Microsoft hates Freedom and Democracy!!!

[Imran Siddiqui]

I wouldn't care if I died. If I was unhappy then I would want to die. Happiness and equality are the end goals. Individual rights are simply intermediate goals that need to be comprimised to meet the end goals.

You are a strange person.

I edited in the last post, the reason we uphold life is because our basic biological desire to continue to survive. There are a ton of people who are unhappy, who are not equal, and who didn't kill themselves. They continued to live. It's something hardwired into us, and we took that to mean its important.

Btw, that's your personal beliefs, I hope you know. My end goal is liberty & personal happiness; equality is simply an intermediate goal that needs to be compromised to meet the end goal. I say personal happiness, but there are things that make me happy that gets people like Christians all pissed off and I could care less about their happiness.

Besides, who decides happiness? Your happiness? My happiness? Majority's happiness? Oppressed happiness?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
No one said the right to life was absolute. But we do have the freedom to live for the sake of life itself, do we not? Even then we can have the death penalty and all of that stuff. It is just in general, we uphold life.

That creates all sorts of philosophical problems. One is that you won't be able to construct a system where you can account for restrictions on speech.

True, if you look it absolutely, but I prefer to look at such a statement and say in general, we'd prefer it. The problem, of course, is that in the end, you have to have one principle that beats everything else (who decides what wins in the end).

It's why rights are decided by society, but we have our general preferences.

Yes, but preferences are either for intrinsic or instrumental goods. Claiming that free speech is an intrinsic good is a bit like claiming that a mouthful of dirt has intrinsic value – it's hard to see what the value is without bringing in instrumental concerns. That's a good reason to think that someone who assigns intrinsic value to such things is either talking bollocks or really talking about instrumental goods.

Plus, rights based views tend to rely on metaphysical hokum (Kant), God, or hand waving (Locke for both).

There's a simple thought experiment that shows that free speech is not an intrinsic value. Imagine a possible world where it is a matter of necessity that there is nothing worth saying. Does free speech have value in that world? It ought to, if it has intrinsic value. But what's the point if there is nothing worth saying?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imagine a possible world where it is a matter of necessity that there is nothing worth saying. Does free speech have value in that world?

Yes. Even if there is nothing worth saying, humans, as autonomous beings (in my view, of course), should have the right to express themselves in any way they wish, even if it is nothing worth saying.

[JohnT]

Imagine a possible world where it is a matter of necessity that there is nothing worth saying.

I guarantee you that wouldn't shut my daughter up. She's a 24-hour monologue machine if there ever was one!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Imagine a possible world where it is a matter of necessity that there is nothing worth saying. Does free speech have value in that world?

Yes. Even if there is nothing worth saying, humans, as autonomous beings (in my view, of course), should have the right to express themselves in any way they wish, even if it is nothing worth saying.

That's not the question. The question is what is the point of such a right? It can, by definition, make absolutely no difference to my life in a world where nothing is worth saying, so the existence of the right seems pointless.... tell me why it matters.

[Agathon]

"

Originally posted by JohnT

Imagine a possible world where it is a matter of necessity that there is nothing worth saying.

I guarantee you that wouldn't shut my daughter up. She's a 24-hour monologue machine if there ever was one!

Like Veruca Salt?

"Daddy! I want an Oompa Loompa!! I want one NOW!"

[JohnT]

Exactly.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Agathon
That's not the question. The question is what is the point of such a right? It can, by definition, make absolutely no difference to my life in a world where nothing is worth saying, so the existence of the right seems pointless.... tell me why it matters.

Did I not say so before? Since we are all autonomous beings, we should have the right to say what we wish. The point is that it is part of our autonomy, our human-ness (IMO, YMMV, of course ).

[Agathon]

Did I not say so before? Since we are all autonomous beings, we should have the right to say what we wish. The point is that it is part of our autonomy, our human-ness.

That's a description, not part of an axiology. I want to know why it is valuable. In the boring world it seems to have no value at all. I am no better of with or without it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I wouldn't care if I died. If I was unhappy then I would want to die. Happiness and equality are the end goals. Individual rights are simply intermediate goals that need to be comprimised to meet the end goals.

You are a strange person.

I edited in the last post, the reason we uphold life is because our basic biological desire to continue to survive. There are a ton of people who are unhappy, who are not equal, and who didn't kill themselves. They continued to live. It's something hardwired into us, and we took that to mean its important.

With some people that's true. With other people it's not, so the absolute right to life can't be an end goal in the absolute sense.

Btw, that's your personal beliefs, I hope you know. My end goal is liberty & personal happiness; equality is simply an intermediate goal that needs to be compromised to meet the end goal. I say personal happiness, but there are things that make me happy that gets people like Christians all pissed off and I could care less about their happiness.

That's why it's so difficult to talk to you. I don't care about your personal happiness anymore than I care about anyone elses.

Besides, who decides happiness? Your happiness? My happiness? Majority's happiness? Oppressed happiness?

People who acknowledge that other people's happiness is just as important as their own are capable of coming to a reasonable conclusion about what makes people happy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Agathon

Did I not say so before? Since we are all autonomous beings, we should have the right to say what we wish. The point is that it is part of our autonomy, our human-ness.

