as far as age restrictions on drugs…i am not sure. when is poisoning someone considering poisoning someone.
“here kid, i know this smells like drano but its really good for you.”
“here kid, this meth will help you get your homework done faster.”
i guess in both cases someone is offering a substance that posseses some toxicity to it. one is just more lethal i guess.
I’m not talking about you personally. I’m wondering how does morality based on ‘community’ aka mob rule work.
how do you think the issue of child abuse would be addressed in a free society?
Well first off community in the definition I gave was how people naturally chose to associate, so don’t think like “state” or something. Imagine groups of people geographically distributed so that people next to each other have the least conflict in value systems. Not by virtue of some external force, but by virtue of the natural desire to be around people that are like us. Then the way justice works in a local is pretty obvious, the people in the area will naturally agree on what is right and wrong. Objective morality would come into play when we determine if the people in the local classified the right acts as morally justified, or whether they chose the wrong acts as morally justified. If they chose the wrong acts as morally justified, it stands to reason that by doing things they should not do, their society will suffer.
I think what you may be poking at Juan is what about those people who feel exactly the opposite of you. I don’t think anyone is justified in simply invading another community for holding another value system. If it was me I would try to exhaust peaceful means. Financial incentives and argumentation. If that fails then I think its up to a society to decide if invasion is within its moral character. All I was trying to say about gray areas was that usually these societies will have objective rights and wrongs. Like killing for fun is wrong and killing for defense is ok. However the classification of a single act as either murder or self defense can be a gray area.
I don’t know. I can’t predict the future. I suppose it will be treated like any other crime since that’s what it is.
I don’t think what you describe is what I would regard as a free society. First, communities don’t have any moral standards since communities don’t exist. Individuals are moral agents, communities are not.
Even assuming that the collectivistic concept of community is somehow valid the idea that every single member will agree to some arbitrary community standard is hardly realisitc. So unless you have complete and unanimous consent (which in practice is impossible) you still need to justify the moral standards of the mob in some reasonable way - or admit that what you describe is mob rule.
As to the existence of “gray areas”, I agree, in the sense that not all kinds of property can be clearly and ‘objectively’ defined. Still attacks against persons (which is what ‘child abuse’ amounts to) doesn’t look that gray to me…
A community to me is a grouping of individuals who fit together in their value systems. I think that thing exists. It isn’t the same class as an individual though, but it does have certain properties an individual doesn’t have even though it is a collection of individuals.
I don’t think having a charter for a community is beyond reason, but certainly it doesn’t have to be that way. You are right that in reality the place we put ourselves will be in some ways imperfect, and therefore the actions of others will sometimes discomfort us. But I hardly think that a libertarian would live among statists had he the option of a libertarian society. Surely the libertarian society would have its factions and disagreements, but nothing like being in the center of a socialist nightmare.
Could it not be that the people who require objective justification of action would most prefer to be around people like that? And if they found the murky subjectivists so intolerable that they would not interact with them? I mean all I’m arguing for at the root is freedom of association basically. Perhaps taken further than what most people mean by it.
Yup. I, for one, don’t really see a kid sticking needles in his arm or toking on a joint voluntarily.