of theft is not-wrong if it produces a net positive outcome, then nothing can be wrong if it produces a net positive outcome. Correspondingly, things are never wrong in themselves, but only insofar as they fail to produce a net positive outcome.

So, if it can be demonstrated that killing political dissidents produces a net benefit- or even, given the subjective emphasis of your original post, just that killing political dissidents produces what you feel to be a net benefit- then it cannot be considered wrong. This may not be the case, of course, and it's entirely reasonable for you to believe that it is not, but it remains a wholly specific and empirical claim, carrying with it no general suggestion that arbitrary political violence is a bad thing.

And, maybe you're fine with that. But most people advancing a "greater good" logic of political action are not. So it's worth finding out.

 

[Angst]

See, now you're construing me as an utilitarianist. I'm not one such person, I do not have one such affliation.

 

[Traitorfish]

The claim made was that taxation "functions economically and brings cost-effective peace and happiness to the people". That's an appeal to a positive outcome, and, further, one framed in terms of cost-effectiveness. That's a utilitarian logic. How else I am intended to read it?

 

[Angst]

Not in a "Oh, his argument can relate to utilitarianism, therefore he likes utilitarianism, let me instantly group him with an -ism and force his views into the horrible extremes of this set -ism's!" way.

One can be reasonable without submitting to a whole set of preset ideals under an idealism umbrella.

Although I admit that you, of all people, might not grasp things this way that often. Most arguments you make here are semantical and usually concern themselves with idealisms and what the different idealisms mean and function by. Note that it's not something I have anything against per se, I just don't want to be forced into it just because there's a tendency of it in the Anglo-Saxon philosophical school and in that respect its educational tendencies. To me it's thinking in boxes, and it's a horrible line of reasoning that one can counterargue a good argument by making a more-or-less specific statement universal for all cases, especially boxing me in with a moralist school I severely dislike.

 

[Traitorfish]

You presented a consequentialist argument for taxation: that the positive ends justify what may be negative means. Further, it was framed in specifically utilitarian language of happiness-maximising. That's a universal logic; how else could we be expected to treat it?

If you don't like universal logics, then you should avoid employing them, not just employ them with the qualifier "but it only counts when I want it to".

 

[Berzerker]

Since when did Jesus become Libertarian?

when he let the wealthy young man walk away with his $$$ rather than give it away and join the gang

 

[Traitorfish]

Didn't he also tell the young man he was going to hell?

 

[Farm Boy]

My point is just that if you're going to take a utilitarian position on these things, you should be consistent about it. If an act of theft is not-wrong if it produces a net positive outcome, then nothing can be wrong if it produces a net positive outcome. Correspondingly, things are never wrong in themselves, but only insofar as they fail to produce a net positive outcome.

So, if it can be demonstrated that killing political dissidents produces a net benefit- or even, given the subjective emphasis of your original post, just that killing political dissidents produces what you feel to be a net benefit- then it cannot be considered wrong. This may not be the case, of course, and it's entirely reasonable for you to believe that it is not, but it remains a wholly specific and empirical claim, carrying with it no general suggestion that arbitrary political violence is a bad thing.

And, maybe you're fine with that. But most people advancing a "greater good" logic of political action are not. So it's worth finding out.

What about the pesky rule version of the utilitarianism you despise? Sometimes people are actually advocating that, since the bungling over what rules should be instituted is very much open for flexible debate. I haven't asked you to wax hostile on that one in a while.

I.e. Killing this particular dissident may provide a net positive in this case as would vivisecting a healthy 20 year old for organs when the donor list is empty, but killing dissidents and vivisecting healthy 20 year olds as a general rule is not going to create the greatest good for the greatest number over time.

 

[Zack]

Since when did Jesus become Libertarian?

When he said "render unto Caesar's that which is Caesar's," what he really meant was fight the system, man. Government's for squares!

 

[Traitorfish]

That's a pretty well-established interpretation, yes. It's just that they tends towards advocating pacifistic communism rather than transferring Mammon to the private sector.

 

[Angst]

You presented a consequentialist argument for taxation: that the positive ends justify what may be negative means.

When was taxation negative? Taxation is not inherently a bad thing. It's just a concept like most other things. It's basically a fee for living in an owned area. You wouldn't get the money outside the area in the first place. What about 99% tax rates, you say? Well, I don't like them.

All that was negative was the threat of violence, and that is everywhere. The fact of the matter is that it's not unique to the state that power through the force violence exists. The only difference is that in a properly designed democratic state, violence just happens to diminish. It's not a "I sacrifice three humans to acquire happiness", it's "I sacrifice three humans less".

And I'm sure you have all sorts of communism to say about the relations of taxes and all, but that's really not important here. We're discussing my morality. Shoo.

