If you vote your personal morals are you voting against personal freedom

[honestrosewater]

Well, I'm skipping through the posts a bit - I didn't know what I was getting myself into. But I think I've gotten the idea.

Yes, people make compromises or sacrifices in prioritizing their values. If protecting personal freedoms is more important to you than banning rap music, and you're prudent enough to realize the conflicts, you put up with rap music in order to protect personal freedoms. But you're still voting based on personal morals; One just trumps another. There are many examples of this, especially from the SCOTUS. Obviously with laws deemed unconstitutional being repealed but in other cases as well.

I don't understand what unlimited personal freedoms are worth. If the government cannot restrict people's freedoms under any circumstances, it cannot protect personal freedoms either. Unless you're using Archon's good v. bad distinction.? If personal freedoms aren't a ticket to do whatever you want to, where do you make a distinction?

 

[The Smoking Man]

It is not a question of good or bad, the question is whether if by voting for your personal morals, you are voting against your personal freedom?

Here is a fictional scenario;

A person believes that rap music is harmful to society, so they support candidates who feel the same. A law is finally passed that bans rap music. But then the same law is used to ban country western music.

As it happens this person was a country western music fan and now cannot listen to country western music anymore because the same arguments used to infringe the personal freedom of people who produce and listen to rap music can be in turn used to infringe upon the personal freedom of the producers and listeners of country western music.

Next, the courts would have to decide what is moral music and what is not moral music. All because a large group of people voted for their personal morals and against their personal freedom.

No, wait ...

This is a possibility?

We can ban Rap AND county and western?

Can I move back now?

I'll even vote Bush if this happens!

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

If you don't believe in the right to have a medically assisted suicide, then don't get one. However don't prevent me from getting one if I want.

I agree with the conclusion, but not with the argument. How about this:

If you don't believe in the right to murder people, then don't murder any. However don't prevent me from murdering one if I want.

As I said, I agree with the conclusion in the original quote. I've had it up to here with the government legislating morality and everything else too. I propose this simple test. If you can't bench press the books in which the laws that apply to you are written, then you are not free.

 

[Nomy-the wanderer]

Personal freedom, persona freedom, personal freedom...

 

[SOS2008]

No, wait ...

This is a possibility?

We can ban Rap AND county and western?

Can I move back now?

I'll even vote Bush if this happens!

Come on now, I could tolerate any music before I could vote for Bush.

There has been something recently about limitation on the volume of music played in cars in New York? Breast feeding is now being debated. I think these examples are more useful in terms of what's considered offensive, and not clearly injury to person or property.

 

[Archon]

I think I should have a say in wheather or not my son lives or dies.

Skyhunter responded to this nicely:

I agree, but do I have the right to force the mother to bear my children?

You should have a say, but if you want the mother to bear the baby, especially given the risk of childbirth (not that large in America today, but it still exists), the final decision should not be yours.

His point is people don't call themselves "pro-abortion" rather "pro-choice" because it sounds nicer and reflects more on what they believe.

I wasn't entirely awake when I posted this. I just interpreted "pro-abortion" as meaning "pro-choice." I agree that "pro-choice" probably describes more people who support keeping abortion legal than does "pro-abortion."

 

[Archon]

It is not a question of good or bad, the question is whether if by voting for your personal morals, you are voting against your personal freedom?

Here is a fictional scenario;

A person believes that rap music is harmful to society, so they support candidates who feel the same. A law is finally passed that bans rap music. But then the same law is used to ban country western music.

As it happens this person was a country western music fan and now cannot listen to country western music anymore because the same arguments used to infringe the personal freedom of people who produce and listen to rap music can be in turn used to infringe upon the personal freedom of the producers and listeners of country western music.

Next, the courts would have to decide what is moral music and what is not moral music. All because a large group of people voted for their personal morals and against their personal freedom.

