Don Athos

  1. ladyphoenix
    Can't say how awesome it is to have you here.

    Your posts, much like Talthas' posts are a source of constant mental exercise. I have yet to find one that really strikes a discordant tone, not to say that they shouldn't exist.

    Any chance I could get you to, much like Martyr, give me a quick rundown of your positions on things so I have a better idea how to focus future discussions?
  2. ladyphoenix
    Ok, so here's a first question to you, dude, and anyone else feel free to chime in...

    Let me try to lay out the conclusions I've come to here and see if we can't figure out a way to model yours in a simpler fashion.

    I assume not only that (absent external influence) I own my body, but that I should retain said ownership.-meaning the aforementioned "external influences" would be immoral acts.

    How does one effectively come from the assumption of self-ownership to the conclusion that self-ownership is moral? I'm having a hard time putting those two together.

    Even absent that, I think that all morality can be broken down in terms of ownership. There needn't be any discussion of rights (entitlements). Those seem to confuse an otherwise simple matter.

    For instance...

    Why is murder wrong?
    Why is rape wrong?
    Why is theft wrong?
    Why is trespass wrong?

    How could we apply this to the rights delineated in the DoI? Can we?
  3. DonAthos
    "How does one effectively come from the assumption of self-ownership to the conclusion that self-ownership is moral?"

    I don't think that self-ownership is moral; I think it's unavoidable. I think that morality only applies to matters of choice, and that there is no way for an individual to "choose" not to own himself.

    "Why is murder wrong?
    Why is rape wrong?"

    These are great questions for ethical philosophy, but I approach ethics and politics as being separate (though with a lot in common). I don't think that what should be legal/illegal is based simply on what I view as "right/wrong." E.g., I think that adultery is very often wrong in the sense of immoral, but I wouldn't pass a law against it.

    As to why I think murder, etc., ought to be illegal is that they interfere with a person doing those things that people must do to survive as human beings.

    And the things that people must do to survive as human beings is basically what I consider our natural rights to be.
  4. ladyphoenix
    I have a hard time separating morality and politics, mainly because I reject politics... or at least that's the only reason I can come up. The only things I should be held accountable for are moral violations, violations of property and contract.

    Part of my search of late has been to determine whether or not "moral government" is even possible. As it stands, I find it impossible to reconcile a body who is treated, itself, as greater than the individuals who comprise it, morally and otherwise... greater in that individuals who are considered "agents of the state" are permitted to commit immoral acts that every day joes, you and me, would be crucified for... not only that, but they do those immoral things to hold up regulations against those very immoral things. I just can't justify it. Not to mention, the whole "justice system" is nothing more than institutionalized revenge. I have a serious issue with that as well. I have no respect for any of it.
  5. ladyphoenix
    The issue of natural rights is another one that I have a problem with. I'm willing to concede that there are rights which seem to emerge in seemingly all, or at least a very vast majority of "societies" in human history. Those rights I would call "naturally occurring." I wouldn't ever try to make the case, however, that there were some "objective" and "inherent" rights that exist independent of such an emergence.

    I think though, that we'll have to discuss this one separately.
Results 1 to 5 of 5