How Do You Define Morality?

[Undertoad]

Supply and demand is not just a "model", it applies to everything on this earth, as if it were a natural law. You can either work with it or against it. If you work against it you will eventually fail. You can create a differing "model" but eventually the cracks in your model will be due to economic rules that have more power than you do.

By the end of the USSR, a third of the food produced was sold illegally on black markets.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by orthodoc

Way to generalize, Spexx! Of course every conservative thinks those things, if you've said so.

You may notice that many of your points relate to the morality of harming others. Do you feel that it should be an individual freedom to harm others? If I wanted to generalize, I could say that liberals want to tell:

a woman that she is free, at her whim, to kill another genetically distinct human being
husbands they can kill their wives who are mortally ill, even though the wife's parents are willing to care for her, so that the husband can carry on with his new lady-love and make off with all the insurance money
doctors that they must kill their patients when it's demanded (nice opening for relatives who don't want their inheritances used up on medical care, and for insurance (including, especially, government insurance in the case of universal health insurance) companies to cut their costs)
you that you can legally discriminate against people
you that you can have sex with anyone, even children (what else is prohibited??)
you that you can ruin the lives of those around you through drug use
you that your child must adopt (as a way of 'learning') the religious practices, and pray to the gods of (in certain California districts), any religion with the one exception of Christianity

as for the others, tossing out the definition of the most important legal relationship in our society shouldn't be done by activist judges; if it's done, it should be through the democratic process;
don't know of restrictions on buying sex toys ... are you talking about lethal ones??

But I don't generalize because I know that not all people who disagree with me on some things want to remove all my freedoms. So I favor actual discussion over categorizing and stereotyping with stupid lists.

But notice how almost every single one of those is 'you are free to...' or 'you can...'
Erring on the side of freedom is always, always better than erring on the side of authority.

[orthodoc]

Originally Posted by Ibram

But notice how almost every single one of those is 'you are free to...' or 'you can...'
Erring on the side of freedom is always, always better than erring on the side of authority.

Free to kill? Free to rape? I disagree that that's a better thing.

Edit: I more than just 'disagree' - will sit down later to discuss the problems with anarchist philosophy.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by orthodoc

... communism and left-wing politics is the desire to control others and suppress individual freedom.
...

Originally Posted by orthodoc

Way to generalize, Spexx! Of course every conservative thinks those things, if you've said so.

...But I don't generalize because I know that not all people who disagree with me on some things want to remove all my freedoms. So I favor actual discussion over categorizing and stereotyping with stupid lists.

More demeaning language from a conservative - what a surprise.

Nice generalization in your first post, then denial in your second one.

[orthodoc]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

More demeaning language from a conservative - what a surprise.

'Stupid' referred to lists like that and their use; they reduce important issues to inaccuracy and useless oversimplification.

Nice generalization in your first post, then denial in your second one.

It was a similar laundry list that wouldn't be fair to aim at liberals - that's what I pointed out. Guess I could have just pointed it out. :p

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by orthodoc

Free to kill? Free to rape? I disagree that that's a better thing.

Obviously, I do to. But again, it is still better to err on the side of freedom than on the side of authority.
For example...
It's not better to make murder okay...
but it is better to let a murderer go free than put an innocent man in jail.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by orthodoc

... communism and left-wing politics is the desire to control others and suppress individual freedom...

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Nice generalization in your first post, then denial in your second one.

Originally Posted by orthodoc

It was a similar laundry list that wouldn't be fair to aim at liberals - that's what I pointed out. Guess I could have just pointed it out. :p

This

Originally Posted by orthodoc

... communism and left-wing politics is the desire to control others and suppress individual freedom...

is a generalization.

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

More demeaning language from a conservative - what a surprise.

Originally Posted by orthodoc

'Stupid' referred to lists like that and their use; they reduce important issues to inaccuracy and useless oversimplification.

Then say what you mean. "Stupid" does not mean "reduce important issues to inaccuracy and useless oversimplification".

BTW, much of that list is the platform of the repubican party, the self-professed "conservative" party. I think it pretty closely reflects "conservative values".

[9th Engineer]

but it is better to let a murderer go free than put an innocent man in jail.

The thought question attached to this is that if I let all accused murderers go, I could truthfully claim that I had never once put an innocent man in jail. There is always a degree of doubt in regards to innocence or guilt in court.

