The fact that some things should be compulsory does not detract from the importance of freedom. I am not saying that everything has to be free to be chosen or not. Consider how ubiquitous abhorrence of slavery is. That thought should be a good starting point to consider the merits of freedom don't you think? Freedom has to be a top contender as a cornerstone of universal morality, even if you think such an edifice is ultimately unbuildable.

Everyone wants as much freedom as they can get, but that has issues so we have laws and such which reduce freedom. And then you have those who want to have the freedom to choose any lifestyle they want and have the right to expect others pay for their choices. It's the world we live in.

Nevertheless, the desire for freedom is almost universal, and surely you cannot dismiss it so readily as you have, as being unsuitable as a basis for universal morality.

No, it's not because people all have their owndefinitions of freedom, and one person's freedom is another person's imprisonment; so, they don't all desire the same thing.

You cannot dismiss that so readily as you have.

And then you have those who want to have the freedom to choose any lifestyle they want and have the right to expect others pay for their choices. — Rich

That is somewhat of a specific gripe to throw into the discussion at this stage! But OK, let's go with it a little ...

A) suppose someone says that they want freedom to choose a low consumption/ low work,but viable, lifestyle. (That is rather different from saying that they want to choose ANY lifestyle and still expect to do a low amount of work BTW)

B) Now consider a somewhat opposite stance... someone says that everyone must be on a high work/high consumption lifestyle.

Given that situation A is viable (through robotic automation say, but the means need not concern us here), which is the most "moral" A or B? Where there is a way to allow freedom and diversity, then that is a Good Thing.

people all have their owndefinitions of freedom — Thanatos Sand

So we can't discuss "freedom"??!!

people all have their owndefinitions of freedom
— Thanatos Sand

So we can't discuss "freedom"??!!

I never said that. Stop straw-manning me.

This is what I actually said in response to your post:

"Jake Tarragon
Nevertheless, the desire for freedom is almost universal, and surely you cannot dismiss it so readily as you have, as being unsuitable as a basis for universal morality."

No, it's not because people all have their owndefinitions of freedom, and one person's freedom is another person's imprisonment; so, they don't all desire the same thing.

You cannot dismiss that so readily as you have.

So let's discuss "freedom" then. The Nazis put "Arbeit Macht Frei" signs up at concentration camps ("work sets you free") but I don't think many would support such a definition of freedom. I think most people agree what freedom is, especially the more concrete "freedom of choice". Sure, freedomis ultimately a fuzzy word, like all others, but surely you agree at least that there are some basic aspects of "freedom" that few would like to give up?

Sure, freedomis ultimately a fuzzy word, like all others, but surely you agree at least that there are some basic aspects of "freedom" that few would like to give up?

You seem sure of this. So go ahead and name them.

This first list probably represents the most agreed upon freedoms, though some religious organizations refuse to accept religious freedom.

Freedom to practice religion
Freedom not to practice religion
Freedom of thought
Freedom of speech
Freedom to move around and meet others
Freedom of choice in how to function in society

It's no accident that incarceration is a punishment in most societies. Or that hardly any political parties openly criticize these freedoms.

There is great disagreement about many of these freedoms:

Freedom of religion: Many people believe their freedom of religion should allow people to break civic laws, like Christian Scientists believing they're allowed to kill their kids by denying them necessary medical treatment. Many, like myself, believe they don't.

Freedom of speech. Many believe their freedom of speech allows them to call people racial or homophobic epithets anytime they want, including at work, whether they are boss or employee. Many also feels their freedom of speech should allow them to sexually harass people or make intimidating death threats or verbal assaults. Many, including myself, don't agree with any of those arguments.

Freedom to move around and meet others: Many believe private property is a nuisance and they should be able to move through all private property freely. Many, like myself, disagree with that.

Freedom of choice in how to function in society: Many, including prostitutes, pimps, drug dealers, hit-men, and con-men believe in that freedom. Many, like myself, believe that freedom needs to be curtailed if we are to have a society.

Perhaps were talking past each other. I think what youre trying to say is that in reality, politicians many times dont make any moral considerations when carrying out political actions. I dont disagree with that. It is certainly possible to pass a law or a policy without considering whatsoever what the ethical consequences might be. What Im trying to say, however, is that whether or not you make the moral considerations behind each act, all political acts are inherently moral. Given a hypothetical situation where a righteous group of individuals truly wants to create the best society, they have no way of doing it because the structure of a correct political system relies on the objectivity of the moral claims that sustain it. Sure, you could say "fuck morality" and just go ahead and disregardedly carry out policies and pass laws, but this wouldnt be the correct political system. — rickyk95

1.) What makes an act a political act is that it is done through the institutions, procedures, people, etc. where authority has been placed in a society.

2.) There are only two alternatives: A.] A society in which no authority has been placed anywhere B.] A society in which authority has been placed somewhere such as institutions, procedures, people, etc.

3.) I have never heard of any example of A.]. Maybe it would be anarchy.

4.) There is no such thing as a "correct political system". Just like there is no such thing as a "correct" system of kinship, a "correct" economy, a "correct" form of food security, etc. Political systems--where authority is placed--vary with culture. Constitutional democracy may at this time suit the occupants of the land now called the United States of America, but it may not have suited the inhabitants of Easter Island thousands of years ago.


What you are doing is taking cultural adaptations and making them teleological. Biological and cultural evolution do not work that way. Culture, including political institutions and behavior, is an adaptation to an environment. Saying that political systems are a moral matter is like saying that bipedalism is a moral matter. No, bipedalism is an adaptation to the environment through natural selection. Political systems are no different.

Politics is simply the way that resources are authoritatively allocated within groups and in the relations between groups. Some people say that economics and politics are the same thing, other people say that economics is outside of politics. Either way, it is about marshaling and distributing resources, not about creating a perfect or "correct" system.

It seems to me that this business of creating the "correct" system is simply an Enlightenment project and to characterize that as the business of all political behavior past and present is extremely ethnocentric.

There is great disagreement about many of these freedoms: — Thanatos Sand

Your sole viewpoint seems to be that every freedom has a problem. And I readily accept that, so just listing the problems isn't advancing this discussion.