Sorry, I meant “Their mind, their body and their property” Rather than “Their mind, their body and their freedom” Had been working on a paper on the existence of free will for quite a while when I wrote that post and brain was a little fried.
No I very much don’t mean spirit. By freedom I mean the ability to understand and make choices, in this case those choices over that which already belongs to the person; their mind their body and their property.
Yes, people assume all sorts of things that are wrong.
“Sovereignty” and “freedom” both come with baggage I don’t want. We could talk about “The ability of persons to understand and make choices” instead if you wish.
So, I take it by “property”, you are referring to government ordained property. And of course, that makes morality dependent upon government politics. Your morality could sharply change from Obama to Trump.
… and you apparently don’t understand what “spirit” means, so we will let that one go.
No I do not mean government ordained property. I mean that which rightfully belongs to a person, assuming that property of that kind is even possible.
“Spirit” means lots of things in lots of contexts. It can be used to refer to a demeanor, a ghost, an alcoholic beverage, in conjunction with other terms to indicate a common feeling or set of ideologies. How are you using the word?
In your context, it means a person’s urgings, their “pursuit of happiness” (to put it in Constitutional terms). In general the word merely means one’s essential behavior identified as a conceptual being in itself, much like saying that rotation is the spirit of an electric motor.
Can I ask exactly which doctorate you are to be granted?
Yeah I thought you meant something like that… Now I can say with clarity that I don’t mean that.
Yes property is a bit ambiguous by necessity because it isn’t well justified really. How come person can come to count external stuff, such as some land, among those things that they ought to have the ability to decide what is done with, is not really justified well. There are attempts such as “we can come to own unowned property by mixing our labor with it” or “we can come to own unowned property by staking a claim to it so long as we leave as much and as good for everyone else”, but these don’t really work. I discuss this in those chapters you skimmed. My response is to just assume it’s possible and talk about it as if it is, and leave the caveat that if it turns out it isn’t possible, we can just ignore all references to freedom over property and carry on without it.
Also, as it is now after midnight here: Merry Christmas.
The “ability to understand and make choices” sounds like ‘reason’ or ‘the ability to reason’. While ‘reason’ and ‘rationality’ are good, can they be called moral goods? It seems to be a useful tool but not a moral good.
One can use ‘reason’ to be immoral.
How does mind “belong” to a person? How does body “belong” to a person? Who/what is the person if not the mind and body?
A person is indeed a mind, saying that a mind belongs to a person is little more than that a person owns themselves. Body almost ditto though I suppose we should make the small concession that it is at least logically possible that the dualist is right.
Understanding choices is indeed about reasoning, but being able to make them isn’t. I can understand that choice to not chop my hand off and keep it attached to my body, but I can’t make that choice for myself if you show up wielding a cleaver and hack it off.
It’s easy to operate a machine which one does not own. One may be controlling the body without owning it.
All I’m saying is that if your thesis is based on a concept of ‘ownership’ or ‘rightful ownership’ then that’s an assumption - one that should be removed in order for your theory to have greater validity.
One needs to be able to reason in order to recognize the available choices. And one needs the ability to reason in order to effectively decide on a choice.
If one cannot reason, then one is not morally responsible … that’s the insanity defense in the legal system.
I guess that I don’t get your ideas about freedom and how it fits in with morality.
No matter what the situation, there will be limits and constraints on a person. Which of them are moral/good and which are immoral/bad?
If I can’t fly by flapping my arms, does that mean that I don’t have freedom? No
Do I have more freedom at an ice cream store which sells 20 flavors compared to one which sells 5 flavors? It doesn’t seem so.
What if some ice cream sells for more money than I have in my pocket? Even that doesn’t seem to be a limitation on freedom. (It seems to me, personally, because the only real freedom is in your mind - freedom of thought. )
Of course, there are those who say that ice cream should be available to everyone without cost. Is that possible or practical?
Except that it seems that one is one’s body, not a separate entity from it.
That isn’t insanity, that’s something quite different, but yes obviously one needs to be able to reason in order to be a moral agent.
Yes, that is where the freedom “over that which belongs to the person; their mind, their body and their property” comes in. It’s not the case that one ought to be as free as possible, it is only the case that one ought to be able to understand and make their own choices.
Yes it would be practical and possible to have free ice cream for all, so long as you have enough resources and don’t mind losing them to others, but it isn’t (at least on the surface) a morally relevant issue. Whether you have ice cream or not is not a choice that belongs to you if you don’t have any ice cream, there is no moral obligation to ensure you can have ice cream if you want it.
It doesn’t, adultery isn’t morally relevant except to the extent that they might be risking diseases to their partner. But apart from that and possible niche cases involving contracts, what you have there is a personal issue, not a moral one.
As for free food, well sort of. Food itself isn’t a moral issue, but it affects several bodily freedoms as well as the freedom to continue living. So yes, it is a moral issue but something of a complicated one. Is it best to give everyone free food? What about those who don’t need it? Should we perhaps give free food to those who ask for it? What about studies showing that giving out money tends to be more effective? Should we then give out money to everyone, and how much? Will that be affordable to the state and will it create perverse incentives?
Essentially these are all practical questions relating to how we deal with the fact that some people in our societies are starving, I have an opinion on what ways would be effective, but it is essentially a question of facts not values. My answer to the question of value you seem to be asking, that is, should we help those who are starving or do not have a place to live, is yes, we should.
I’m asking you to show how your proposed moral system handles the situation.
It has been a moral issue for thousands of years and in various societies. It seems odd that you can toss it aside as a non-issue. Any interaction between two or more people is in the realm of ethics.
What about monogamous sexual relationships? You’re going to say that it’s not a moral issue?
Do you have a list of moral issues that you can discuss? Can you explain how your system works in some specific examples?
Any interaction between two people is in the realm of ethics? I suppose that’s true in that the people either act permissibly or not. I suppose it would be better to say that adultery is morally permissibly, or neutral, in many or perhaps even most circumstances, though it may be personally unpleasant. Yes it is considered a moral issue by a lot of societies, but societies think all sorts of things that are wrong. The fact people have thought something for a long time seems to be no indication that it is true.
My proposed moral system would say that governments have an obligation to protect the freedom of their people, which is likely to include ensuring that they don’t starve, but the actual specifics of the best way to handle that are going to be different from country to country based on the resources the government has, the zietgeist of the country that affects how people will react to policies and the extent of the problem in that country. So my moral theory, much like utilitarianism or any other consequentialist theory, needs the addition of facts about a situation before it can recommend a particular course of action. For example, in my country it might be possible to introduce a universal basic income, but that might be more difficult in countries that tend to be more right-leaning such at the United States. Things aren’t the same from country to country, so governments should not act as though they are, though they have the same basic obligations.
Are you suggesting I should post the entire arguments here as posts rather than link to the chapters which contain them? Because that is where my positive arguments are. Here I was merely pointing out that your objection that lot’s of people think that adultery is morally relevant is a fallacious one.
If you would like criticism of the paper, reference the paper. If you would like criticism of its content, state its content a little at a time. I personal felt that the paper was poorly written as a dissertation. But your ability to defend its content will make a larger difference to most reviewing professors.
)