rmsgrey wrote: J Thomas wrote: flicky1991 wrote:
bigjoec wrote:So to follow along with your first post on this thread, I'll leave it to you to determine what you should be mocked for -- too dumb to use the output from google autocomplete or too lazy to punch your search terms into a search bar that uses google autocomplete?
But let's hope you're appropriately shamed for getting help from a message board when that same help was so readily available from google.
Dammit, I thought all this was over! Can't we just say that google and forums are two different solutions to the same problem that both have advantages and disadvantages and leave it at that?
Probably not. Similarly with other moral issues. If you say "If you don't like abortion then don't have one" or "Why not let slavery just be a personal matter between a man and his slaves" then some people will have a hissy-fit because their intention is for the bad people to stop being bad. And if we compromise with evil by letting it continue to exist, then we are being immoral ourselves.
You're absolutely right in every way. Now who's up for a Holy War against misplaced apostrophes (outside of educational contexts)? Kill the greengrocer!
On the other hand, there have been legal cases because two consenting adults wanted to draw up a legally binding slave contract between themselves and were told they couldn't - the issue with institutionalised slavery is, at least in part, because it wasn't just a personal matter between a man and his slaves, but a relationship enforced and supported by the wider society, within a legal framework...
And so people are not legally allowed to enforce that kind of contract, no matter how much they want to. Meanwhile you neighborhood council can decide what color you can paint your house and even how often you must mow your lawn -- if you don't like it then live somewhere else -- and your employer can require a non-compete clause etc. The legal restriction is basicly that you can't enforce a contract that *sounds* like slavery. Legal frameworks are designed to control people's behavior, to force people to fit social expectations -- whatever those social expectations happen to be in that particular society.
And abortion is even murkier - successfully banning abortion would mean (temporarily) enslaving women to their unborn children. Myself, I'm against abortion, but also against irresponsible parenthood, and against compulsory sterilisation, and against genocide, which leaves me without an option I'm in favour of.
Yes, in the argument about who should be forced to do what, you haven't decided on a winner. You don't want to allow abortions, and you don't want to allow irresponsible parenthood, and you don't want to allow compulsory sterilization, etc. Actual libertarians would probably be extremely irate at you, because they think you shouldn't be allowed to enforce social norms except the particular ones they agree with.
Forums v Google is even less black and white - as has been pointed out, each approach has advantages and disadvantages, so declaring one to be the one true way over the other is, at best, dangerously dogmatic.
Yes, but there are advantages and disadvantages to abortion, slavery, genocide etc too. It's just that many people think the absolute moral cause overrides any practical advantage. When you argue that someone's moral stand is misplaced, that he's being dogmatic, you are only disagreeing with his morals, and I don't see that there is any absolute ground to decide who's right. It gets decided in a particular culture on the basis of practicality and tradition and such. So for example most Americans believe that it's perfectly fine to imprison cattle for their whole lives and then slaughter them in huge numbers, because only human beings have rights. Other animals are only property, and anybody can do whatever they want to animals that don't belong to anybody within the restrictions imposed by the society. If you think you would enjoy torturing stray cats, society will try to stop you not because stray cats have the right not to be tortured but because society is disgusted with people who want to do that and wants them to be locked up until they are cured. Meanwhile cows with their big sad eyes can be imprisoned for life, force-impregnated, castrated, etc because.... If at some point we decide to stop breeding cattle to eat, we will probably just genocide them.... My point here is that moral arguments come from social contexts, and have no special validity beyond the society that enforces them.
One of the many ways to slide into evil is to decide that every one of your opinions is the word of Deity-of-choice and that you have a duty to persecute the unrighteous. Whenever you're tempted to attack a perceived evil, there are two questions you should ask yourself: "Am I being excessive?" and "What if I'm wrong?"
That sounds good to me! I would add a third: "Is there enough of a social consensus behind me?". If 50% of the population is dead-set against you, you must find a way to live with them. The alternative doesn't bear much consideration. Work to spread your point of view and persuade people, but no enforcement at all. And if 20% of the population is against you, you must still try to live in peace with them. Look for ways they can conform some without compromising their principles. 20% is too much, you will win in the end if your people are dogmatic enough but it will cost way too much. 5% is too much. 1% is too much. 1% can swing an election. But when it gets down to 0.1%, then there are no limits but human decency. You can declare their beliefs a form of mental illness. You can make it illegal to be them. It's fine to refuse to hire them, or refuse to rent to them, etc. Or you can give them as much toleration as the society around you will stand. At 0.1% they don't really have rights, so you can do what you want.
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.