I said earlier that I think all laws are, in some sense, based on morals. Thus, every law restricts those people who, for whatever reason, don't share the belief that, for instance, killing others is wrong. Once we accept that every law is restrictive of personal freedoms to some people, we have to categorize the laws into two groups: those that restrict personal freedoms for the sake of society's survival, and those that restrict personal freedoms for no useful purpose. I agree with the first type, and not the second.

 

[Hurkyl]

we have to categorize the laws into two groups: those that restrict personal freedoms for the sake of society's survival, and those that restrict personal freedoms for no useful purpose.

Then what do you do with those laws that restrict personal freedoms for a useful purpose, but without that purpose being society's survival?

 

[Archon]

Do you know someone who thinks abortion is a good thing?

Not personally, but there are obviously many such people. At least some of the people who are pro-choice support the possibility of abortion not as a freedom like any other for women, but because they feel that it is a good thing. Why would anyone at all support abortion if they thought it was evil? This would make it no different from supporting murder.

 

[Archon]

Then what do you do with those laws that restrict personal freedoms for a useful purpose, but without that purpose being society's survival?

What sorts of laws would these be?

I guess "society's survival" was too specific. The categories in their full generality are found in post #29.

 

[outsider]

You have the right not to read this:

I want to quote some people, but i think it would be more fun to just say this:

Moral freedom Act

Mutual Respect of Personal Freedom to judge morality for one's self.

You're boundaries are one arm span across (including a balanced lean) and as high as you can reach (including but not limited to tippy toeing).
http://images.postersupply.com/EUR/jpgs/1155-9003.jpg
Any projectiles cast outward from your designated airspace and penetrating the airspace of another individual is strictly prohibited without prior clearance from the individual (unless a waiver is signed in sport or other activity that the inherent risk requires so).

What remains as a part of one's biology is one's choice. Prior to birth, an embryo is not considered unto itself an individual, but a part of the mother's biology. Therefore an embryo has no right to make decisions as they do not possesses the ability to do so.

The suicide clause:
Suicide is legal. To make it illegal is pointless as there is no way to hold one accountable for such an act.

Qualification for Assisted suicide: A person must apply for this prior to entering vegetative state (similar to organ donation / will). If no such paperwork is available, then see Schedule A: (schedule A: Age vs. disease = likelihood of recovery within certain timeframe): if outside the chart, the individual relinquishes the right to live to the family who will ultimately make a decision subject to renewal ever 24 months.

I have a right to my ideas, you have a right to reject them.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

If you don't believe in the right to have a medically assisted suicide, then don't get one. However don't prevent me from getting one if I want.

Back in High School I presented a mock bill for physician assisted suicide. The students in my class passed it unanimously. Oddly I was only one of two in the class that voted yes on someone elses mock bill to legalize marijuana.

Suicide is illegal in the U.S., and the validity of this law has been questioned. You really can't stop someone from taking their own life, and afterward you certainly can't punish the person.

There are very few states where suicide is illegal. The problem comes when a person attempts but fails. Even then in almost all states it isn't illegal. BUT a person who attempts suicide is considered mentally unstable and a danger to themselves and others so they are taken into custody and checked into a institution. They don't go to jail or get charged with a crime. The only "punishment" they receive is to be held until it is deemed they are not a danger to themselves and others and they are possibly sent a bill for the cost of their stay at the institution.
I actually just had a student attempt suicide today and had to write a report. There is nothing in the California penal code pretaining to suicide except assisted suicide.

I think I should have a say in wheather or not my [child] lives or dies.

Agreed.

No, wait ...

This is a possibility?

We can ban Rap AND county and western?

Can I move back now?

I'll even vote Bush if this happens!

Almost tempting isn't it?

If you vote your personal morals are you voting against personal freedom?

I don't think that anything aside from logical ethics should be involved in law. Any "morals" or "values" not based on logic have no place.

 

[loseyourname]

There has been something recently about limitation on the volume of music played in cars in New York? Breast feeding is now being debated. I think these examples are more useful in terms of what's considered offensive, and not clearly injury to person or property.

