no, but public sanction of it is another matter (and it's coming, like it or not.)

So when what is deemed to be one's freedom is exactly that which harms another, what is to be done?

So when what is deemed to be one's freedom is exactly that which harms another, what is to be done? — Banno

It's not one's freedom anymore, simple.

by whose judgement? Oh that's right - you don't accept democracy. So it must mean 'according to you'.

by whose judgement? Oh that's right you don't accept democracy. — Wayfarer

My judgement. Do I need to accept democracy to accept the possibility of correct judgment? :s

The fact that the "majority" agrees or disagrees doesn't make something right.

So, your argument against women having an abortion paid for by public assistance, is that it's your money, and since you are against abortions then your tax dollars ought not be used to fund abortions?

Is that right?

it depends on the form of democracy you are talking about. Democracy is vague. You need to be quite more specific.

My judgement. Do I need to accept democracy to accept the possibility of correct judgment? :s — Agustino

No, democracy is needed to accomodate differences of opinion. If you say that differences of opinion don't count, or that only your own opinion is correct, then again you're advocating authoritarianism.

Morally it's not fine, but they're free to do it. However, if you want to speak about homosexual marriage, now that would be a problem since religious institutions cannot be forced to marry homosexual people. — Agustino

Are you Catholic? If not, replace "Catholic" with whatever is the appropriate term:

What if the Catholic church approves of gay marriage at some point in time? How does that affect the morality of same sex marriage?

Benkei, a portion of your last response was posted on The Philosophy Forum Facebook page. Congratulations and Thank you for your contribution!

Being on friendly terms to get things done is not a prerequisite, but its reverse, not being on bad terms with everyone is. — Benkei

But this is what I want to question. I imagine at that stage, material gain is more important in the eyes of all actors there, such that if X or Y hates you, but they can gain out of allying with you, they'd typically do it. In other words, they'd act on their rational self-interest, and not based on feelings.

I think the system in the US invites that moneyd interest are better represented than others and as a result the system doesn't lead to fair and just results. — Benkei

I agree.

This is a problem in most modern democracies to some extent but not an issue of democracy per se. I don't think it's a character flaw but a systemic one and those that "play" the game best will float to the top. — Benkei

Well precisely because it is a systematic flaw that is the reason why I'd say it's a problem with democracy itself. Democracy itself, over time, leads to this result. It naturally decays.

I said we have trouble with it but then it's an imperfect world and I'm not expecting perfect solutions. — Benkei

I agree, all forms of government have a tendency to decay, but I want to argue that this tendency is very strong in a democracy. In other words, a democracy is the most likely regime to devolve into an oligarchy or even tyranny.

It's a constant (and should be a constant) debate where the balance between our obligations to society and our personal freedom is. For instance, one of the most important discussions to be had, politically speaking, is about positive and negative freedom. The US has a very strong emphasis on negative freedom; e.g. non-interference from the State (and others) in people's choices. I think it misses an important point that some people simply don't have choices; dead-poor people don't choose to starve.

Indeed, but the question here would revolve around how it is best to help dead-poor people. Should the government do it through its institutions, or should this be something that the local community does by itself? As an entrepreneur, for example, I can look towards starting a business that employs poor people, maybe even beggars. I can start - say - a fast food, or a restaurant where the staff is beggars and poor people only. But these social businesses are very rare. It's not only because it's difficult to turn a profit with, it's also because it's inconvenient.

We consider it natural that within the family unit we create opportunities for each other to flourish, friends too, maybe our neighbours but it pretty much ends there. It's pretty much normal to take care of each other at that level.

Right, so I think this is the problem. We don't have any larger ambitions, we've lost the drive to play a significant role in other people's lives and be a central element in our community. Nobody - or very few people - strive for this today. Democracy teaches you to seek to be the "average consumer". Anything else is seen as arrogance, an inflated sense of one's self, and so on so forth. Other people don't look nicely towards it.

Not so much at the state or national level, which is why we have so much trouble working together. One side is racist, the other are pansy leftists, one side are immoral conservatives, the other immoral progressives.

Now, if I look within my own family my brother is a bit of a xenophobe bordering on racist, my mum is conservative on cultural matters and I'm a pansy leftist progressive. We still get along and take care of each other because they're not only the failings I mentioned (and I'm not just the failings they might see either).

So democracy is complicated by abstraction away from natural relationships. You can compensate for that but it requires less elected positions and instead appointees from society (much like jury duty).

Yes, I agree with this too. I too am the black sheep in my family lol. And I think this is a core problem with democracy - that it abstracts away - through the state's institutions - from natural relationships. It's no longer my duty to keep the street clean. The state has to do it. It's no longer my duty to do something for the poor people in my community. The state must do it. The state becomes like a giant father figure that we cling to psychologically in order to avoid taking responsibility for our society. It's a way of hiding from ourselves and maintaining our pretence to morality. It's easier to cast a vote afterall, than to actually do something yourself or get other people interested to do something.