Further, it was framed in specifically utilitarian language of happiness-maximising.

Sure. Sorry, English is not my first language.

That's a universal logic; how else could we be expected to treat it?

If you don't like universal logics, then you should avoid employing them, not just employ them with the qualifier "but it only counts when I want it to".

Blah. You know that I could also be nonfanatical and just employ things that make sense; you know, as accepted by most human beings. I don't have to have a particular moralist-idealist attitude in a political discussion just because it exists and I use a few arguments that may or may not be shared by it. That's ridiculously unfair.

There are other things to this world than morality, you know, and I don't think morality is a necessary drive behind actions, beliefs or decisions. I do not wish a moral high ground in any way, ever. I'd rather be considered evil by the moralists because you know what - I only see purists with problems of hypocrisy, purists with problems of what moralists would call evil in order to stay pure, and then the obvious hypocrites.

I utilize different rationalizations to try to act for the well-being of others and myself in different situations. My actions and beliefs are certainly yours to label but not yours to tell me what I believe in. And it's you who's going to be confused.

I was the OP of this thread after all. I like paying higher taxes to help the poor. What a good deed! As it is a good thing, there must be morals to explain the nature of this goodness - there must be a moral drive behind him, a code of which he follows to help out his peers! Do you really need to explain that with a moral analysis? Can't you just accept it as is and feel good that I do it?

"It only counts when I want to" is perfectly fine. It's moral hypocrisy. It's amoral indifference. Choose depending on your alignment. Which might I just be? Because if - and I can't stress that if enough - if I were a moralist I would be skydivingly hypocritical and pick and choose from different systems in order to have to explain the good - and bad - things I do and think.

I understand you noticed a idealism there: "Ah! He does indeed sacrifice for the greater good in this case! Obviously he must be challenged with this problem in order to problematize his worldview!" That worldview just isn't there. Between us two, the universals are only relevent to you.

For example, the aforementioned 99% tax rate. It's unfair, I believe, to present me with that problem just because I said taxes are not inherently good or bad. But, you might say, when you don't have morals, how do you choose your belief in what's "fair"?

I do.

 

[Berzerker]

Didn't he also tell the young man he was going to hell?

no

he left it up to the young man to decide, thats what a libertarian would do

 

[Traitorfish]

When was taxation negative? Taxation is not inherently a bad thing. It's just a concept like most other things. It's basically a fee for living in an owned area. You wouldn't get the money outside the area in the first place. What about 99% tax rates, you say? Well, I don't like them.

All that was negative was the threat of violence, and that is everywhere. The fact of the matter is that it's not unique to the state that power through the force violence exists. The only difference is that in a properly designed democratic state, violence just happens to diminish. It's not a "I sacrifice three humans to acquire happiness", it's "I sacrifice three humans less".

That you refuse your calculus doesn't change the fundamental fact that you're playing calculus with humans. You say "I sacrifice three humans less", but you are nevertheless willingly and enthusiastically sacrificing humans- spending lives not your own- to achieve a perceived positive outcome. It's a utilitarian claim, no matter how embarrassed a utilitarian it may be.

And I'm sure you have all sorts of communism to say about the relations of taxes and all, but that's really not important here. We're discussing my morality. Shoo.

(Actually, funny thing, I'm really pretty indifferent to taxation when I'm talking from a communist view. Just a deduction from the social wage, in the same sense that company pension contributions are deductions from the individual wage; nothing to get all that excited about. This stuff is more about poking holes in liberal ideology. The reason I appear to side with the lolbertarians over the lefties is just because there's plenty of people to poke holes in their ideology for me. )

Blah. You know that I could also be nonfanatical and just employ things that make sense; you know, as accepted by most human beings. I don't have to have a particular moralist-idealist attitude in a political discussion just because it exists and I use a few arguments that may or may not be shared by it. That's ridiculously unfair.

There are other things to this world than morality, you know, and I don't think morality is a necessary drive behind actions, beliefs or decisions. I do not wish a moral high ground in any way, ever. I'd rather be considered evil by the moralists because you know what - I only see purists with problems of hypocrisy, purists with problems of what moralists would call evil in order to stay pure, and then the obvious hypocrites.

I utilize different rationalizations to try to act for the well-being of others and myself in different situations. My actions and beliefs are certainly yours to label but not yours to tell me what I believe in. And it's you who's going to be confused.

I was the OP of this thread after all. I like paying higher taxes to help the poor. What a good deed! As it is a good thing, there must be morals to explain the nature of this goodness - there must be a moral drive behind him, a code of which he follows to help out his peers! Do you really need to explain that with a moral analysis? Can't you just accept it as is and feel good that I do it?