Actually, it can get rough living in Manhattan below the 12th floor. Some of the streets are like steel-walled canyons, and noise inside of them is magnified greatly. It's almost impossible to live peacefully in some parts of the city, which is the reason for the noise ordinances. Honking was already outlawed in many neighborhoods; that loud music should be is no real development.

 

[Moonbear]

Actually, it can get rough living in Manhattan below the 12th floor. Some of the streets are like steel-walled canyons, and noise inside of them is magnified greatly. It's almost impossible to live peacefully in some parts of the city, which is the reason for the noise ordinances. Honking was already outlawed in many neighborhoods; that loud music should be is no real development.

There are similar noise ordinances in neighborhoods all over the country. At it arose very much in line with the discussion that has been held here regarding one person's rights ending where another's begin. When someone is blasting their car stereo so loudly that you can hear it from inside your house, even with the windows closed, and those windows begin to rattle, the residents start demanding such ordinances to maintain peace and quiet within their own homes. Nobody is telling anyone they can't listen to the stereo in their car or is dictating their choice of music, they're just saying that there is an upper limit to the volume so that you are not forcing others who do not share your taste in music from listening to your music too.

However, I don't think such an example relates to the topic of this thread. Actually, noise ordinances are a good example of laws that are NOT based on morality.

What's interesting is that such local laws, which are usually nothing more than misdemeanor offenses punishable with a fine, address things like public safety, health codes, and just generally keeping peace (in the sense of quiet or calm).

In contrast, federal laws that are felony offenses are the ones that most often tread into moral ground. The overarching theme is similar as with local laws, that you're protecting one person from another person infringing upon their rights. For example, one adult murdering another adult is an infringement of the murdered adult's right to life. A law such as the one against murder is pretty universally accepted. Where the moral controversy arises is three-fold. 1) What are the rights of the individual that must be protected? 2) What constitutes infringement of these rights? 3) What is the definition of an individual?

The controversial issues are those that are ill-defined for one or more of the above three categories. For example, in the abortion debate, there is disagreement as to whether an embryo or fetus is an individual (#3), and even if agreement arose that it is an individual (I'm not endorsing this view, just presenting this side for the sake of example), then there still remains the issue #1 regarding mother vs. fetus where one could claim that either choice, legal or illegal, would infringe upon rights of one or the other.

This is unlike the car stereo laws where you don't have to limit the radio listener's right to choose to listen to music in order to maintain the home-owner's right to choose not listen to that music, or a law against speeding where the threat to public (and even the driver's) safety clearly outweighs the individual's personal preference to drive with the pedal to the metal (they are not being stopped from driving or getting from place to place, just limited to how fast they get there).

In the moral issues, they tend to be all-or-none on both sides. You can't tell a fetus to develop somewhere else, or to do it with less impact on the mother, and you can't tell a woman. Despite the appearance that the controversy is that of those with certain religious beliefs infringing upon the rights of a pregnant woman without those beliefs, it is actually the controversy over whether an embryo/fetus has rights, and if it does, are the rights of the fetus or the rights of the woman to be given more weight?

In the earlier example given of assisted suicide, it is a different issue, and that is of a more technical nature...how do you know with certainty that the person doing the assisting is really complying with the wishes of the person they are assisting? Somehow determining the wishes of the dead person makes the difference between it being assisted suicide or murder. Even with video evidence or written notes, etc., it is hard to know if someone was coerced into making such statements. If there could be no ambiguity, then I would agree that it then is not an issue that requires legal intervention and gets relegated to issues such as practicing religion where your choice to do or not do does not infringe upon someone else's choice to do or not do.

