Does Liberty Require a Moral Society?

[kybkh]

Reckon the obvious answer yes.

The trickier question is how does a society become moral?

Just talking out of my ass we got 2 options...

1. Dupe the 60% of society which is comprised of untermensch in to believing that if they act on their animal instincts they face eternal damnation. Which had been working pretty well lately.

2. The Final Solution

[Kath]

Which person's morality is the one true way? Do any two people have literal, point-by-point, 100% agreement on each other's views on morality?

[kybkh]

Yeah, I kinda think we are gonna have pick a winner at some point cause some of our current ideas of "moral behavior" seem to be suspect at best.

You can probably include how ever much debauchery you want as long as you can convince them to be selfless at the same time. Kinda like we are trying to do right now.

But there has to be set rules to the game.

[Kath]

But there has to be set rules to the game.

Rule: You leave me the fuck alone to do my thing and I'll leave you the fuck alone to do your thing. You don't harm me; I won't harm you.

[kybkh]

But there has to be set rules to the game.

Rule: You leave me the fuck alone to do my thing and I'll leave you the fuck alone to do your thing. You don't harm me; I won't harm you.

that ain't working.

[BjornP]

The trickier question is how does a society become moral?

Oh, easy peasy...

Setting aside the question of which morality for a minute, the answer is: By each member of society wanting to and choosing to adopt a more moral way of life. Increase the probability of this by having people act as good examples and teachers for everyone else to follow. In short, you get a more moral society by putting a serious effort into persuading those you consider immoral to choose to see life from something approximating your outlook.

[Fife]

Yeah, I kinda think we are gonna have pick a winner at some point cause some of our current ideas of "moral behavior" seem to be suspect at best.

You can probably include how ever much debauchery you want as long as you can convince them to be selfless at the same time. Kinda like we are trying to do right now.

But there has to be set rules to the game.

I'd really like to you read this piece. I think you'd enjoy it and get a lot out of it: https://mises.org/library/utilitarian-f ... n-morality

"Arguments from morality" are ultimately sterile, because they miss the point. The business end of social philosophy is to discover, and then argue for, the most socially expedient morality.

That can only be done by demonstrating how well the moral code fulfills the purpose for which moral codes are adopted in the first place: the achievement of human ends through the facilitation of the universal means of social cooperation.

[kybkh]

Yeah, I kinda think we are gonna have pick a winner at some point cause some of our current ideas of "moral behavior" seem to be suspect at best.

You can probably include how ever much debauchery you want as long as you can convince them to be selfless at the same time. Kinda like we are trying to do right now.

But there has to be set rules to the game.

I'd really like to you read this piece. I think you'd enjoy it and get a lot out of it: https://mises.org/library/utilitarian-f ... n-morality

"Arguments from morality" are ultimately sterile, because they miss the point. The business end of social philosophy is to discover, and then argue for, the most socially expedient morality.

That can only be done by demonstrating how well the moral code fulfills the purpose for which moral codes are adopted in the first place: the achievement of human ends through the facilitation of the universal means of social cooperation.

Eh, I think we can do that after option 2 is finished.

At some point you gotta realize too large of a portion of our society is beyond reason to expect reason to win the day.

[Kath]

At some point you gotta realize too large of a portion of our society is beyond reason to expect reason to win the day.

I doubt your "large portion," analysis. The noisy people just make it seem like it's a lot of people. Nut jobs are outliers.

[Speaker to Animals]

Ridiculous. All of you have some inkling that you defend immoral shit all the time. You are acting like sophists because you don't want to admit you are in the wrong.

Kath: leaving heroin addicts to die on the street is immoral. It's actually evil. Handing them needles and drugs is evil too. I know you know this. You all intuitively know this.

Fife: you are doing the same thing when it comes to economics, trying to defend what you God damned well know is immoral. Taking economic advantage of the poor is immoral. Legalizing narcotics for profit is immoral. Libertarianism is the worst kind of liberalism.

Come on, guys. At least admit it. If you want to defend this awful shit, just fucking say so. Don't pretend like it's somehow morally ambiguous whether it's wrong to leave drug addicts on the street to die or to just throw drugs and needles at them so they hopefully don't infect you with the consequences of your God damned politics.