Conservative principle(s) of Justice. Are there any?

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrFun



And the Republican Party in the mid-nineteenth century was a liberal party, favoring an expanded federal government, and with the more liberal Republicans within the party, extending civil rights.

The Republican Party has always supported civil rights, Mr. Fun. But this merely raises a question in my mind as to whether Mr. Fun and others equate Southern racists with conservatives.

[Ned]

And let's also define Liberalism correctly. Liberalism is/was supposed to be about liberty, free enterprise, a Christian concern for the poor. Today's Republicans are yesterday's liberals and today's liberals are yesterday's socialists.

By the former definition of liberal, I am a liberal.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Therefore we have a natural right to life.

In the state of nature there is no right to life; our only strictly natural right is to kill ourselves. All other right are further created by life in society.

[Ned]

Another way of looking at this is that the first principle of socialism (modern liberalism) is theft of property (steal from the rich and give to the poor). In contrast, the first principle of conservatism and yesterday's liberalism, is the protection of property.

Viewed this way, today's liberalism is immoral and unjust to a conservative, and vis-a-versa.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ned


The Republican Party has always supported civil rights, Mr. Fun. But this merely raises a question in my mind as to whether Mr. Fun and others equate Southern racists with conservatives.

No, they have not always supported civil rights. Once the Democrats began to support civil rights activists in the 1950s and 1960s, an increasing number of Republicans, such as Barry Goldwater during the 1968 campaign, opposed racial desegregation of public places.


And today, Republicans still do not favor civil rights or equality. They oppose subjecting gay and lesbian American citizens to the same laws as straight American citizens. We have one set of laws for gays and lesbians, and another set of laws for straights.

To me, that is second-class citizenship for gays and lesbians.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Ned
I am a liberal.

[Berzerker]

And let's also define Liberalism correctly. Liberalism is/was supposed to be about liberty, free enterprise, a Christian concern for the poor. Today's Republicans are yesterday's liberals and today's liberals are yesterday's socialists.

The GOP doesn't believe in free enterprise or liberty.

In the state of nature there is no right to life; our only strictly natural right is to kill ourselves. All other right are further created by life in society.

First, a natural right is a moral claim to act unimpeded by others. Second, if we have a natural right to kill ourselves, a right few ever use, then we have the right to decide to live or die by our own hand - a right we all exercise and that means we have the natural right to live. According to your definition, slavery and genocide don't violate anyone's rights if "society" says the state can commit these crimes.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Berzerker

First, a natural right is a moral claim to act unimpeded by others. Second, if we have a natural right to kill ourselves, a right few ever use, then we have the right to decide to live or die by our own hand - a right we all exercise and that means we have the natural right to live. According to your definition, slavery and genocide don't violate anyone's rights if "society" says the state can commit these crimes.

This is specious.
In the state of nature, only nature allows us to live. Our pseudo right to decide to live is actually the right not to kill ourselves yet, which is different.

In addition, the pseudo right to decide to live can be impeded at anytime by nature, which is not conform to the definition whereas our right to kill ourselves cannot be impeded by nature.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Berzerker


According to your definition, slavery and genocide don't violate anyone's rights if "society" says the state can commit these crimes.

Slavery and genocide are not included in the state of nature, and cannot preexist society.

But a society practising slavery would necessarily declare that the slaves have lost the natural right to kill themselves, aknowledging shamelesly the violation of the slaves natural right.

[Berzerker]

This is specious.
In the state of nature, only nature allows us to live.

And nature will take many of us, so what? A natural right is not a right to exceed what nature allows, it is a moral claim against others who would kill us.

Our pseudo right to decide to live is actually the right not to kill ourselves yet, which is different.

Define "right" because you sure aren't using the definition in the dictionary. The right to live is a moral claim against others murdering us, not a moral claim against nature killing us with old age. Oh, and calling a right to life a "pseudo right" while claiming suicide is a legitimate right is ridiculous. Both rights derive from the simple notion of ownership - you "own" yourself, that's why you have the right to live or die by your own hand.

In addition, the pseudo right to decide to live can be impeded at anytime by nature, which is not conform to the definition whereas our right to kill ourselves cannot be impeded by nature.

Which is why a natural right to live is a moral claim against others who would kill us. Morality doesn't restrict nature's effects on us, it restricts us acting against each other.

Slavery and genocide are not included in the state of nature, and cannot preexist society.

You said we have no right to live unless "society" says we have that right. Therefore a society that says genocide and slavery are okay aren't violating the rights of those enslaved or murdered.

But a society practising slavery would necessarily declare that the slaves have lost the natural right to kill themselves, aknowledging shamelesly the violation of the slaves natural right.

A slave can kill themself whenever they want and many have, slavery is not about preventing a slave from committing suicide, it's about forcibly acquiring their labor. You say slaves have no right to be free from slavery, only a right to commit suicide. Why? Is not suicide an expression of self-determination - freedom? Slaves aren't free and you think that's fine if society says they aren't free, but then you claim slaves should be free to commit suicide because that is their right. We don't have a right to live, only a right to kill ourselves - why?

