Yes. For too long, people have conflated morality with aesthetics, decorum, and etiquette. It’s time for that to stop.
According to the idiots that reduce all morality to libertarianism, yes.
Hm. And you have something better than freedom ?
I’m not objecting to freedom as an ethical standard, I’m objecting to treating it as exhausting the entirety of ethics.
I think what everyone is waiting for is a derrivation.
How wonderful. Now you get to demonstrate that morality means something other than what it actually means. Go to it.
-
I think you may have taken the bait on a textbook logical fallacy from Juan
-
It should be obvious that if you wish to continue on in this discussion it will probably result in the same way as all the previous ones dealing with the NAP. While your statement may seem simple and obvious enough, for some reason it does not bode well with many here. That would lead me to believe there is some form of communication error somewhere; perhaps to the point where people have to carefully define morality, ethics, etc if one wants to try to salvage a productive conversation.
Could part of the communication breakdow be that this site specializes on the topics of freedom and economics, while you diverge a little out of it when talking about the entirety of ethics? I have no idea, but a seemingly simple and uncontroversial view certainly meets with much hostility on this site.
Main point/ question where and why does this disagreement happen?
I"m pissed I had a reply, I conceded some of your points and argued others. It’s gonna take awhile to recompose it. Be aware sometimes the backspace key will take you back a page and erase everything. I want to continue the discussion, I’ll recompose it, not now though I’m too pissed.
Morality: What is right and wrong.
But apparently when I consider some things to be morally wrong, I’m actually thinking something else entirely.
How nice of you to tell me what I’m thinking.
wrt what?
Concerning the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong.
Is that ok? [^o)]
No. You need to specific what it’s in relation to. You simply put different words for right and wrong. But what do those relate to? What’s the unifying concept?
Well now that’s largely based on opinion. That is to say, anything allowed by the NAP could be considered moral or immoral by anyone.
sigh
Ok, what problem are you having with the English language such that you are not grasping that moral/immoral require something of which they are the modifiers?
You’re missing the point and in spectacularly condescending fashion I might add.
What do you want me to do, recite my personal beliefs on why I believe why X is immoral? Because that’s really not the issue.
Rather, you’re missing the point that moral/immoral have to do with something specific. That you’re evading such is your problem. I suggest you fix it.
When did I ever claim otherwise?
Then with what specifically have they to do?
Obviously, the NAP, I think we can agree on that. Additionally, in my case, the Bible.
Your problem is dismissing any view which holds that there are objective (and not enforceable) moral and ethic standards not prescribed by libertarianism.
If you don’t want to believe that there are, fine. Live your life based on your moral principles and I’ll live based on mine. But don’t tell me that what I view as immoral is objectively moral, and that I’m simply labeling ‘rude conduct’ as immoral. That amounts to no more than childishly trying to force your opinion on others.
Suicide, I agree, is terrible. However, when it comes to vices like suicide, drugs, or abortion, no amount of “laws” and “rules” are going to work. They are misdirected, ineffective, and stupid. The only way to reduce or eliminate those things is through persuasion, not through force.