So, there are some cases where morality cannot be avoided in making laws. Indeed, the most fundamental rights we have are based on moral values. What constitutes a right that requires protection is a moral question. I don't think it's possible to maintain a civilized society without some degree of law-making based on morals. If we were entirely without morals, we would have NO laws (we would not care about the safety of others, we would not care if people had rights, we would not care if something one person did interfered with something another person wanted to do or how they resolved it) and anarchy would result. The other extreme is no better, where we lack any freedom. It comes down to what are universal or fundamental views of morality vs. what are individual or small group views of morality that are not consistent across society.

 

[Skyhunter]

I said earlier that I think all laws are, in some sense, based on morals. Thus, every law restricts those people who, for whatever reason, don't share the belief that, for instance, killing others is wrong. Once we accept that every law is restrictive of personal freedoms to some people, we have to categorize the laws into two groups: those that restrict personal freedoms for the sake of society's survival, and those that restrict personal freedoms for no useful purpose. I agree with the first type, and not the second.

Would not the best society be one where every individual enjoyed maximum personal freedom?

In order for everyone to enjoy maximum personal freedom, everyone must respect, and not infringe upon the personal freedom of others. This principle is the foundation of social morals, as opposed to personal morals which are naturally based on personal beliefs.

With this as the guiding principle, as opposed to the hypothetical argument about society’s survival, we can therefore create a standard to measure whether or not a law is just.

Moral freedom Act

Mutual Respect of Personal Freedom to judge morality for one's self.

You're boundaries are one arm span across (including a balanced lean) and as high as you can reach (including but not limited to tippy toeing).
http://images.postersupply.com/EUR/jpgs/1155-9003.jpg
Any projectiles cast outward from your designated airspace and penetrating the airspace of another individual is strictly prohibited without prior clearance from the individual (unless a waiver is signed in sport or other activity that the inherent risk requires so).

I could live with something that.

Back in High School I presented a mock bill for physician assisted suicide. The students in my class passed it unanimously. Oddly I was only one of two in the class that voted yes on someone elses mock bill to legalize marijuana.

Prohibition is an example of a moral law based upon speculation of harm to society.

I don't think that anything aside from logical ethics should be involved in law. Any "morals" or "values" not based on logic have no place.

I agree. Morals and values are not stagnant, like the rest of the universe they are in a constant state of flux. Therefore laws based on personal morals, or the common values of society are doomed to become obsolete. As society evolves, so must its institutions, otherwise its institutions, instead of being uplifting and good for social evolution, they become detrimental to social growth.

 

[Archon]

Would not the best society be one where every individual enjoyed maximum personal freedom?

In order for everyone to enjoy maximum personal freedom, everyone must respect, and not infringe upon the personal freedom of others. This principle is the foundation of social morals, as opposed to personal morals which are naturally based on personal beliefs.

With this as the guiding principle, as opposed to the hypothetical argument about society’s survival, we can therefore create a standard to measure whether or not a law is just.

I think we're basically arguing different forms of the same thing. You think that we should have laws that allow the maximum possible amount of personal freedom to the maximum amount of people, while I think that we should keep laws that are somehow necessary for the continuity of society (keeping in mind Hurkyl's point), and discard those laws that only restrict personal freedoms. The end result is the same: the greatest number of people possible have freedom from the imposition of unnecessary morality-based laws.

We have to consider the question "at what point do the needs of society exceed the needs of the individual?" It is at this point that the break between the broad categories of laws I've been talking about happens.

 

[outsider]

Would not the best society be one where every individual enjoyed maximum personal freedom?

In order for everyone to enjoy maximum personal freedom, everyone must respect, and not infringe upon the personal freedom of others. This principle is the foundation of social morals, as opposed to personal morals which are naturally based on personal beliefs.

With this as the guiding principle, as opposed to the hypothetical argument about society’s survival, we can therefore create a standard to measure whether or not a law is just.

YES PLEASE! Can we register everyone and just have a vote on all issues separately, rather than join a party that supposedly closey represents our beliefs (during the campaign) and ditches them afterward? This may sound ridiculous to some, but I'm wondering if this has ever been considered an option before?

Prohibition is an example of a moral law based upon speculation of harm to society.

I agree. Morals and values are not stagnant, like the rest of the universe they are in a constant state of flux. Therefore laws based on personal morals, or the common values of society are doomed to become obsolete. As society evolves, so must its institutions, otherwise its institutions, instead of being uplifting and good for social evolution, they become detrimental to social growth.

Let's see... where have the morals gone in the last 20 or so years? (please note, I'm not condemning or condoning just making a point if I can )

Curse words. Nudity. Extreme violence. Gay / Lesbian. Masterbation.

all the previous have existed before it was socially acceptable... it was just kept behind closed doors and people were happy then too.

The smoking in public places tends to be an interesting counter to my post of the mock Moral Freedoms Act as cigarette smoke travels and invades other people's airspace without intent.

So yes, I agree that law based on morals is not effective or efficient for an evolving world. As well, with immigration, the mix is ever changing... For a country that is built on immigration, Conservative America in itself is an oxymoron.

 

[outsider]

We have to consider the question "at what point do the needs of society exceed the needs of the individual?" It is at this point that the break between the broad categories of laws I've been talking about happens.

Excellent question! Society is made up of individuals. Let's let everyone bring up all the topics that they are concerned about, vote on each of them and set up a structure that is based on the thought and belief fibres of each individual.

Not everyone will have their way exclusively, but at least you know that you will have contributed to the overall effect? I really like this... thanks for your inspiration everyone! Now how do we get it started?

 

[Skyhunter]

Excellent question! Society is made up of individuals. Let's let everyone bring up all the topics that they are concerned about, vote on each of them and set up a structure that is based on the thought and belief fibres of each individual.

Not everyone will have their way exclusively, but at least you know that you will have contributed to the overall effect? I really like this... thanks for your inspiration everyone! Now how do we get it started?

We have the technology. Why can't everyone get a voter registration card that works like an ATM card. Issues can be discussed online, like we do right now. After debating the issues, blogging with candidates, etc, we could actually make informed choices.

Imagine that.

 

[outsider]

We have the technology. Why can't everyone get a voter registration card that works like an ATM card. Issues can be discussed online, like we do right now. After debating the issues, blogging with candidates, etc, we could actually make informed choices.

Imagine that.

If we could bring up a questionaire like:
blacks can ride in the front of the bus ... 1 2 3 4 5
guns should require licensing... 1 2 3 4 5
continue waging war in the middle east... 1 2 3 4 5
north korea is a threat..... 1 2 3 4 5
smoking should be allowed in all public places... 1 2 3 4 5

wouldn't it also be great if we could take the candidates words verbatim and clarify what they are trying to say instead of having multiple ways to interpret their repsonses?

We would also be able to force the issues on them and see which questions they are avoiding too...

we would ask the candidates, based on the poles, how they they handle the countries concerns... and take it from there...

who's writing the software for this right now?

 

[loseyourname]

However, I don't think such an example relates to the topic of this thread. Actually, noise ordinances are a good example of laws that are NOT based on morality.

This is where philosophical rigor comes in again. To me, everything brought up here is a matter of morality. Strictly speaking, any statement that dictates what a person ought to do is a moral statement. That a person ought not to disturb others with loud music might be a mundane and relatively uncontroversial statement, but it's still a moral statement. I suppose that's why the idea of laws not being based on morals sounds, prima facie, rather absurd to me. Every law I can think of at this moment tells us what we cannot do, derivative on the idea that we should not do these things.

