Hey Phil!
My position on the Let's Argue thread is all over the map! I think it is helpful to promote discussion, so I applaud you for starting this forum. My position is likely very similar to yours. My philosophy is basically objectivism. In that regard, I believe that the one and only situation where society may morally intrude into the sacred choices of the individual is where safety is involved: i.e. where some person or persons is/are attempting to initiate force. My preceding post touches on the issue of accountability. At what point does a person acquire accountability and thus unrestricted rights? Clearly, a mindless individual is a threat to himself and others. The only way that society can ensure rights is by preventing and/or actively responding to all initiated force. In this paradigm, our society, our government, our people...are immoral. A loaded gun is not an argument. By using force to promote moral values (of sharing, etc), our government denies morality and values and degrades, abuses, and stunts the growth of a truly human society. I say this in the philosophical sense. Perhaps, in a more universal outlook, temporary pragmatism is ultimately more good. That, however, is probably beyond the scope of the hour. Yeah...I agree with you... |
