IS and OUGHT

[FlashDangerpants]

Sounds like a horror story in the form of a morality play!

Don't let the wank-man drag you off to heaven!

[Dubious]

Never fear! He's not getting an entry visa any more than I am. I wouldn't expect god to be so stupid as to let anyone in merely for having believed in Him. If most people aren't that idiotic; why expect god to be that simple-minded!

[Immanuel Can]

Some tyrant comes along and has insufficient resources to rule by terror so he invents a rule that the people will be unable to keep unless they ask him for forgiveness or grace.

That's a perfect description of Social Justice.

It comes along, and says,

"There's a new sin: it's called "systemic racism." It's everywhere and nowhere, and you're all guilty by birth and skin, even if you grovel in the dust. But you can be an ally, and have the pleasure of licking my boots for me, and then maybe I won't call you "racist" all the time, for no reason."

Yep, you've pegged that. It's the whole strategy of the authoritarian Left today.

[Belinda]

Some tyrant comes along and has insufficient resources to rule by terror so he invents a rule that the people will be unable to keep unless they ask him for forgiveness or grace.

That's a perfect description of Social Justice.

It comes along, and says,

"There's a new sin: it's called "systemic racism." It's everywhere and nowhere, and you're all guilty by birth and skin, even if you grovel in the dust. But you can be an ally, and have the pleasure of licking my boots for me, and then maybe I won't call you "racist" all the time, for no reason."

Yep, you've pegged that. It's the whole strategy of the authoritarian Left today.

It's the authoritarian bit that's tyrannical regardless of Left or Right.

[Harbal]

It's the authoritarian bit that's tyrannical regardless of Left or Right.

But that would mean that things like the prohibition of abortion would be tyrannically authoritarian if we allowed that to be the case.

[Immanuel Can]

Some tyrant comes along and has insufficient resources to rule by terror so he invents a rule that the people will be unable to keep unless they ask him for forgiveness or grace.

That's a perfect description of Social Justice.

It comes along, and says,

"There's a new sin: it's called "systemic racism." It's everywhere and nowhere, and you're all guilty by birth and skin, even if you grovel in the dust. But you can be an ally, and have the pleasure of licking my boots for me, and then maybe I won't call you "racist" all the time, for no reason."

Yep, you've pegged that. It's the whole strategy of the authoritarian Left today.

It's the authoritarian bit that's tyrannical regardless of Left or Right.

It can be. Although, today, I see absolutely no threat of it coming from the one side.

There is no "Hard Right" worth speaking of, at least in Western democracies. That also seems to be a complete fiction of the Left, born out of their desperate need for an alleged "adversary" to make them relevant, because the Left is so horribly bad at proposing anything positive. Their entire agenda seems to be "overthrow the status quo," but they never have any clear program of what to do if they ever managed to do it.

[henry quirk]

It's the authoritarian bit that's tyrannical regardless of Left or Right.

But that would mean that things like the prohibition of abortion would be tyrannically authoritarian if we allowed that to be the case.

Is a prohibition against *murder tyrannical?

Hell, is murder even wrong?
don't answer if you can't say why

*killing the other guy without just cause

[Harbal]

Is a prohibition against *murder tyrannical?

Hell, is murder even wrong?
don't answer if you can't say why

*killing the other guy without just cause

Designating something as murder in order to justify banning it is authoritarian.

[henry quirk]

Is a prohibition against *murder tyrannical?

Hell, is murder even wrong?
don't answer if you can't say why

*killing the other guy without just cause

Designating something as murder in order to justify banning it is authoritarian.

So: if we say gut shootin' a fella just watch him die is wrong, we're bein' authoritarian?

I suppose we might be if we can't say why gut shootin' a fella just to watch him die is wrong.

But if we can say why gut shootin' a fella -- any fella, every fella -- just to watch him die is wrong, mebbe we move from bein' authoritarian to bein' moral.

