Anarchist Stuff
- Thread starter guerilla
- Start date
Great videos from Stefan Molyneux
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CianO-dkpJg]Moral Hysteria and Environmental Genocide (Speech at the University of Toronto, Liberty Now 2012) - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xR8OuCYV3Q]Liberty Now Q & A - Stefan Molyneux, Host of Freedomain Radio - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CianO-dkpJg]Moral Hysteria and Environmental Genocide (Speech at the University of Toronto, Liberty Now 2012) - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xR8OuCYV3Q]Liberty Now Q & A - Stefan Molyneux, Host of Freedomain Radio - YouTube[/ame]
Some people start making $100 a day online and start thinking they are a ganster.
Some people start making $100 a day online and start believing they are morally superior to society, laws, government, and everyone else and start calling themselves an anarchist.
Me? I became a dolphin.
Some people start making $100 a day online and start believing they are morally superior to society, laws, government, and everyone else and start calling themselves an anarchist.
Me? I became a dolphin.
Baked in this are two presumptions.
1. That morals have a better and worse option.
2. That "society" (an abstraction) , "laws" (statute), "government" (monopoly of force) and "everyone else" (another abstraction) are moral, or capable of morality.
The simplest question that you should perhaps ask yourself is, do I believe in right and wrong?
If your answer is yes, then your next step is to define what is the difference between right and wrong.
That's the journey of an anarchist.
Where does anarchy stand, fundamentally, on social contracts and moral obligations?
I see a lot of emotive assertions. The "Governments exist to eat babies and punch your grandma" sort of thing.
But is this a reasoned argument? Before you tell me that governments are necessarily evil, you must show me the reasoning behind this conclusion.
I watched one video (First one in JaredLV's post)thinking I would get a good explanation, and all I got was anti-government smearing.
Please recommend me something rational.
I see a lot of emotive assertions. The "Governments exist to eat babies and punch your grandma" sort of thing.
But is this a reasoned argument? Before you tell me that governments are necessarily evil, you must show me the reasoning behind this conclusion.
I watched one video (First one in JaredLV's post)thinking I would get a good explanation, and all I got was anti-government smearing.
Please recommend me something rational.
The Government holds the monopoly on "legalized" violence. They produce nothing. Everything they own is stolen through taxation, under the threat of violence.
By their very nature, they are evil.
Wait, so there's no social contract or moral obligation, yet Israel is morally wrong and/or violating some kind of social contract?
Help me out here. You have to believe in social contracts and moral obligations in order to make any moral judgement.
Who said that?
Also, you didn't answer my question. What is a moral obligation?
Also, from the other thread, "What is Israel?"
Can you prove that? If so, please do.
Moral judgements are grounded in moral codes.
Moral judgements have no grounding without moral codes.
Therefore the existence of moral judgements is contingent on the existence of moral codes.
Ok, we'll do this slowly.
What is a moral code?
And what is a moral obligation?
I am deadly serious about actually breaking this language down into concepts we both understand clearly.
Moral codes are any set of propositions that determine moral right or wrong. Such as "it is wrong to kill babies".
These moral codes give birth to moral obligations "One ought not to kill babies"
According to these moral codes and obligations, we judge things as right or wrong based on whether they adhere to or violate moral codes.
That is the million dollar question in moral philosophy. To my knowledge there are three predominant positions on the question.
1) Morality is a by-product of God
2) Morality is a by-product of evolution.
3) Moral Platonism- which can't be explained in one short simple sentence without sounding more ridiculous than it actually is.
If we don't know specifically where morality comes from, how can it create an obligation?
See, before we talk about contract or obligations, something integral to those discussions is explicit consent.
I never signed a social contract. If you say I was born into one, when have contracts ever allowed anyone bind their predecessors?
When did my ancestors ever explicitly consent to a social contract?
As far as a moral obligation, that's tricky too. How did I become morally obligated? Where did I agree to such an arrangement?
What are the terms of the contract or obligation?
These are the sorts of questions an anarchist asks. He can't (in good faith) adopt positions because "that's what everyone thinks" or "that's what everyone has always done".
Also, for the record, let's presume God exists. He doesn't set the standard for morality, because God gave man free will (to decide moral behavior for himself.).
See, before we talk about contract or obligations, something integral to those discussions is explicit consent.
I never signed a social contract. If you say I was born into one, when have contracts ever allowed anyone bind their predecessors?
When did my ancestors ever explicitly consent to a social contract?
As far as a moral obligation, that's tricky too. How did I become morally obligated? Where did I agree to such an arrangement?
What are the terms of the contract or obligation?
These are the sorts of questions an anarchist asks. He can't (in good faith) adopt positions because "that's what everyone thinks" or "that's what everyone has always done".
Also, for the record, let's presume God exists. He doesn't set the standard for morality, because God gave man free will (to decide moral behavior for himself.).
This is a question about the state of nature.
After casting off the burden of nationhood and going back to nature, what ethical obligations do we have left?
We could escape social contracts.But not moral codes.
Say you lived in the jungle and you came across a young child being brutally abused, and about to be killed by his own father,
Would you feel a moral obligation to help? Would it be rational?
I think so. I think morality travels with you no matter what situation you are in.
You didn't actually answer any of my questions.
Why couldn't we "escape" them?
Rational is simply, "means congruent with ends, as the means are able to be understood"
I am asking you why anything has to be an end, specifically, a "moral obligation".
So far, you've avoided saying anything substantive beyond assertion, abstraction and opinion. I am happy to keep going, but let's please try to make some real progress.
This presumes politics and social contract theory. I am asking you to explain those premises first.
What ethical obligations do we have now? Where did they come from?
I don't think you've yet proven that a social contract is a sensible notion. But, let's check this assertion about moral codes.
Why couldn't we "escape" them?
That's not the question though. How can I obligate myself?
Rational is simply, "means congruent with ends, as the means are able to be understood"
I am asking you why anything has to be an end, specifically, a "moral obligation".
That's an opinion. I am looking for the facts you base your opinion on.
So far, you've avoided saying anything substantive beyond assertion, abstraction and opinion. I am happy to keep going, but let's please try to make some real progress.