Perhaps you didn't post it because you do a bunch of name calling and then tell your victim to argue the case not the man. You might have had a moment of reflection and not hit submit.henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 2:18 am Cleaning out my drafts folder I found this...
-----Yep. It works for anyone and everyone who tries it. It's the ethic you claimed you were lookin' for.It's always your taproot -- philosophy of life -- isn't it?
Of course, it's clear you weren't lookin' for an ethic, but just an excuse.
Bubba, you're the sittin' at a crossroads a'fear'd to choose, resentful cuz other folks can and do.
I gave you an ethic and the factual undergirdin' for that ethic. It hobbles you in only one way: it asks that you recognize your life, liberty, and property are yours and the life, liberty, and property of the other guy are his and that neither of you have any claim on the other's life, liberty, and property.
Practically: it means don't murder, don't slave, don't rape, don't steal.
You reject it cuz such an ethic allows me to own a bazooka and doesn't allow Marty to kill her baby solely cuz he's inconvenient.
You refuse to examine the ethic or its undergirdin' (sumthin' I'm up for) preferrin' instead to analyze me (sumthin' I won't participate in).
The ethic and its undergirdin' are not me: there's no need to probe me to understand them.
...apparently I had a notion for a post, but -- for whatever reason -- I didn't finish.
The most obvious reason to not go with your theory is that it can only support judgement against that which can be reduced to a property crime, and thus it is neutral on anything that cannot. Lies, greed, and abuses of power are things that we normally consider bad without having to distort them into some property-damage effect first.