4 ms·

The philosophy was developed because people cannot agree on the basics, and there is no supreme moral authority to appeal to. It follows that any enforcement of

The philosophy was developed because people cannot agree on the basics, and there is no supreme moral authority to appeal to. It follows that any enforcement of one person or group's will on another cannot be morally justified, no matter how well-meaning the imposers are. This is the only basis by which people who are fundamentally, diametrically opposed can coexist peacefully.

dragonwriter 3y ago
This assumes an universal ultimate moral precept: that peaceful coexistence despite moral disagreement over every other precept is the ultimate and univeral moral rule. Of course, one thing on which the vast majority of people, regardless of their different moral systems, agree on is that this is not the case.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
harimau777 3y ago
Isn't that just forcing the group that wants the status quo's will upon the group that wants change? That doesn't seem like it promotes peaceful coexistence. It just allows the group currently doing the oppressing to continue to do so.
hughesjj 3y ago
So, that means that land should be free, pedophilia and child porn legal, total anarchy? There's no such thing as not having the will of a group imposed on others. The best we can do is formalize a non-violent system of consensus of rules we can live by, and then allow only said system to use violence to enforce such rules.... Which is literally what government is.
- thegrimmest 3y ago
  Pedophilia and child porn involves people who cannot consent, so no. Funny how that's the one that folks reach for though isn't it? Mandating that relationships are consensual isn't equivalent to anarchy. It's exactly one of the rules you're talking about.
  - ses1984 3y ago
    I’m not saying I disagree with you re child porn, but realize that you are encoding a lot of moral judgement in what qualifies as consensual. What makes the relationship between Uber and an Uber driver consensual? Can you give consent if your alternative is starvation or homelessness?
    - thegrimmest 3y ago
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZwvrxVavnQn https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZwvrxVavnQn [2:49] I agree it's not an absolute, immutable concept, but I think it's a hell of a lot clearer than "good" or "right" or "fair". What makes consent is the fact that either party can opt out at any time for any/no reason. It's consensual because we are decision-making agents, and in spite of privation we can still choose to refuse to transact. Consent is violated by force or direct threat of force, not by the circumstances the transacting parties may find themselves in. If you're very horny can you still refuse to consent to sex? If you happen to be dying of thirst and I offer you a glass of water, can you refuse? You can. Are there may reasons why you would? I don't imagine so. Does it follow there there are no circumstances under which anyone would refuse? It does not.
      - ses1984 3y ago
        Did anyone get my consent before burning coal and spewing toxic gas into the atmosphere? Did anyone get my consent before pulling all the fish out of the ocean? Did anyone get my consent before dumping toxic chemicals into the river that runs through my backyard?
        thegrimmest 3y ago
        These are are problems of the commons[1], and do need governance. They don't however represent direct interactions between people (unlike say employment or sex) and so consent isn't really in-scope here. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons

dragonwriter 3y ago

This assumes an universal ultimate moral precept: that peaceful coexistence despite moral disagreement over every other precept is the ultimate and univeral moral rule. Of course, one thing on which the vast majority of people, regardless of their different moral systems, agree on is that this is not the case.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

harimau777 3y ago

Isn't that just forcing the group that wants the status quo's will upon the group that wants change? That doesn't seem like it promotes peaceful coexistence. It just allows the group currently doing the oppressing to continue to do so.

hughesjj 3y ago

So, that means that land should be free, pedophilia and child porn legal, total anarchy? There's no such thing as not having the will of a group imposed on others. The best we can do is formalize a non-violent system of consensus of rules we can live by, and then allow only said system to use violence to enforce such rules.... Which is literally what government is.

thegrimmest 3y ago
Pedophilia and child porn involves people who cannot consent, so no. Funny how that's the one that folks reach for though isn't it? Mandating that relationships are consensual isn't equivalent to anarchy. It's exactly one of the rules you're talking about.
- ses1984 3y ago
  I’m not saying I disagree with you re child porn, but realize that you are encoding a lot of moral judgement in what qualifies as consensual. What makes the relationship between Uber and an Uber driver consensual? Can you give consent if your alternative is starvation or homelessness?
  - thegrimmest 3y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZwvrxVavnQn https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZwvrxVavnQn [2:49] I agree it's not an absolute, immutable concept, but I think it's a hell of a lot clearer than "good" or "right" or "fair". What makes consent is the fact that either party can opt out at any time for any/no reason. It's consensual because we are decision-making agents, and in spite of privation we can still choose to refuse to transact. Consent is violated by force or direct threat of force, not by the circumstances the transacting parties may find themselves in. If you're very horny can you still refuse to consent to sex? If you happen to be dying of thirst and I offer you a glass of water, can you refuse? You can. Are there may reasons why you would? I don't imagine so. Does it follow there there are no circumstances under which anyone would refuse? It does not.
    - ses1984 3y ago
      Did anyone get my consent before burning coal and spewing toxic gas into the atmosphere? Did anyone get my consent before pulling all the fish out of the ocean? Did anyone get my consent before dumping toxic chemicals into the river that runs through my backyard?
      - thegrimmest 3y ago
        These are are problems of the commons[1], and do need governance. They don't however represent direct interactions between people (unlike say employment or sex) and so consent isn't really in-scope here. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons