|
absolem posted:
Since this thread seems to be the best to answer this one in... Good Citizen posted:My moral system can be generalized as: Pretty much this. Because I do have an obligation to my fellow human beings on this planet. Does it chafe me to know that some of my taxes are going to some 20-something rear end in a top hat who's decided that collecting unemployment-benefits from our generous welfare state while living with his parents is the bomb (full disclosure: Not an American. Norwegian)? Yeah, of course it does. However, if that is the price to pay for having a functioning social safety-net there if or when I or anyone else should need it, then you'd better believe I'm willing to pay it. And, you know, it means that loafing kid isn't homeless and starving, which no-one should be forced to be.
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 09:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 23:49 |
|
|
rudatron posted:A well thought out moral system does not start with valuing things, it must value people first. Otherwise it is not the value system of a social creature, which human beings happen to be. Which is also where libertarianism ( and the crazy ancap nonsense in particular ) falls utterly flat because it insists on valuing people only as things, commodifying every part of human interaction. Which is where I think you end up with the asinine idea that "murder, rape and stealing a dime are equally bad", as well as the perfect justification for the re-introduction of slavery, de-facto or de-jure, in one form or another that seems to be such a hallmark of libertarianism. Not that this is a stunning new insight, but on the off-chance the OP is going to peek his head in again, I'm at least going to leave it here.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 11:11
|
|