Originally posted by royalchickenYou are right in that the principle I've given doesn't generally aid decision-making, unless it is elaborated. What I'm effectively saying is that the principle of freedom states that freedom's innate value is strictly positive under all circumstances. However it doesn't say how much freedom is worth, so when you assess whether to regulate something, it doesn't tell you whether the final tally, after contributions from the tangible costs and benefits of the regulation, is for or against regulation.
[silly post]
[b]I would say that the principle of freedom is that people should be free in all actions unless there some level of justification for removing that liberty...it is morally wrong according to this principle.
Since this bit and the next are to be regarded as axiomatic, it would be unfair for my purposes to disagree with them ...[text shortened]... our banana example, I see no problem and in general I think this principle is pretty reasonable.[/b]
I'm afraid I can't think of a simple, consistent rule which determines when one freedom wins out over another. But the principle I stated provides a reasonably uncontroversial starting point for such a discussion, a bit like specifying that probablities lie between 0 and 1 is useful in developing a thoery of probablility. Unless the author believes there are cases where freedom is worthless, he is then simply arguing that freedom is over-valued in the West, not that the whole idea of it is a fallacy. I don't know about Islam, but it appears that Christians believe in freedom (or least free will) having some innate value: free will is granted by a benevolent God even though it leads to suffering, so there must be something inherently good about having free will in the first place.
Originally posted by ivanhoeThat's a ridiculously simplistic way of putting it. What you're referring to is social constructivism, which argues that concepts like right and wrong don't exist in some kind of platonic, idealised form; instead, our understanding of them is constructed through discussion and in the context of the society in which we live. Different societies can therefore have different understandings of right and wrong, as of course they do, although there are also many elements which are shared.
There are people that state that you can change wrong to right just by agreement. Liberals hold these views. Well, I hope not all of them.
But in any case, how to deal with drug abuse is a problem of law, not of morality. The two are very different.
Rich.
Originally posted by richhoey
That's a ridiculously simplistic way of putting it. What you're referring to is social constructivism, which argues that concepts like right and wrong don't exist in some kind of platonic, idealised form; instead, our understanding of them is constructed through discussion and in the context of the society in which we live. Different societies can theref ...[text shortened]... deal with drug abuse is a problem of law, not of morality. The two are very different.
Rich.
Are you an advocate of social constructivism ?
.
Originally posted by ivanhoeYes, within limits. Like many other arguments, you can take it to extreme. There's a position called relativism (I think) where people argue that nothing in this world is real and absolute - that everything is a product of our own interpretation. That seems a little daft to me. But yes, I think much of what we experience as reality, including concepts of right and wrong, is strongly influenced by the society in which we live.
Are you an advocate of social constructivism ?
.
Rich.
Originally posted by richhoey
Yes, within limits. Like many other arguments, you can take it to extreme. There's a position called relativism (I think) where people argue that nothing in this world is real and absolute - that everything is a product of our own interpretation. That seems a little daft to me. But yes, I think much of what we experience as reality, including concepts of right and wrong, is strongly influenced by the society in which we live.
Rich.
There are no universal principles or concepts whatsoever ?