Evil could be understood as belief in that which isn't. Lies, (self-)deceit, illusions, ignorance, etc.

There's only two flavors of politics. The path of force (authoritarianism) and the path of freedom (libertarianism). Everything in between is opinion, and more often than not, hypocrisy.

So you're a protector of the people!

How noble.

Mankind can rest easy, knowing that stalwart proponents of their well-being such as yourself decided that the forced parting with perhaps the most fundamental of human rights, from which many other human rights flow forth, was deemed "in their best interest".

Glad we have folks like that around to tell us when it is time to rewind centuries of enlightened thought to keep us safe from what sensible countries are now treating as a severe flu.

It is becoming increasingly clear to me that those who would argue in favor of using government coercion to force people into getting vaccinated, simply do so out of a sense that authority should always be followed.

If governments are acting contrary to human rights, willfully misinforming their populations about the health risks, instating medical apartheid etc. the only people who are not on their hind legs drawing a line are the ones that love authority. If one doesn't draw the line here, I doubt one has a line at all, and will simply "follow orders" (aka the Nuremberg Defense) wherever they may lead.

Historically speaking, the authoritarians are almost always the majority. Why? Perhaps because being under authority provides a sense of safety and stability, and a sense one cannot be held accountable as long as the authorities are responsible. Perhaps it is a natural tendency of the powerless to want to follow authority - If they cannot be powerful themselves, at least they can comfort themselves they're rooting for the winning team, in an attempt to satiate their will to power through a surrogate.

If you willfully participate in the ostracization of people for exercising their inalienable right to bodily autonomy, you were never a gentleman to begin with.

Coupled with the threatening language - sheer frustration because one's will isn't being carried out: you are a powerless dictator, an inept tyrant, and you hardly find yourself out of company on this forum.

The seeds of tyranny live in all of us, but nowhere does it flourish quite like in the minds of arrogant intellectuals.

I would invite you to turn those attempts at psycho-analysis on yourself first.

Plenty. Human degeneracy is a favorite topic of mankind's past and present intellectuals.

It is authoritarianism pur sang. The lofty ideals that are being preached are little more than a pretense to soothe the conscience while the fundaments of what made human society progress from apes are being ripped out from under it.

We've seen this before. History is full of it, sadly. It always starts with good intentions (or at least, allusions to such) and the idea that human rights are just a set of rules, and rules are there to be broken.

Though I think seldom humanity was betrayed for such a small sum.

Yes, a constitution is undemocratic. It is not written "by the people".

It is necessary, because as history has proven, it is entirely possible for majorities to democratically come to actions which are contrary to what we have come to see as unalienable human rights.

The minority must have some protection from "the tyranny of the majority", especially when that majority behaves in malevolent ways. Never forget that the national-socialist party in 1930's Germany was democratically elected.

Anyone who thinks risk is the main reason people resist is missing the point.

Governments are invading the lives of citizens, censoring information, constantly in contradiction and spreading information that is factually false, acting in contempt of human rights and their own constitutions.

Anyone who isn't on their hind legs yet, is an ignorant. Sorry, there is no other way around it.

I suspect that this statement is just the superficial rationalization of something deeper and darker: a fundamentally individualistic view point, in which the individual and his choices are mythologized and glorified, while anything collective (e.g. a nation, a policy or a private firm) is vilified or mistrusted, as standing in the way of personal realization... Atlas Shrugged and all that neoliberal BS. — Olivier5

However interesting your psycho-analysis may be, have you ever considered that there are people who genuinely believe that goverments (and now large industries too) are increasingly invading the private lives of people, and that this is a problem?

I advise you to read a few documents on human rights, rights to bodily autonomy, or what countries' constitutions have to say about privacy, and the relation between the state and citizens' private lives. Maybe you'll start to realize that we are taking a step back in time, forgetting the lessons of the Enlightenment where humanity (almost) collectively realized that individuals are not owned, and should never be owned by states.

Maybe apply some of that psycho-analysis to those who follow authority unquestioningly, and get so angry when they see individuals who refuse to do the same.

Which would lead to my personal take on what 'power' is. Intended action resulting in intended outcomes. I think power in this sense is both rare and almost impossible to recognise given that we have very little in the way of measuring such things. — I like sushi

Intentionally doing harm is much easier than intentionally doing good. So it seems the power to harm is much less rare than the power to do good.

