5 ms·

There's a line where you should intervene when others are not letting others live and let live. That's the overall human societal obligation that everyone has t

There's a line where you should intervene when others are not letting others live and let live. That's the overall human societal obligation that everyone has to each other. Then there's another line where you build the type of society you want, but only within your own circle of culture or geography or whatever. Live and let live requires assuring the first part, while also not imposing your own version of the second part on people who are not within your circle. The expression has always had nuance. Until now, I had never heard such a simplistic interpretation.

rayiner 4y ago
> There's a line where you should intervene when others are not letting others live and let live. But why should that be the line? Why shouldn't we police each other's behavior to ensure everyone is making better decisions that serve larger societal ends while preserving social peace?
- marmetio 4y ago
  Maybe I wasn't clear, but that's the second line I described in the second paragraph that I wrote. You can build whatever society you want. But there are also different societies. Some by choice, some not. People can be part of multiple societies at the same time. The trick is to manage the interfaces between societies without imposing yourself on a society you don't belong to. Live and let live.
- ThrowawayTestr 4y ago
  Because authoritarianism is bad.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  The Counterpoint is that individuals should serve their own ends as long as it preserves social peace. Many object to the idea that Society should extract as much utility value from individuals as possible up until they're breaking point is reached. Furthermore, the breaking point for social peace can be modified and delayed by harsh repression and subjugation, so I don't think it is a suitable limit on suppressing the desires of individuals
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

rayiner 4y ago

> There's a line where you should intervene when others are not letting others live and let live. But why should that be the line? Why shouldn't we police each other's behavior to ensure everyone is making better decisions that serve larger societal ends while preserving social peace?

marmetio 4y ago
Maybe I wasn't clear, but that's the second line I described in the second paragraph that I wrote. You can build whatever society you want. But there are also different societies. Some by choice, some not. People can be part of multiple societies at the same time. The trick is to manage the interfaces between societies without imposing yourself on a society you don't belong to. Live and let live.
ThrowawayTestr 4y ago
Because authoritarianism is bad.
s1artibartfast 4y ago
The Counterpoint is that individuals should serve their own ends as long as it preserves social peace. Many object to the idea that Society should extract as much utility value from individuals as possible up until they're breaking point is reached. Furthermore, the breaking point for social peace can be modified and delayed by harsh repression and subjugation, so I don't think it is a suitable limit on suppressing the desires of individuals
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]