4 ms·

> What they're really trying to defend is that government has no right dictating what one must or cannot put in their own body Talking about rights like this i

> What they're really trying to defend is that government has no right dictating what one must or cannot put in their own body Talking about rights like this is useless. You have to assume some basic moral principles to proscribe who has a right to what. If I disagree with yours, then we'll just be shouting up a tree for hours. For one, I completely disagree with the idea that the government has no right to tell people what they can or cannot put in their own body. Depending on the moral principles that a government is founded on, it very well may have that right. > individuals' utility functions Invoking "utlity functions" is such an appeal to naturalism. All that means is that they don't give a shit about anyone else.

mindslight 14y ago
Better off to disagree or debate philosophically than pretend common ground can be had, clouding the situation with dishonest arguments and fabricated 'facts'. In most political arguments with nutty theories on one side, those on the science-backed side think they are fighting for truth against ignorance. But what they are actually advocating is an implicit philosophy of deprecating personal autonomy in favor of an engineered society. This should at least be explicit, for the benefit of all. Analyzing utility functions obviously puts oneself first, but you overstep in trying to handwave them away as only not giving "a shit about anyone else". If we wish for systems of rules to be grounded in relation to reality (rather than taking on a self-perpetuating arbitrary life of their own), then we must consider the base case of self interest. Only after that is aligned properly can we examine emergent phenomena like societal good.
- dasil003 14y ago
  Rhetoric is not quite so black and white as you seem to want to believe. The moment you mention "engineering society" huge swaths of people will stop listening to you regardless of their inclination to agree with your fundamental argument. Most people simply do not have the patience to precisely understand any argument with the accuracy that an expert in the field feels is necessary. Note that I am not saying you have to play fast and loose with facts or fabricate anything, but simply: phrasing matters.
- DannoHung 14y ago
  Everything you believe is based on the idea that everyone has relatively equal agency in their lives. But that's a load of horseshit. And that's the only thing I have to say to you.
HarryHirsch 14y ago
> For one, I completely disagree with the idea that the government has no right to tell people what they can or cannot put in their own body. Depending on the moral principles that a government is founded on, it very well may have that right. So you are saying, a government of the kind that you approve of has the right to demand that people be vaccinated, and one of the kind that you disapprove of does not. This does not compute, the outcome is the same, as is the science.
- DannoHung 14y ago
  No, that's not what I was saying. If the moral maxim of a government is to ensure maximum stability and health for its citizens, then of course it has the right to dictate what substances people must or must not put in their bodies and it would have the right to do so quite invasively. If the moral maxim is individual liberty at all costs, then it doesn't. I would imagine that most government are formed on much more complex maxims than either of those two simple ones. The US government is ostensibly founded with the purpose of the Preamble of the Constitution in mind (though of course this has no bearing on actual legal rights granted, then again, we're not really debating laws in this discussion): > We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. That's quite a few overarching principles and I'm sure you could imagine situations in which attending to one concept would impede or cause the regression of another. Now of course, we could be talking about different governments and establishing different guiding principles for each, but I was just bringing up this one as an example.

mindslight 14y ago

Better off to disagree or debate philosophically than pretend common ground can be had, clouding the situation with dishonest arguments and fabricated 'facts'. In most political arguments with nutty theories on one side, those on the science-backed side think they are fighting for truth against ignorance. But what they are actually advocating is an implicit philosophy of deprecating personal autonomy in favor of an engineered society. This should at least be explicit, for the benefit of all. Analyzing utility functions obviously puts oneself first, but you overstep in trying to handwave them away as only not giving "a shit about anyone else". If we wish for systems of rules to be grounded in relation to reality (rather than taking on a self-perpetuating arbitrary life of their own), then we must consider the base case of self interest. Only after that is aligned properly can we examine emergent phenomena like societal good.

dasil003 14y ago
Rhetoric is not quite so black and white as you seem to want to believe. The moment you mention "engineering society" huge swaths of people will stop listening to you regardless of their inclination to agree with your fundamental argument. Most people simply do not have the patience to precisely understand any argument with the accuracy that an expert in the field feels is necessary. Note that I am not saying you have to play fast and loose with facts or fabricate anything, but simply: phrasing matters.
DannoHung 14y ago
Everything you believe is based on the idea that everyone has relatively equal agency in their lives. But that's a load of horseshit. And that's the only thing I have to say to you.

HarryHirsch 14y ago

> For one, I completely disagree with the idea that the government has no right to tell people what they can or cannot put in their own body. Depending on the moral principles that a government is founded on, it very well may have that right. So you are saying, a government of the kind that you approve of has the right to demand that people be vaccinated, and one of the kind that you disapprove of does not. This does not compute, the outcome is the same, as is the science.

DannoHung 14y ago
No, that's not what I was saying. If the moral maxim of a government is to ensure maximum stability and health for its citizens, then of course it has the right to dictate what substances people must or must not put in their bodies and it would have the right to do so quite invasively. If the moral maxim is individual liberty at all costs, then it doesn't. I would imagine that most government are formed on much more complex maxims than either of those two simple ones. The US government is ostensibly founded with the purpose of the Preamble of the Constitution in mind (though of course this has no bearing on actual legal rights granted, then again, we're not really debating laws in this discussion): > We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. That's quite a few overarching principles and I'm sure you could imagine situations in which attending to one concept would impede or cause the regression of another. Now of course, we could be talking about different governments and establishing different guiding principles for each, but I was just bringing up this one as an example.