[Harbal]

But if we can say why gut shootin' a fella -- any fella, every fella -- just to watch him die is wrong, mebbe we move from bein' authoritarian to bein' moral.

Well, if we were genuinely concerned about the preservation of human life, and we really did want to be moral, and this led us to the conclusion that we didn't want to see fellas being "gut shot", mebbe we wouldn't allow other fellas to own the killing machines known as guns. Or would that be a step too far towards morality?

[henry quirk]

Seems to me, this...

Pete H. asked Would it be 'odd' for a moral subjectivist to say to a slave-owner: 'I think you are being immoral'?

Kinda, yeah.

He'd ask why?

What answer could the subjectivist offer other than I don't like it or lots of folks think slavery is wrong or the slaves don't like it.

I don't he'd be moved to set his slaves free.

Granted, an objectivist answer -- becuz you're violating the lives, liberties, and properties of folks who have an inalienable right to those -- probably wouldn't move him either (*though, mebbe, it might get him to thinkin' about why he himself, the slaver, would never willingly accept the leash).




*but probably not...it's a feature of man's psyche: he can turn his fellows into other than human or less than human lickety-split and commit atrocities against them (interesting the predator always has to recast his prey as other-than or less than to justify the murder, the rape, the theft, the slavin', etc....it's almost as though, even in his depravity, the predator knows it's wrong to violate other men and so other men must be reduced to meat first... )

...belongs here.

[henry quirk]

But if we can say why gut shootin' a fella -- any fella, every fella -- just to watch him die is wrong, mebbe we move from bein' authoritarian to bein' moral.

Well, if we were genuinely concerned about the preservation of human life, and we really did want to be moral, and this led us to the conclusion that we didn't want to see fellas being "gut shot", mebbe we wouldn't allow other fellas to own the killing machines known as guns. Or would that be a step too far towards morality?

Ah, so we can't own property that kills if we wants to respect life.

So: no guns, knives, baseball bats, box cutters, tire knockers, pressure cookers, or, well, just about anything (cuz just about anything can be weaponized).

But The State -- our friend -- it can have property that kills.

Anyway: back to that whole authoritarian thing...I guess takin' away property to respect life, that's not? And The State, as the only user of death-dealin' property, that's not?

[henry quirk]

And, of course, we mebbe ought to pin down what it means to be moral before we start usin' morality as the reason for takin' property.

Comes back to why is it wrong to gut shoot a man just to watch him die?

[Harbal]

Ah, so we can't own property that kills if we wants to respect life.

So: no guns, knives, baseball bats, box cutters, tire knockers, pressure cookers, or, well, just about anything (cuz just about anything can be weaponized).

We can't do much about the misuse of everyday objects, but that is not a good reason to turn a contraption specifically designed for killing into an everyday object.

Anyway: back to that whole authoritarian thing...I guess takin' away property to respect life, that's not? And The State, as the only user of death-dealin' property, that's not?

Does this draw a destinction between "Left" and "Right" authoritarianism, which is what I was originally commenting on?

[henry quirk]

We can't do much about the misuse of everyday objects, but that is not a good reason to turn a contraption specifically designed for killing into an everyday object.

Well, *here it is an everyday object.

*

Does this draw a destinction between "Left" and "Right" authoritarianism, which is what I was originally commenting on?

No, I jumped in here...

It's the authoritarian bit that's tyrannical regardless of Left or Right.

But that would mean that things like the prohibition of abortion would be tyrannically authoritarian if we allowed that to be the case.

Is a prohibition against *murder tyrannical?

Hell, is murder even wrong?
don't answer if you can't say why

*killing the other guy without just cause

I wasn't commentin' on the Left/Right stuff.

As an aside: I don't give much weight to Left/Right...it's a meaningless distinction foisted up to appeal to tribalism.

The more meaningful schism is : free man/slaver. Hyperbole, Henry! Not as I see it, no.




*south central Louisiana