 

[outsider]

This is where philosophical rigor comes in again. To me, everything brought up here is a matter of morality. Strictly speaking, any statement that dictates what a person ought to do is a moral statement. That a person ought not to disturb others with loud music might be a mundane and relatively uncontroversial statement, but it's still a moral statement. I suppose that's why the idea of laws not being based on morals sounds, prima facie, rather absurd to me. Every law I can think of at this moment tells us what we cannot do, derivative on the idea that we should not do these things.

an existentialist hard at work... I'm not a pro, but what you say sounds pretty right, however there must be some rules to govern society so we can be "happy" and "free". I guess what you are saying would disqualify this entire thread as a valid discussion, but i think anyone who has contributed to it realizes that there are certain freedoms that we would like to have in our lives building off of the constitution. When some people start to impose laws based on the morality of a specific group is when it becomes unconstitutional. I think you knew this, but I had to call you out on the existentialism stuff... there really is no point to the human race then

 

[loseyourname]

Despite the appearance that the controversy is that of those with certain religious beliefs infringing upon the rights of a pregnant woman without those beliefs, it is actually the controversy over whether an embryo/fetus has rights, and if it does, are the rights of the fetus or the rights of the woman to be given more weight?

Yes, I really hate that this is always treated as a religious issue. It clouds things and elicits so much emotion from both sides; it is nearly impossible to have a reasoned debate or even discussion on the matter.

So, there are some cases where morality cannot be avoided in making laws. Indeed, the most fundamental rights we have are based on moral values. What constitutes a right that requires protection is a moral question.

I don't think people realize how heavily morality permeated everything we do. Whether or not anybody should even have any rights is a moral question.

I don't think it's possible to maintain a civilized society without some degree of law-making based on morals. If we were entirely without morals, we would have NO laws (we would not care about the safety of others, we would not care if people had rights, we would not care if something one person did interfered with something another person wanted to do or how they resolved it) and anarchy would result. The other extreme is no better, where we lack any freedom. It comes down to what are universal or fundamental views of morality vs. what are individual or small group views of morality that are not consistent across society.

Of course, what is universal and fundamental even seems to change over time. The only real constants seem to be that we shouldn't kill or rob each other for no good reason. Of course, then we must question what constitutes a "good" reason.

 

[loseyourname]

an existentialist hard at work... I'm not a pro, but what you say sounds pretty right, however there must be some rules to govern society so we can be "happy" and "free". I guess what you are saying would disqualify this entire thread as a valid discussion, but i think anyone who has contributed to it realizes that there are certain freedoms that we would like to have in our lives building off of the constitution. When some people start to impose laws based on the morality of a specific group is when it becomes unconstitutional. I think you knew this, but I had to call you out on the existentialism stuff... there really is no point to the human race then

I'm not too sure what you mean by any of this. I never meant to give the impression that I thought this discussion was pointless. It's just that the way it is framed is based on a misnomer. Let's face it: we all want the same thing. We all want the world to be governed according to our own personal conception of morality. In some cases, that personal conception is that one should be free to do anything that doesn't infringe upon the freedom of another. In other cases, that conception is that one should be restricted by the laws laid down in sacred scripture. There are many conceptions that lie somewhere in between these two. Then we have the US Constitutional conception of morality: we have all of the rights enumerated to us as citizens in the first ten amendments, except where they place others in direct and imminent danger. Anything else is potentially subject to legislation.

Is there really such a thing as existentialist ethics, by the way? People from Kierkegaard to Sartre were all considered existentialists, but varied wildly in their moral outlooks.

 

[Skyhunter]

I don't think people realize how heavily morality permeated everything we do. Whether or not anybody should even have any rights is a moral question.



Of course, what is universal and fundamental even seems to change over time. The only real constants seem to be that we shouldn't kill or rob each other for no good reason. Of course, then we must question what constitutes a "good" reason.

I hope I was not misleading. I attempted to separate personal morals from social morals. Ultimately you are right, morality does permeate everything we do. Personal freedom can be considered a moral value.

I was trying to find a common moral value that we could all agree about. The idea of universal personal freedom was the one that seemed glaringly obvious to me. I think it was the focal and main ideal that was used by the framers when they wrote the constitution.

 

[loseyourname]

I was trying to find a common moral value that we could all agree about. The idea of universal personal freedom was the one that seemed glaringly obvious to me. I think it was the focal and main ideal that was used by the framers when they wrote the constitution.

