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.
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
people all have their owndefinitions of freedom — Thanatos Sand
people all have their owndefinitions of freedom
— Thanatos Sand
So we can't discuss "freedom"??!!
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?
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
There is great disagreement about many of these freedoms: — Thanatos Sand
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.