I think that is a great argument for why even genuinely well-intentioned people should be cautious when offering their help to someone.

People who like to control others will seek out the means to control others. People who care for others will seek out the means to control others too. — I like sushi

Individuals who truly care for others will not seek to control them, will not pressure or persuade. To help someone is to bring someone to insight voluntarily, and allow them to subject your advice to all scrutiny and critical thought, and not to be satisfied with anything less.

"The welfare of the people has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it gives the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience." - Albert Camus

Read this thread and tell me he wasn't right.

... except prophylactic medicine, apparently, where the left are not only happy to hand over control to a private corporation, but then spend the majority of their time doing their fucking advertising for them. — Isaac

Best to call it out for what it is: authoritarianism. The left's version has always been will to power masquerading as philanthropy. Offer a moral pretense to soothe the conscience and these people will happily forfeit all your rights for the thinnest of perceived benefits, but mostly to pat their own back.

A non-rational argument is a contradiction in terms so I have no clue whatsoever what your point is. — Benkei

You've accused me of not being able to read in the past. :chin:

Obviously decisions about your body need to be weighed against the interest of others if those decisions have consequences for others and once you reached a conclusion you'll have to argue for it. — Benkei

My decision to get vaccinated or not, does not hold any direct consequences for anyone but myself.

A start to at least get a meaningful conversation going is that both sides realise they've not rationally arrived at their position, unless they're expert epidemiologists or virologists and some doctors, and stop assuming only the other is irrational. — Benkei

When making decisions about one's own body, there isn't a need for one's arguments to be understood as rational anyway.

That changes when one starts projecting one's emotions on the outside world and expect others to live by the same chains as oneself.

Covid-19 in Norway can now be compared to the flu, says health chief

Put down your pitchforks and clean your breeches folks.

There isn't such a thing as "climate denial". No one denies the climate exists, and most people do not deny that it changes either.

It's also a bit naive to believe that only one side of the debate is susceptible to charlatanry or fallacy.

I wish we could just let the terminal cretins live or die on their own term, triage them out of healthcare somehow. Save resources for the rest of us. But no can't do of course, our compassionate societies make sure that even the most antisocial distrustful lying cretins are cared for... — Olivier5

Those people were forced to pay for other people's poor decisions their entire lives, and when they need the help you wish to deny them?

What a simple view.

I would've broken their legs for the threat to me. — Benkei

You're playing the tough guy on a philosophy forum. I'm still trying to wrap my head around that. Are you making a case for how little we have evolved beyond chimpanzees?

Oh, I remember something about kicking their ass and broken legs.

Seems like you got rattled by some kids on a train.

Don't backpeddle now. You were giving us the whole spiel about how tough you were. I'd love to hear more.

You were going to break their legs?

It's amazing how afraid these people are of people in a uniform and immediately listen. — Benkei

They were being implicitly threatened with violence. That is why they were afraid. Nothing strange about that. With violence or threats thereof you can make people do all sorts of amazing things.

Why is this so? Why can't the prisoner unshackle and free himself? — Shawn

A great question!

The step of realizing the shadows on the wall and echoes of voices aren't real but merely representations is but the start of the philosphical journey Plato speaks of.

What comes after is perhaps more profound, but also, as Plato keeps emphasizing, a terribly painful and arduous journey. Painful in a spiritual or intellectual sense, I imagine. Having to build one's idea of reality back from scratch, having to cut away all those ideas that as a result of one's insights are now seen to be mere opinions or based on ignorance. For example, what does it do to one's identity and idea of self?

I fear the sad truth might be that only certain types of minds can make this journey. The types of minds dedicated to finding truth, ones that are not attached to their ideas and will dispose of them without remorse upon finding that they are not truthful.

For many are confronted with the faultiness of their ideas but cling onto them because of a sense of attachment, likely because these opinions are an integral part of what they perceive as their identity and makes up their ego (that eternal enemy of happiness and truth).

In my eyes, philosophy isn't complicated or hard to understand. It is about applying simple ideas consistently. It is the consistency that most people seem to struggle with, because it must then also be applied in instances where we may not like the implications.

