3 ms·

I respectfully disagree. Property rights have a moral component independent of their economic value, similar to privacy rights. Say someone says "let me search

I respectfully disagree. Property rights have a moral component independent of their economic value, similar to privacy rights. Say someone says "let me search your car, what have you got to hide?" What argument can you use against it? The problem is that we've been manipulated to believe privacy has no real moral claim. In reality, you should be able to just say "it's private" and not feel compelled to provide further explanation. It's not so different from being punched in the stomach. You aren't going to die, so what's the problem? You heal and everything is fine. So why won't you let me punch you in the stomach? Theft is, similarly, a moral issue. If I make something, and someone takes it, I will feel bad. Much worse than if I had to sell it to pay taxes (even if I disagree with the tax policy).

steego 11y ago
I respectfully agree. Property rights do have a moral component as well as a pragmatic component. > The problem is that we've been manipulated to believe privacy has no real moral claim. I agree. We've also been manipulated to behave as if we believed property rights automatically trump other morals. My point isn't that we should ignore the morality of these issues. My point is the morality of these issues can't be talked about in isolation because moral values aren't orthogonal to each other. Morality also shouldn't be discussed without taking pragmatic realities into account. You have to balance the two. Not everything is cut and dry.
coryfklein 11y ago
> Say someone says "let me search your car, what have you got to hide?" What argument can you use against it? How about, "A 2 year old was kidnapped 10 minutes ago from the apartment complex you are leaving from. We need to be sure the child is not in your trunk." Good luck getting society to give you a free pass in that situation.
- jeffdavis 11y ago
  See steego's reply. Just because something is a moral issue doesn't mean that it can't ever be overridden by some other concern.
- coryfklein 11y ago
  > See steego's reply. I have... maybe I'm missing something here. Aren't steego and I saying the same thing - he's saying it explicitly and I'm saying it by example? Maybe what I'm missing is what you were trying to say with the "search your car" analogy. Is it that privacy has a moral component to it? If so I can agree with that. I thought that "What argument can you use against it?" was meant to rhetorically imply that there is no counter-argument.
  - jeffdavis 11y ago
    I guess I think of moral issues as "leaf nodes" in an argument tree. Things you don't really need further justification for. You still need to weigh them against conflicting values, but if someone doesn't agree with you that issue X has a moral component at all (or if you disagree whether it's positive or negative), then you are bound to disagree forever. When an officer asks "why? What have you got to hide?", they've turned it into a practical issue and removed the moral component that I believe exists. That's as ridiculous (to me) as asking why someone doesn't want to be punched in the stomach ("why? Did you just have abdominal surgery or something?").
    - coryfklein 11y ago
      That clarifies it a lot for me. I hadn't considered how that phrasing just removes the morality component from the question. It seems like a worthwhile skill to be able to detect such comments and point them out for what they are - I'm definitely going to develop that skill.
GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
> It's not so different from being punched in the stomach. Tell it to the ghost of Houdini.

steego 11y ago

I respectfully agree. Property rights do have a moral component as well as a pragmatic component. > The problem is that we've been manipulated to believe privacy has no real moral claim. I agree. We've also been manipulated to behave as if we believed property rights automatically trump other morals. My point isn't that we should ignore the morality of these issues. My point is the morality of these issues can't be talked about in isolation because moral values aren't orthogonal to each other. Morality also shouldn't be discussed without taking pragmatic realities into account. You have to balance the two. Not everything is cut and dry.

coryfklein 11y ago

> Say someone says "let me search your car, what have you got to hide?" What argument can you use against it? How about, "A 2 year old was kidnapped 10 minutes ago from the apartment complex you are leaving from. We need to be sure the child is not in your trunk." Good luck getting society to give you a free pass in that situation.

jeffdavis 11y ago
See steego's reply. Just because something is a moral issue doesn't mean that it can't ever be overridden by some other concern.
coryfklein 11y ago
> See steego's reply. I have... maybe I'm missing something here. Aren't steego and I saying the same thing - he's saying it explicitly and I'm saying it by example? Maybe what I'm missing is what you were trying to say with the "search your car" analogy. Is it that privacy has a moral component to it? If so I can agree with that. I thought that "What argument can you use against it?" was meant to rhetorically imply that there is no counter-argument.
- jeffdavis 11y ago
  I guess I think of moral issues as "leaf nodes" in an argument tree. Things you don't really need further justification for. You still need to weigh them against conflicting values, but if someone doesn't agree with you that issue X has a moral component at all (or if you disagree whether it's positive or negative), then you are bound to disagree forever. When an officer asks "why? What have you got to hide?", they've turned it into a practical issue and removed the moral component that I believe exists. That's as ridiculous (to me) as asking why someone doesn't want to be punched in the stomach ("why? Did you just have abdominal surgery or something?").
  - coryfklein 11y ago
    That clarifies it a lot for me. I hadn't considered how that phrasing just removes the morality component from the question. It seems like a worthwhile skill to be able to detect such comments and point them out for what they are - I'm definitely going to develop that skill.

GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago

> It's not so different from being punched in the stomach. Tell it to the ghost of Houdini.