4 ms·

You have to make an argument that freedom is inherently good, which is not obvious to me. I think it's good to force people to do things in many situations

bheadmaster 3y ago
> You have to make an argument that freedom is inherently good, which is not obvious to me Your next sentence holds that assumption as obvious: > I think it's good to force people to do things in many situations Why do you think you should have freedom to even think, let alone decide, what is good for other people?
- bowsamic 3y ago
  > Why do you think you should have freedom to even think, let alone decide, what is good for other people? It's not necessarily good for each person, but good for society. Also I don't even know if I should have that freedom, that would be something we would have to philosophically investigate.
  - bheadmaster 3y ago
    You seem to be using the word "good" as if it's universally understood and agreed upon, but that's not the case. Why do you even think you should have the freedom to decide what's "good" in the first place?
- Jenk 3y ago
  "You're not allowed to rape" is a pretty strong example.
  - bheadmaster 3y ago
    "You're not allowed" implies that someone else has the freedom to decide what is and is not allowed. All roads lead to freedom. There can be no tyranny without freedom to tyrannize - there's just no way around it.
    - Jenk 3y ago
      It's not implying anything. It's explicitly telling "We as a society have decided for you" This is literally what law is. A social construct to codify (and enable the enforcement of) what is deemed moral vs amoral.
      - bheadmaster 3y ago
        > We as a society have decided for you Which implies that someone else had the freedom to decide what's good for you. Society is just a bunch of other people.
        Jenk 3y ago
        Ya, the majority of society (or not in many cases of authoritarian states across the globe, but I digress). You appear to be trying to paint some kind on complex philosophical picture where it just simply doesn't exist. Law is the codification, and ratification, of what society deems ethical/moral behaviour. Unless you are about to start declaring some magic creates law, no shit it comes from people.
xanderlewis 3y ago
> You have to make an argument that freedom is inherently good Or accept it as axiomatic.
- bowsamic 3y ago
  If you accept something as an axiom and other people don't then it's not a very good axiom. I.e., you will have to justify yourself and your actions to others, who think your actions are wrong. Besides, an axiom is something assumed because the way that the ideas are built off of them are interesting, not because the axiom and the result are unquestionable.
bluescrn 3y ago
I don't think we should trust 'the state' to force people to do anything. We generally need them to force people not to do a few really bad things (e.g. some basic laws), but in recent decades it feels that the concept of freedom has been under relentless attack and in an era without religion, the state is almost becoming a substitute for a god. But these days it seems that our leaders are motivated almost entirely by profit. They will not do what is best for the average individual.
- bowsamic 3y ago
  Do you think the state should allow parents of children to kill or neglect them if the parents want to? I don't personally and I'm happy for the state to try and save such children. There are countless other examples like this I could come up with. EDIT: the second and third paragraphs were added after I wrote this message

bheadmaster 3y ago

> You have to make an argument that freedom is inherently good, which is not obvious to me Your next sentence holds that assumption as obvious: > I think it's good to force people to do things in many situations Why do you think you should have freedom to even think, let alone decide, what is good for other people?

bowsamic 3y ago
> Why do you think you should have freedom to even think, let alone decide, what is good for other people? It's not necessarily good for each person, but good for society. Also I don't even know if I should have that freedom, that would be something we would have to philosophically investigate.
- bheadmaster 3y ago
  You seem to be using the word "good" as if it's universally understood and agreed upon, but that's not the case. Why do you even think you should have the freedom to decide what's "good" in the first place?
Jenk 3y ago
"You're not allowed to rape" is a pretty strong example.
- bheadmaster 3y ago
  "You're not allowed" implies that someone else has the freedom to decide what is and is not allowed. All roads lead to freedom. There can be no tyranny without freedom to tyrannize - there's just no way around it.
  - Jenk 3y ago
    It's not implying anything. It's explicitly telling "We as a society have decided for you" This is literally what law is. A social construct to codify (and enable the enforcement of) what is deemed moral vs amoral.
    - bheadmaster 3y ago
      > We as a society have decided for you Which implies that someone else had the freedom to decide what's good for you. Society is just a bunch of other people.
      - Jenk 3y ago
        Ya, the majority of society (or not in many cases of authoritarian states across the globe, but I digress). You appear to be trying to paint some kind on complex philosophical picture where it just simply doesn't exist. Law is the codification, and ratification, of what society deems ethical/moral behaviour. Unless you are about to start declaring some magic creates law, no shit it comes from people.

xanderlewis 3y ago

> You have to make an argument that freedom is inherently good Or accept it as axiomatic.

bowsamic 3y ago
If you accept something as an axiom and other people don't then it's not a very good axiom. I.e., you will have to justify yourself and your actions to others, who think your actions are wrong. Besides, an axiom is something assumed because the way that the ideas are built off of them are interesting, not because the axiom and the result are unquestionable.

bluescrn 3y ago

I don't think we should trust 'the state' to force people to do anything. We generally need them to force people not to do a few really bad things (e.g. some basic laws), but in recent decades it feels that the concept of freedom has been under relentless attack and in an era without religion, the state is almost becoming a substitute for a god. But these days it seems that our leaders are motivated almost entirely by profit. They will not do what is best for the average individual.

bowsamic 3y ago
Do you think the state should allow parents of children to kill or neglect them if the parents want to? I don't personally and I'm happy for the state to try and save such children. There are countless other examples like this I could come up with. EDIT: the second and third paragraphs were added after I wrote this message