Search results

No, it really doesn't. When I'm talking about throwing a football, I don't need to know, let alone talk about, how electrical signals to the muscles to control the throw. Humans are the only moral actors. This means that however you want to define morality, the only things that can obey or...

Going into a deep dive on that is beyond the scope of this thread, I'd say. For the purpose of this thread, dealing with conscription by humans, humans are thinking and the concept of starvation or dying of exposure does not. Humans are the only things that can make conscious choices. If you...

@ShadowArxxy said it much more concisely than I, but I'll post what I had. First, "any more" what "than death by disease or starvation"? I'm not critiquing grammar, it just matters for this discussion here. Second, I'm claiming it's not morally evil. Someone dying of starvation on a deserted...

There was no anarchy. It was honestly pretty rigid hierarchically, with little social mobility. It's like anarchy in practice, in that anarchy in practice immediately devolves into having a bunch of small warlords and little freedom, but not at all like anarchy envisioned by anarchists...

BWAHAHAHAHAHA, that ain't what communism says, even anarcho communism. Communism claims the state is good, because the state is the dictatorship of the proletariat. Learn a little. First, the concept of rights is treated differently by every philosophy, so I could call you out for 'redefining'...

You are either too lazy to read my posts, illiterate, or just willfully misinterpreting them at this point. As I've stated repeatedly, the only function of a state is to be the lesser evil. I've repeatedly said that they do evils to stop bigger evils. So no, I have not argued they shouldn't...

I'm sorry that happened. Governments don't have rights. An individual person has rights.

Animals can't be slaves because they aren't human. As for a human owning another, the way you've defined slavery excludes all modern day slavery.Trafficked people, for example, would not be slaves under your definition, as they are not considered property. Neither would child soldiers who are...

Again, those are goods. And my claim is that no amount of good justifies evil, only greater evil could (and even then, doesn't always). If you allow that good can justify evil, you've abandoned the key moral argument against socialism: that it's fundamentally evil. Now that does not matter...

Yes, a large number of people in conscription are basically willing to be there. But there are people who are not willing to be there, or just comply because they know there is no real alternative. These people are enslaved. The culture does not matter, each person's individual choice matters...

You just combined two different things, then claimed there was no distinction between the two. Morality and how to structure society/government are different but related things. First, no amount of moral goods outweigh an evil. That's the first thing. A moral good would be an act of charity or...

It's a necessary evil. It's clearly and objectively morally wrong to force people to do this. It's also necessary lest a greater evil happen. The key separation from this and socialism is how frequent it is. Jury duty is rare, equally applied, and as small a hit to liberty as possible. Communism...

I'm not saying they are communist. I'm also not talking about societies but moral systems. I'm saying that a moral system that holds "forcing others to do nonconsensual work by calling it a duty" as a moral good, not a necessary evil, has lost the key moral argument against communism. That's to...

If you've accepted forcing someone to do a duty as a good, not a necessary evil, you've accepted the key moral basis for communism: "you can owe stuff to people that you didn't agree to, and it's morally right to compel it." The rest is just a question of how much is owed. Why not force citizens...

Morality is about what you do, not about what others do. Your actions' (sometimes judged in response to others' actions, but still your actions) morality is what makes you moral or immoral. First, smuggling other ideas in is a feature, not a bug, and common to axioms. Like the axiom of choice...

First you completely get it wrong, now you try to hide the mistake behind saying that it doesn't matter anyway. No, it's not sophistry, it's a crucial moral difference. It's the difference between aggression and self defense. It isn't a tautology. It says aggressing against another is morally...

It's not a nitpick. It's literally the definition of a positive vs negative right. The entirety of the difference between positive and negative rights is whether inaction or action is demanded. It's not whether or not something is requested vs demanded, tbc. It's what is demanded/requested. If...

... Somebody does not know what a positive right is. Again, a positive right is one that requires action, a negative right is one that forbids it. A demand on the powerful to not use power is a demand of inaction, which makes it a demand for recognition of a negative right. This whole paragraph...

No, I don't think a society based on ideals leads to genocide. In fact, I'd say a society without ideals leads to evil, as its leaders want power for power's sake. I get that shit ideals can lead to a shit situation. This is true. But to just abandon morality as the basic goal of a society is to...

Did you see the part about necessity? Look, one starts talking about society by first defining what morality is, then you can go about defining a government to protect morality as best as possible within reality. It ain't perfect, I'm not asking for perfect. I'm asking people to just acknowledge...