[9th Engineer]

I would also say that any system that attempts to totally eradicate success of the fittest as well as environmental pressures will eventually crumble. We are subject to the laws of nature as well.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Ibram

But notice how almost every single one of those is 'you are free to...' or 'you can...'
Erring on the side of freedom is always, always better than erring on the side of authority.

Originally Posted by orthodox

Free to kill? Free to rape? I disagree that that's a better thing.

Not to bring Orwell into this, but it is quite funny, ironic really, that ultimate freedom is the same thing as authority. If everyone has ultimate freedom, someone is going to start to taking away other people's freedoms and then we will go back to an authoritarian state. And if you look at it, even authority is ultimate freedom because the authority is free to do whatever they want.

A balance between the two is needed. A system that allows someone to have as much freedom as they can without taking away other people's freedom. A loose authority can do this but preferably a society can reach equilibrium and enforce it themselves without the need for a strong central power.

Originally Posted by orthodoc

Free to kill? Free to rape? I disagree that that's a better thing.

Edit: I more than just 'disagree' - will sit down later to discuss the problems with anarchist philosophy.

You are taking it out of context.
Freedom is not free to harm others.
Freedom is not to infringe on the freedom of others.
Anarchy is a silly concept it ALWAYS leads to totalitarianism.

Originally Posted by limey

That's where we differ, I think. I like to have a job that facilitates a lifestyle I want.
I did the $100,000/p.a management-thang to earn enough to buy a house where I want to live. I then did (and preferred) the $22,500/p.a job (care assistant in an old folks' home) to pay the bills here. I now sell soap for a living, which pays a little better than that; but if all jobs paid equally, I'd rather be providing personal care to old people in a residential home than doing what I'm doing now.
If all jobs paid equally, wouldn't it be glorious to have the freedom to choose what you want to do, rather than what you have to do for the bucks?

Actually that sounds like hell to me. What do you do with the jobs no one wants to do?
What do you do with artists and inventors? Steal their products? They don't get to say what the value of their inventions are?

Originally Posted by DanaC

The two jobs are equally valuable as long as both are necessary. If two people do two jobs, one skilled, one unskilled but both are necessary to the company then why is one valued by the company more highly than the other? That doesn't mean both are equal in prestige though. It doesn't mean the skilled person can't be recognised and respected for their contribution.

And how, exactly, do you do that?

I can't help but see the denial of freedom as an illness. It is against nature.

If communism is so awesome someone would actually be doing it and people would be in line waiting to get into that nation, end of story.

[limey]

Originally Posted by limey

... if all jobs paid equally, I'd rather be providing personal care to old people in a residential home than [selling soap for a living].
If all jobs paid equally, wouldn't it be glorious to have the freedom to choose what you want to do, rather than what you have to do for the bucks?

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Actually that sounds like hell to me. What do you do with the jobs no one wants to do?

The jobs that "no-one" wants to do - you mean like washing faeces off a person who has no control over their bowels and suffered diarrhoea in the night? That is [part of] what I meant by "providing personal care". I can't say I relished that part of the job, but I accepted that it was part of what I should expect. Others would, and do, of course, refuse to consider such employment precisely because it can involve that sort of task. See also what DanaC said about her client who wanted to work at the town rubbish dump.

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

What do you do with artists and inventors? Steal their products? They don't get to say what the value of their inventions are?...

I also create hand-knit items. I have one for sale in a local shop. I don't get a say in what it's worth - the "market" values my skilled labour at around $2/hour, if that. No, of course, I have a "say" - sell it at that price or give it away ...

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

...I can't help but see the denial of freedom as an illness. It is against nature.

If communism is so awesome someone would actually be doing it and people would be in line waiting to get into that nation, end of story.

I repeat that communism is a great idea, but probably unworkable because of human greed. Doesn't mean I can't have a dream, does it?

Do you have to make everything about you?
Inventions and fine art have real value.
There are jobs far worse than taking care of people. Try cleaning out the bottom of a still full of one inch maggots and rotten mash. Risking your life while doing it, CO2 pockets (I have done this job and was paid well to do so).
What would be the point of doing that if you are going to get the same pay as doing something else, sitting on your ass watching a computer screen?
You keep saying it is a great idea, but have yet to SHOW it.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by orthodoc

don't know of restrictions on buying sex toys ... are you talking about lethal ones??

In many states it is technically illegal to buy or sell "sex toys." Texas is one of them. However, you may buy both "marital aids" and "novelty toys" without a problem. They're laws that just haven't bothered to come off the books.