Are you Catholic? If not, replace "Catholic" with whatever is the appropriate term:

What if the Catholic church approves of gay marriage at some point in time? How does that affect the morality of same sex marriage? — Benkei

Benkei, a portion of your last response was posted on The Philosophy Forum Facebook page. Congratulations and Thank you for your contribution! — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Oh dear Tiff, you posted Benkei's question regarding my membership to the Catholic church on the FB page? :P >:O

Are you Catholic? If not, replace "Catholic" with whatever is the appropriate term: — Benkei

No, I'm a member of the Greek Orthodox Church.

What if the Catholic church approves of gay marriage at some point in time? How does that affect the morality of same sex marriage? — Benkei

It really would be effectively impossible for the Catholic church - or the Orthodox church - to approve of gay marriage. I could see the possibility for allowing civil partnerships which are legally recognised as being identical to marriage, but obviously not religiously recognised.

The reasons for this are multiple. First, marriage entails sex, and homosexual intercourse is condemned as immoral by Ecumenic councils and the Bible itself (Leviticus for example). Second, marriage entails a spiritual union between two people such that they become one flesh. This also doesn't work out in terms of metaphysics when it comes to homosexuality.

But, to answer your question more directly, if by absurd, the Church changed its position on gay marriage, then the morality or immorality of same sex marriage would be unaffected. Since the Church doesn't get to decide that in the first place. If there's anything to it, it's a fact of nature, given by our nature (both physical and spiritual) itself. I personally would probably remain a member of the Church if that happened, but I wouldn't share the Church's position on that issue.

I've been meaning to open a thread to rehash our disagreements regarding telos, morality, sexuality, etc..., but I never did get to the bottom of how religion is actually intertwined with your moral views (I'm not really interested in your religious views unless they're the source of your moral ones).

Specifically what I don't understand is whether or not you believe morality is as the Christian God created it and as is revealed through (which bible do you prefer?). I know you subscribe to a "telos/human nature" based argument that more or less states "according to our objective nature, humans must behave in X manner to be moral/fulfilled/(happy?)/etc...", but do you maintain that you can discover this without appealing to god in any way? In other words, does your moral reasoning support your acceptance of the Christian god or does your acceptance of the Christian god support your moral reasoning? (you could say both, but we can ignore the circularity of this response; I need to know the answer to the latter question).

I think this is a core problem with democracy - that it abstracts away - through the state's institutions - from natural relationships. It's no longer my duty to keep the street clean. The state has to do it. It's no longer my duty to do something for the poor people in my community. The state must do it. The state becomes like a giant father figure that we cling to psychologically in order to avoid taking responsibility for our society. It's a way of hiding from ourselves and maintaining our pretence to morality. It's easier to cast a vote afterall, than to actually do something yourself or get other people interested to do something. — Agustino

So in a non-democratic system of government, how to people get involved in social change or policy development or whatever? How do you 'take responsibility' for urban infrastructure, like roads, bridges, railways, or for hospitals and schools? By individual effort?

I agree that in practice many democratic societies may be corrupted in some ways, or that liberties may be infringed by the state. But provided there is 'a state', or some kind of body corporate, what would provide for more 'individual empowerment' than democratic systems? How would reverting to a 'constitutional monarchy' actually enhance individual freedom, or help individuals take responsibility for what's around them?

Put another way - what non-democratic societies do a better job of solving such problems? Are there any examples?

So in a non-democratic system of government, how to people get involved in social change or policy development or whatever? — Wayfarer

People never get involved in policy development in a democracy. And if we had a king, that wouldn't stop me from opening a hospital.

How do you 'take responsibility' for urban infrastructure, like roads, bridges, railways, or for hospitals and schools? — Wayfarer

By asking the king (and his administration) publicly for support in whatever projects you have planned.

But provided there is 'a state', or some kind of body corporate, what would provide for more 'individual empowerment' than democratic systems? — Wayfarer

Monarchy. The monarch wouldn't say something today, and tomorrow change his mind.

How would reverting to a 'constitutional monarchy' actually enhance individual freedom, or help individuals take responsibility for what's around them? — Wayfarer

Depends what you mean by individual freedom. But mostly it would enhance individual freedom by creating a stable and unchanging set of rules and playing field, while providing long term plans which you can take into account when structuring your life. The other bit is by non-interference - a king will not meddle for the sake of meddling, while a politician always does that.

Are there any examples? — Wayfarer

We've already gone over this.

Specifically what I don't understand is whether or not you believe morality is as the Christian God created it and as is revealed through (which bible do you prefer? — VagabondSpectre

Yes, but this isn't to say that it cannot be discovered naturally.

you can discover this without appealing to god in any way? — VagabondSpectre

Yes.

In other words, does your moral reasoning support your acceptance of the Christian god or does your acceptance of the Christian god support your moral reasoning? — VagabondSpectre

I came to my moral views before I became a Christian, and actually my morality played a strong role in my conversion. I first discovered those moral views, and only later did I accept the Christian framework.

Since the Church doesn't get to decide that in the first place. — Agustino

Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven - Matthew 16:19

Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven - Matthew 16:19 — Michael

That was addressed to Jesus' direct disciples who were responsible for setting up, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, Christ's Church. The Church - and I'm referring here to both Orthodox and Catholic churches - has guarded the faith through the ages.

