6 ms·

> The answer in reverse, is that government does not have greater rights than individuals. It does not determine morality. Morality is a rough one. Most people

> The answer in reverse, is that government does not have greater rights than individuals. It does not determine morality. Morality is a rough one. Most people who study ethics and metaethics do follow moral realist positions, but positions under that umbrella are manifold. When you look outside of moral realist positions, there are even more positions. So, the government doesn't govern morality, but even the people who study it can't form consensus. > Governments can of course write laws to justify whatever they like, but these laws themselves need to align with morality to be 'right'. Your problem isn't with rights or governmental egregores, it's with an inability to reconcile a morality with the turtles-all-the-way-down-esque social relations that summon said egregores. Until your moral claims can said to be true, then my rights could contradict yours, and it might not be reconcilable. Here someone smarter than me might even consider that the job of government is to reconcile the infinite, inconsistent beliefs, and to give some basis of "rights."

verisimi 5y ago
> Until your moral claims can said to be true, then my rights could contradict yours, and it might not be reconcilable. Here someone smarter than me might even consider that the job of government is to reconcile the infinite, inconsistent beliefs, and to give some basis of "rights." The moral claims I make are innately true to all individuals. You can pretend that government has the right to do that which you cannot do to another individual, but you would be wrong. You can do what you like as long as you are not harming another. A collection of people do not/cannot have greater rights than an individual. An individual cannot grant another a right eg to privacy. An individual can respect anothers right to privacy. Or he can disrespect that privacy. If he does disrespect that right, that individual has done a wrong. This same method applies to groups. If 10 people decide to disrespect an individual's privacy, this is still a wrong. There is no number, no implied convention that can make disrespecting privacy the right thing!
- ianleeclark 5y ago
  > The moral claims I make are innately true to all individuals. You need to convince me and ethicists, first because I could introduce you to some error theorists who would say otherwise. It's literal he-said, she-said with people choosing to believe what they want to believe in. Whether they base this in the categorical imperative or the bible. To make it 100% clear what point I'm trying to make is this: you can't just make a normative statement or that your morals are globally valid. When you do so, you say X ought do Y. So you need to prove that "ought". Why ought X do Y? And what makes that normative claim applicable outside X? > You can pretend that government has the right to do that which you cannot do to another individual, but you would be wrong. I was never interested in doing so, just in saying that anything you consider to be a moral fact isn't verified. > You can do what you like as long as you are not harming another. Andrey Chikatilo would expand this a bit. So would Dahmer.

verisimi 5y ago

> Until your moral claims can said to be true, then my rights could contradict yours, and it might not be reconcilable. Here someone smarter than me might even consider that the job of government is to reconcile the infinite, inconsistent beliefs, and to give some basis of "rights." The moral claims I make are innately true to all individuals. You can pretend that government has the right to do that which you cannot do to another individual, but you would be wrong. You can do what you like as long as you are not harming another. A collection of people do not/cannot have greater rights than an individual. An individual cannot grant another a right eg to privacy. An individual can respect anothers right to privacy. Or he can disrespect that privacy. If he does disrespect that right, that individual has done a wrong. This same method applies to groups. If 10 people decide to disrespect an individual's privacy, this is still a wrong. There is no number, no implied convention that can make disrespecting privacy the right thing!

ianleeclark 5y ago
> The moral claims I make are innately true to all individuals. You need to convince me and ethicists, first because I could introduce you to some error theorists who would say otherwise. It's literal he-said, she-said with people choosing to believe what they want to believe in. Whether they base this in the categorical imperative or the bible. To make it 100% clear what point I'm trying to make is this: you can't just make a normative statement or that your morals are globally valid. When you do so, you say X ought do Y. So you need to prove that "ought". Why ought X do Y? And what makes that normative claim applicable outside X? > You can pretend that government has the right to do that which you cannot do to another individual, but you would be wrong. I was never interested in doing so, just in saying that anything you consider to be a moral fact isn't verified. > You can do what you like as long as you are not harming another. Andrey Chikatilo would expand this a bit. So would Dahmer.