Ethically speaking, that position is known as libertarianism. It does seem to provide the basis for the Bill of Rights. There is another major influence in the US Constitution, though, that can be at odds with libertarianism. That is the whole 'social contract' idea, that a given regime governs with the consent of its citizenry and can basically do whatever the citizenry will allow. In principle, the social contract theory would take precendence, in that even the Bill of Rights can be amended or even abolished. It would, of course, never happen because the citizenry would never consent to it. This does raise an interesting question, though: Do really hold so tightly to these liberal ideals because they actually constitute the best form of governmental ethics or simply because we are Americans and have been socialized into holding liberal ideals?

For that matter, how did libertarians come to be considered conservative?

 

[honestrosewater]

Every law I can think of at this moment tells us what we cannot do, derivative on the idea that we should not do these things.

What about procedural or technical types or elements of laws, i.e., where the goal has been determined by morals and the law just sets out the best way to achieve that goal? For instance, if it's decided that people shouldn't make disturbing noise, you must still determine when a noise qualifies as disturbing. Meh, just a side note.
Or a better example: People shouldn't drive drunk. When is a person 'drunk'? How will their drunkenness be tested? Under what circumstances must a person submit to a test? And so on.

 

[Skyhunter]

For that matter, how did libertarians come to be considered conservative?

I know some young republicans from the Reagon era. They tried to convince me that Libertarian values were the same as conservative values. I argued the difference is that conservative republicans want personal freedom for corporations. And you cannot have universal personal freedom and be able to shirk the personal responsibility by forming a corporation.

Libertarians are not corporatists. Modern republicans are.

 

[Smurf]

For that matter, how did libertarians come to be considered conservative?

I think that happened with the rise of neo-liberalism, which is pretty much synonymous with republican conservatism these days.

 

[outsider]

I'm not too sure what you mean by any of this. I never meant to give the impression that I thought this discussion was pointless. It's just that the way it is framed is based on a misnomer. Let's face it: we all want the same thing. We all want the world to be governed according to our own personal conception of morality. In some cases, that personal conception is that one should be free to do anything that doesn't infringe upon the freedom of another. In other cases, that conception is that one should be restricted by the laws laid down in sacred scripture. There are many conceptions that lie somewhere in between these two. Then we have the US Constitutional conception of morality: we have all of the rights enumerated to us as citizens in the first ten amendments, except where they place others in direct and imminent danger. Anything else is potentially subject to legislation.

It was my error to conclude from your post that since laws were based on morals that as long as there is law, there is no real freedom. And as I said before, I do agree with you. However, such a society will not likely ever exist (at least I hope not) and so we have to try to try to work with what we and discuss what that entails and what would be a fair direction for all. Not that it matters, but I always enjoy reading your perspective.

Is there really such a thing as existentialist ethics, by the way? People from Kierkegaard to Sartre were all considered existentialists, but varied wildly in their moral outlooks.

I have only read briefly (one book and I don't recall the title) on existentialism and IMO don't feel it is healthy for progress... and as far as I understand, everything is game/not game from an existentialists perspective. I would be interested in hearing your insight on this topic if it can somehow tie into the thread (i don't want to send it off track).

 

[Nomy-the wanderer]

Existentialists are bohemians, they 've all been contracdicted and all beein trying to explain something they couldn't explain in the end..

 

[outsider]

Existentialists are bohemians, they 've all been contracdicted and all beein trying to explain something they couldn't explain in the end..

so what's your take on morals and freedoms?

 

[outsider]

morals are freedom killers... so you will need to scrap your morals and trade it in for freedom. Basic morals are referenced in most religions as far as not killing and stealing and wanting other peoples property... (sounds like capitalism is a sin against basic morals)... so we should all be able to agree on a similar set of basic morals and work on the freedoms from there on on... please feel free to take reference to the Moral Freedoms Act previously posted... I will be away from PF for a few days... enjoy.