The sad conclusion of Plato's allegory is that upon the philosopher's return to the cave, the prisoners assume he went crazy and do not take him seriously. The prisoners either cannot see, or do not want to see. Most people don't react positively to their idea of reality being rattled. They'd rather live in the comfort of their own illusions than to confront them. That is why.

There is a caricature of a Jew being smashed by a Nazi fist on that poster.

Who could've thought violent rhetoric would lead to actual violence?

You're both just trying to excuse naivety with deadly consequences at this point.

And however could they have known?

Can you cite some texts or studies that support that conclusion? — Janus

Have a look at the 1932 election results.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion and to make decisions regarding their own body, but it is a bit disheartening how easily people (on a "philosophy" forum, no less) have fallen for an us vs. them narrative hook, line and sinker. Unable to see nuance, unable to consider that other views are possible. Every dissenting opinion must be caricatured and treated with hostility.

The behavior of the useful fools of history, who are completely possessed by a narrative which tells them what they want to hear and feeds their feelings of moral superiority.

I used to wonder how people could stand idly by while the Nazis rose to power in Germany, but I've come to realize that people did not stand idly by, but happily participated. The narrative provided them with the approval of their own conscience and as history has taught us, the sky (or should I say, the deepest, darkest pit) is the limit with such people.

The "intellectual" parts of society are not as immune as they think. In fact, their arrogance may make them more susceptible to being told what they want to hear.

I agree with the general idea of the premise, but I would put it somewhat differently.

One does not possess the knowledge nor power to ensure one's child's good life, because of the many factors that are beyond the parents' control.

Therefore procreation cannot be a moral act.

One does not possess the knowledge nor power to make one's intentions come about, however just those intentions may be. It is down to fate and chance.

I would argue simply that the having of children belongs in a moral limbo of just intentions coupled with a fundamental ignorance and lack of power to make those intentions come to fruition.

Too much is unknown about the future life of one's child, and too much is out of the control of the parents. The outcome is a matter of chance, therefore it cannot be considered a moral act, but at the same time I cannot conisder an act immoral if it wasn't done with malicious intention.

The most appalling ignorance is that of individuals in regards to their own nature.

Most are willfully ignorant though, simply avoiding the confrontation with their true selves because this would require them to accept truths about what drives them that they would rather deny. Of course this also ensures they are unable to change.

To improve the world, one must start with oneself. Sadly, most skip this vital step. They would rather project their imperfections on the world around them and blame it on others.

What drives people to think they can fix anything if they are incapable of fixing that which is closest to them and they are most knowledgable about: themselves?

As long as the Earth orbits the sun and spins around its axis, climate change is going to take place. Best to get used to it.

I think my response was completely meaningful, if a bit snarky. "Says who?" can be translated as "I disagree" with the snark added to tweak you for self-righteousness. — T Clark

I wasn't aware that your comments needed to be translated first.

Let me have a try:

"I don't like what you're saying, but I can't find grounds to disagree."

I tried to engage with you in a meaningful way about this topic. This type of response isn't exactly going to prompt me to keep trying.

We make decisions for other people, especially children, all the time without their approval. We take them to the doctor; make them take medicine; make them have operations; make them go to school; punish them for bad behavior.... — T Clark

There are factors that could justify the making of significant decisions on someone else's behalf that apply to the raising of children, and not to the having of children.

The first, acting on behalf of another person's well-being. Assuming the parents' primary concern is the happiness of their child, this applied to the raising of children. However, the act of having children does not involve this, since there is no child on behalf of whose well-being one can act.

The second, possessing some wisdom of what constitutes that well-being. In case of raising a child, it can be argued that the parents have gained some wisdom in regards to the nature of their child and what constitutes their happiness and well-being. In the case of having children, no such wisdom exists as the object, the child, does not yet exist.

If the raising of children is not done with 1. The well-being of the child as its primary concern, and 2. The wisdom required to achieve that well-being, then the raising of children is not a moral act either.

Always consider the possibility that if one is unable to convince others with rational arguments, one's arguments might not be as rational and objective as one thinks.

If you don’t believe in the fundamental right to bodily autonomy just say it. Tell everyone, “I want to trade your will with my own”. Let them know that you and the government should decide what to put in their body. You’ll feel better when you let it out: “I want to exclude you from society because you refuse to do what I want you to”. — NOS4A2

Well said.