By asking the King — Agustino

You mean Elvis? What did he know about road building?

Oh dear Tiff, you posted Benkei's question regarding my membership to the Catholic church on the FB page? :P >:O — Agustino

Nope. Just this part

What if the Catholic church approves of gay marriage at some point in time? How does that affect the morality of same sex marriage? — Benkei

You mean Elvis? What did he know about road building? — Wayfarer

No, I think he meant B.B. King and well he knows how to have people like Eric Clapton, who some call God, ride with him ON the road.

The fundamental premise in selectorate theory is that the primary goal of a leader is to remain in power. To remain in power, leaders must maintain their winning coalition. When the winning coalition is small, as in autocracies, the leader will tend to use private goods to satisfy the coalition. When the winning coalition is large, as in democracies, the leader will tend to use public goods to satisfy the coalition. — wikipedia

The people tend to do better in democracies.

The people tend to do better in democracies. — praxis

That, of course, ignores the fact that a leader is temporary in a democracy, but permanent in a monarchy. This means that the monarchical leader necessarily MUST take a longer view of things. It's not sufficient to keep just those close to him happy and satisfied, the people also must be kept happy and satisfied, or otherwise there will be a revolution and the king taken down. And guess who will be leading that revolution? Those close to him! In a monarchy everyone around the monarch is waiting hungrily for the right moment to grab power - but for that they need legitimacy, which does come from the people.

When the winning coalition is large, as in democracies, the leader will tend to use public goods to satisfy the coalition. — wikipedia

In democracies, the winner tends to be the one who best deceives the stupid majority and promises them some quick gain, because he won't pay for not delivering, the future leader after him will pay.

It's not sufficient to keep just those close to him happy and satisfied, the people also must be kept happy and satisfied, or otherwise there will be a revolution and the king taken down. And guess who will be leading that revolution? Those close to him! — Agustino

A winning coalition member in an autocracy is going to lead a revolution to claim wealth and power? They already have that. Revolutions are messy and destructive. To throw the dice like that they'd have to be rather desperate. They would also need control of the military.

In democracies, the winner tends to be the one who best deceives the stupid majority and promises them some quick gain, because he won't pay for not delivering, the future leader after him will pay. — Agustino

Trump deceived the stupid minority, but yeah, if we're lucky there will be enough of a democracy left for the next administration to clean up.

When what is thought to be one's freedom is exactly that which harms another, it ceases to be one's freedom.

An example: one's freedom of religious expression ceases when it harms another; by restricting their marital status, or preventing having a blastocyst removed?

I would agree to that.

An example: one's freedom of religious expression ceases when it harms another; by restricting their marital status, or preventing having a blastocyst removed? — Banno

No religions cannot be obliged to recognise gay marriage for example. Indeed, that would be to harm religious believers and to restrict their freedom. Now gay people can surely set up their own "weddings" in gay communities, officiated by whoever they want to, but they cannot force a priest to officiate their ceremonies.

or preventing having a blastocyst removed? — Banno

Nope, having a blastocyst inside of you is not a harm. You don't get to decide what is a harm and what isn't a harm. These things are factual.

No religions cannot be obliged to recognise gay marriage for example. Indeed, that would be to harm religious believers and to restrict their freedom. Now gay people can surely set up their own "weddings" in gay communities, officiated by whoever they want to, but they cannot force a priest to officiate their ceremonies. — Agustino

Hi there Agustino. I am assuming your would agree that, like speech (help! in a crowded fire) even religions have a legally binding limits to their freedoms in non-theocratic states like the USA.


Outside of self defense, for example, a religion has no legal standing in the USA to physically harm an LGBT person, for example. I think it's less clear to what extent a religious person or organization would be legally restricted from psychologically harming them, though I'd imagine there are definite limits there too.


I think it's practically impossible to legislate belief though, so I'd agree with you there. It would be pretty hard to legislate against a belief that, for example, it is morally permissible to harm or kill an LGBT person or any person who does not subscribe to your religious faith. You can only legislate against speech that criminalizes such an exhortation to my violence and, of course, the violent acts themselves.

Does that sound about right to you?

No religions cannot be obliged to recognise gay marriage for example. Indeed, that would be to harm religious believers and to restrict their freedom. Now gay people can surely set up their own "weddings" in gay communities, officiated by whoever they want to, but they cannot force a priest to officiate their ceremonies. — Agustino

So presumably if asked to participate in a vote on whether homosexuals ought have the right to marry, you would say "yes".

I'm wondering how you would vote in a survey, such as is taking place in Australia; or the vote in Ireland.

Nope, having a blastocyst inside of you is not a harm. — Agustino

SO you would not object to it being removed.

SO you would not object to it being removed. — Banno

Yes, I would object to forcing a doctor to remove it. If it is against the moral values of the doctor, the doctor shouldn't be forced to do it.

So presumably if asked to participate in a vote on whether homosexuals ought have the right to marry, you would say "yes". — Banno

Nope.