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrFun



No, they have not always supported civil rights. Once the Democrats began to support civil rights activists in the 1950s and 1960s, an increasing number of Republicans, such as Barry Goldwater during the 1968 campaign, opposed racial desegregation of public places.


And today, Republicans still do not favor civil rights or equality. They oppose subjecting gay and lesbian American citizens to the same laws as straight American citizens. We have one set of laws for gays and lesbians, and another set of laws for straights.

To me, that is second-class citizenship for gays and lesbians.

Whatever you may believe, Mr.Fun, the truth lies in the fact that the Republican Party always supported civil rights. Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act because he said it was an unconstitutional infringement of States Rights. But he was among only a handful of Republicans to vote against. The bulk of the vote went with the Republican leadership who had been cooperating with Humphrey and Johnson.

Prior to 1964, Republicans had been in favor of civil rights legislation, but this had always been blocked by the Democrats. In 1960, Kennedy defeated Nixon in large measure because of the civil rights issue. He signalled the South that he would not introduce civil rights legislation during his administration.

When Nixon was elected, he began Affirmative action as we know it, with goals and timetables. This was a repeat of what he did during the Eisenhower administration. Partly because of this, the South backed Carter 100% in the 1976 election.

[Agathon]

I don't think it is... not for Rawls' original position. We have to forget ourselves entirely. That is what the veil of ignorance is.

We don't. That is an heuristic device. We can get the same results as the veil for most situations by simply reversing what everyone else does, rather than discounting our own preferences. The veil of ignorance requires you to consider yourself as any person in the prospective society.

Let's say I can't imagine myself as gay. I can get the same result (tolerance is required) by imagining that almost everyone else is gay, and I am the persecuted minority.

A. Freud was not 'discredited'. He may have been incorrect on some things, but his views still form the foundation of psychological theory. It's like saying Newton was discredited by Einstein so his contributions to science are bunk.

No. He's ****ed.

When you talked about Nazis, quickly you said you had to universalize and Jews would be impacted. Yet, in homosexuality, you didn't count the view of the Christian, who would not say homosexuality is a harmless thing and would claim that it harms the moral foundations of society.

This is, of course, an empirical claim and so is irrelevant to the test. The Christian (or anyone else in the original position) would have to demonstrate that the bad consequences would happen before deeming it unworthy of protection. As it stands, there is no evidence that homosexuality is socially harmful to a degree that would outweigh the harm inflicted upon homosexuals by them.

If you are universalizing, then being the Christian would lead you to a contrary result.

No. Because any sane person knows that it is worse to be persecuted for one's sexuality than it is to be prevented from persecuting others.

If they say different, then they aren't discounting their own beliefs (which they are perfectly capable of doing). Generally, when someone makes a claim like this, they are bull****ting.

However, your background and views have told you that the view of the Christian is less important than the views of the gay person in this event.

Not really, if a Christian placed himself in the gay person's place, they could not help, things being what they are, that the rights of the persecuted trump the rights of those who wish to persecute. They have no reasons to complain, they just want to **** over gay people.

Of course, fundies aren't going to like this. But the same argument protects them from persecution.

Funny how we can generate such debates over the foundations of liberalism. The conservatives still have nothing but mere prejudice.

[Agathon]

What is justice if it is not the uniform application of a norn ?

But a weak norm is not sufficient. That's agreed by almost everyone. Efficiency is not an end, it has to do with means to ends. We choose the most efficient mean to an end. Unless you specify some end efficiency is pointless. Efficiency at acheiving what? Efficiency?

[Agathon]

Here is a first principle - no one wants to be murdered. Therefore we have a natural right to life.

That's an invalid inference. The premise could be true and the conclusion false.

cf. No one wants to feel sad, therefore we have a natural right to happiness, and if anyone calls us an arsehole, they have violated our natural rights.

Natural rights are hand waving. No-one has demonstrated that such things exist. Sure people believe in them, but then again some people believe they are Jesus.

See how sophisticated the different positions are.

Liberals: justice is derived from the universalizability of moral judgements, which is something that almost everyone agrees on. In fact, universalizability seems to be essential to any and every morality. All one need to assent to, to ground the liberal version, is that there is no moral reason why another's welfare should matter any less than yours.

Conservatives: we have natural rights because we just do.

Be still my beating heart.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Agathon


But a weak norm is not sufficient. That's agreed by almost everyone. Efficiency is not an end, it has to do with means to ends. We choose the most efficient mean to an end. Unless you specify some end efficiency is pointless. Efficiency at acheiving what? Efficiency?

I understand that efficiency is not philosophically fashionable, but unless you decide that a prehistoric hunters tribe is not a community in which justice can exist, it cannot be excluded that the only useful concept on which justice can be founded is the efficiency serving their fight for survival. Efficiency is not the end; the end is survival. My prehistoric mind tells me that in this tribe, all members find just that the guy who refuses to participate in the hunt of the mammoth, expected to provide the food for the next winter, is sanctioned.