"It only counts when I want to" is perfectly fine. It's moral hypocrisy. It's amoral indifference. Choose depending on your alignment. Which might I just be? Because if - and I can't stress that if enough - if I were a moralist I would be skydivingly hypocritical and pick and choose from different systems in order to have to explain the good - and bad - things I do and think.

I understand you noticed a idealism there: "Ah! He does indeed sacrifice for the greater good in this case! Obviously he must be challenged with this problem in order to problematize his worldview!" That worldview just isn't there. Between us two, the universals are only relevent to you.

For example, the aforementioned 99% tax rate. It's unfair, I believe, to present me with that problem just because I said taxes are not inherently good or bad. But, you might say, when you don't have morals, how do you choose your belief in what's "fair"?

I do.

I get the rejection of ideology and moralism. I can even the argument for a subjective ethics. But that demands some sort of coherence, the assertion of some genuine values, or it's just nihilism. It might be a practical nihilism, one more concerned with "getting things done" than moping around in a black turtleneck, but it remains none the less nihilistic. I don't see any value in that, any guide to how to live well, I see the abdication of the responsibility of living well in favour of a child-like freedom.

(And, despite your scorn for the moral high ground, it doesn't seem like the opportunity to of stand aloof over the inevitable hypocrisy of the furrow-browed moralists is entirely lost! )

no

he left it up to the young man to decide, thats what a libertarian would do

The man asked "what must I do to be good". Jesus told him to give away his material wealth. To retain material wealth, then, is to be non-good. That Jesus did not compel him to chose between virtue and vice, but left the decision to his conscience, does not imply that he was abolishing the distinction. It may be non-authoritarian, even anarchistic, but it's hardly libertarian in the free-marketeering sense of the word.

 

[Angst]

That you refuse your calculus doesn't change the fundamental fact that you're playing calculus with humans. You say "I sacrifice three humans less", but you are nevertheless willingly and enthusiastically sacrificing humans- spending lives not your own- to achieve a perceived positive outcome. It's a utilitarian claim, no matter how embarrassed a utilitarian it may be.

Yeah, I'm not sure that's the case. I think you're misunderstanding my "calculus" a little bit still. But woot!

(Actually, funny thing, I'm really pretty indifferent to taxation when I'm talking from a communist view. Just a deduction from the social wage, in the same sense that company pension contributions are deductions from the individual wage; nothing to get all that excited about. This stuff is more about poking holes in liberal ideology. The reason I appear to side with the lolbertarians over the lefties is just because there's plenty of people to poke holes in their ideology for me. )

I've actually never considered you as siding with lolbertarians, I merely think you are strictly critical of things outside your utopia. Needless to say, I'm more relaxed. I won't vote for a communist party, but if another nation gets one such in control and functions properly, it won't hinder me moving there more than the actual things that make me stay in Denmark - particularly the Danish friendliness, the women, the climate. (Believe it or not. I hate warmth or worse cold.)

I get the rejection of ideology and moralism. I can even the argument for a subjective ethics. But that demands some sort of coherence, the assertion of some genuine values, or it's just nihilism. It might be a practical nihilism, one more concerned with "getting things done" than moping around in a black turtleneck, but it remains none the less nihilistic. I don't see any value in that, any guide to how to live well, I see the abdication of the responsibility of living well in favour of a child-like freedom.

Does it really require coherence? Why not borrow arguments that are well-made? Isn't caring about where arguments come from a kind of idealistic method in itself?

(And, despite your scorn for the moral high ground, it doesn't seem like the opportunity to of stand aloof over the inevitable hypocrisy of the furrow-browed moralists is entirely lost! )

Well... I like to think of myself as indifferent, but not hypocritical. That is, people may even believe in the morals they want. I just hate having words stuck in my mouth.

My irks with it really roots in my desperate parsing of ethics in my teenage years as I spent a lot of time reading books and formulating ethics that could somehow be universally applicable - it does just not do. There is nothing you can universally embrace without hurting someone or being hypocritical. Then I embraced InsaNietzsche+Kierkrazygaard for a while, going a little crazy with what you should be allowed to do, and now... Yeah, I've talked a lot about myself. You know my position.

That said, you did make me realize I've been a little too happy with myself over being free of morals. I have to meditate on this.

 

[Crezth]

Does it really require coherence? Why not borrow arguments that are well-made? Isn't caring about where arguments come from a kind of idealistic method in itself?

Just to butt in: if it isn't coherent, it's arbitrary. Maybe that's not bad, but insofar as we are in the business of justifying our views, it isn't very convincing. The power of justifications lies partially in their transferability - so if you tell me we must tax for the greater good, because the greater good is good, then it is entirely reasonable to ask what oughtn't we do where the greater good is concerned, and then "why not?"