what do you think of this dilemma: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/16198/who-is-the-legitimate-author-of-the-constitution

No. That is not at all what I said. In instances of self harm people can certainly intervene--even though I woudl not agree at the time!

what is that supposed to mean?

My bad. In instances of insanity/grief etc.,.

I see. But how would you standardize "insanity"?

I faced a similar question in this doctrine of mine: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/16191/doctrine-of-contractual-sovereignty

I think someone may have something to say about you spamming threads honestly :)

Seriously, I would not 'standardise' insanity. People make the best decisions they can with the information in front of them. Mistakes are made. Flexible systems are able to rebalance, whereas rigid ones seem great at first but often cause unseen harms down the road due to their blinkered rigidity.

but principles need to be codified.

spamming threads — I like sushi

Well, I don't know any other way to mention/reference an article relevant to the discussion.

Absolutely? Are you suggesting if I say 'good' this has to adhere to one rigid definition to serve a codified law?

That's the purpose of this discussion. Drafting a doctrine.

You want to define an objective 'good'?

I want an objective framework for subjective undertakings.

By defining how we have to use words? I am guessing you are aware of Wittgenstein. How would you remedy the problem he poses regarding how language is a 'game'? Does that not in itself skupper your plans?

No, the terms. What would be considered "coercion", what would be considered "sound mind", etc?

Ideally yes, but if the parents are determined to not stick around, then they will not feed or look after the baby. In that case, we would probably want a safety net that feeds and looks after the baby in the absence of parents. — 83nt0n

This would invoke a literal paternalism where a societal demand is placed to care for children, either by the parents themselves or a state surrogate if the parents unavailable, but that need not be expanded to a demand that able bodied adults be cared for as if children.

Those are words. I am out

Bye

those are terms with definitions. I'm asking for definitions.

slippery slop?

This would invoke a literal paternalism where a societal demand is placed to care for children, either by the parents themselves or a state surrogate if the parents unavailable, but that need not be expanded to a demand that able bodied adults be cared for as if children. — Hanover

slippery slop — Copernicus

Slippery slop is the best slop of all.

But, no, I don’t think the staunchest of Libertarians would suggest unrestrained freedom of choice be afforded to children.

so what's your proposition?

The philosophical question at the core of modern political thought is deceptively simple yet infinitely complex: Where should we draw the line between “what I want” and “what is good for me?” — Copernicus

If you start with the wrong question, you will get the wrong answer. While ethics concerns what I should do, the philosophical question at the core of political thought, modern or otherwise, is What should we do? It's about communal action. That it is about us is the bit that libertarians miss.

While ethics concerns what I should do, the philosophical question at the core of political thought, modern or otherwise, is What should we do? It's about communal action. That it is about us is the bit that libertarians miss. — Banno

I tend to agree, but isn't this ultimately a matter of worldview? The challenge, it seems, is how to persuade someone with a strongly libertarian or individualist orientation that communitarian values might offer a more viable or meaningful framework for social life. But if foundational assumptions differ how might we expect genuine persuasion to occur? Whatever the direction.

The challenge, it seems, is how to persuade someone with a strongly libertarian or individualist orientation that communitarian values might offer a more viable or meaningful framework for social life. — Tom Storm

Is there a country where libertarianism has worked out well?

Is there a country where libertarianism has worked out well? — RogueAI

Maybe a fan can tell us. :wink:

If you start with the wrong question, you will get the wrong answer. While ethics concerns what I should do, the philosophical question at the core of political thought, modern or otherwise, is What should we do? It's about communal action. That it is about us is the bit that libertarians miss. — Banno

Should I throw myself off the cliff after a heartbreak or do I allow someone to stop me? That is the question.

If I drink 20 bottles and lose control and decide to do something harmful for myself, is it still me calling the shots here? If not, how does an outsider intervene without violating my personal space and freedom?

Is there a country where libertarianism has worked out well? — RogueAI

Cosmopolitanism paves the way for Libertarianism. As long as we have a sense of community, state, or borders, we won't have a pure individualistic society (which isn't an anarchic one).

Should I throw myself off the cliff after a heartbreak or do I allow someone to stop me? That is the question. — Copernicus

Why is that the question? If you allow someone to stop you then most likely you were ambivalent.

If I drink 20 bottles and lose control and decide to do something harmful for myself, is it still me calling the shots here? If not, how does an outsider intervene without violating my personal space and freedom? — Copernicus

20 bottles? Let’s say it’s 20 drinks. You may not be in full control of yourself. This might get you thrown out of a venue or carried out by a bouncer. Or, if you’re violent, as well as drunk, it could end in an arrest. What of it?

The challenge, it seems, is how to persuade someone with a strongly libertarian or individualist orientation that communitarian values might offer a more viable or meaningful framework for social life. — Tom Storm

You can keep it within the individual's purview.

If you allow someone to stop you then most likely you were ambivalent — Tom Storm

Maybe "at the moment". But I need a codified (non-flexible/non-contextual) doctrine.

20 bottles? Let’s say it’s 20 drinks. You may not be in full control of yourself. This might get you thrown out of a venue or carried out by a bouncer. Or, if you’re violent, as well as drunk, it could end in an arrest. What of it? — Tom Storm

What if I'm home and mistake poison for lemonade and drink it? Will it count as voluntary suicide or should someone violate my autonomy (which is questionable in this scenario) and save me?