That's a description, not part of an axiology. I want to know why it is valuable. In the boring world it seems to have no value at all. I am no better of with or without it.

I have no clue what you are asking. It has value because it is part of your autonomy. You are better off with it because even if you don't have anything to say, the government is not limiting you in that, but you, yourself are.

I mean, what more are you getting at? I think that's pretty damned valuable in itself. Just because you don't see the value doesn't mean that it doesn't have any.

Furthermore... we don't live in the 'boring world'. We live in the real world.

[Imran Siddiqui]

With some people that's true. With other people it's not, so the absolute right to life can't be an end goal in the absolute sense.

There is no absolute end goal, there are only personal end goals or societal end goals. It depends on the circumstances.

I don't care about your personal happiness anymore than I care about anyone elses.

But you care about your own personal happiness (whatever that may include) more than you care about mine. If you say you don't you are a liar.

People who acknowledge that other people's happiness is just as important as their own are capable of coming to a reasonable conclusion about what makes people happy.

And what if they come up with vastly different conclusions? A Christian who thinks other people's happiness is just as important as her own concludes that porn should be banned because without the exploitation of pornography the workers in the porn world will be happier and the people who watch it will be in healthier relationships.

Will you accept that? Like I said, who decides.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

With some people that's true. With other people it's not, so the absolute right to life can't be an end goal in the absolute sense.

There is no absolute end goal, there are only personal end goals or societal end goals. It depends on the circumstances.

Your missing the point. There is no value in the absolute right to life if not everyone wants to live under every circumstance. The only value in the right to life is that it makes people happy.

I don't care about your personal happiness anymore than I care about anyone elses.

But you care about your own personal happiness (whatever that may include) more than you care about mine. If you say you don't you are a liar.

When I consider policy I consider your happiness just as important as everyone elses, because I'm a rational person.

People who acknowledge that other people's happiness is just as important as their own are capable of coming to a reasonable conclusion about what makes people happy.

And what if they come up with vastly different conclusions? A Christian who thinks other people's happiness is just as important as her own concludes that porn should be banned because without the exploitation of pornography the workers in the porn world will be happier and the people who watch it will be in healthier relationships.

Will you accept that? Like I said, who decides.

Christians don't believe in reason, only their religion. The people have to be reasonable.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Your missing the point. There is no value in the absolute right to life if not everyone wants to live under every circumstance. The only value in the right to life is that it makes people happy.

Well it's a good thing that I didn't state it was an ABSOLUTE right to life, now isn't it? I don't believe in absolute rights. There is no such thing as a right without a limit. However, it is asserted that there is a right to life. What this means is there is a general right to life. That life will trump most of the time. It's in a prime position where the exception is taking away life.

As for it makes people happy, the ONLY way to be happy is if you are alive. So, if anything, they'd merge. And there are plenty of time where people decide to pass on happiness for someone else's benefit. So happiness isn't an absolute end either.

When I consider policy I consider your happiness just as important as everyone elses, because I'm a rational person.

Rationality doesn't mean you have to consider my happiness. It just means you have a reasoned argument from whatever start and end you choose (which are never rational, btw... the start and end chosen are just as based on 'faith' as any religion).

And that's the question.. is it better for a vast majority to be happy as they can be (and a very small minority to not be happy) or for everyone to be just barely happy?

Christians don't believe in reason, only their religion. The people have to be reasonable.

Thomas Aquinas would disagree.

And I find plenty of Christians to be fairly reasonable. They can go from their start to end points with reasoned debate.


And where would the fact that I don't consider you reasonable at all fit in?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Your missing the point. There is no value in the absolute right to life if not everyone wants to live under every circumstance. The only value in the right to life is that it makes people happy.

Well it's a good thing that I didn't state it was an ABSOLUTE right to life, now isn't it? I don't believe in absolute rights. There is no such thing as a right without a limit. However, it is asserted that there is a right to life. What this means is there is a general right to life. That life will trump most of the time. It's in a prime position where the exception is taking away life.

That's funny, because it seemed that you were arguing for an absolute right to freedom of speech. Why should speech be free that doesn't increase the overall happiness or equality of society.

As for it makes people happy, the ONLY way to be happy is if you are alive. So, if anything, they'd merge. And there are plenty of time where people decide to pass on happiness for someone else's benefit. So happiness isn't an absolute end either.

This doesn't make enough sense to comment on.

When I consider policy I consider your happiness just as important as everyone elses, because I'm a rational person.

Rationality doesn't mean you have to consider my happiness.

Rational is considering everything. Considering your own happiness more important than anyone elses is simple bias. There is no rational argument for it.

It just means you have a reasoned argument from whatever start and end you choose (which are never rational, btw... the start and end chosen are just as based on 'faith' as any religion).

No. It's making unbiased assumptions.

And that's the question.. is it better for a vast majority to be happy as they can be (and a very small minority to not be happy) or for everyone to be just barely happy?

That's why I believe in equality also.

Christians don't believe in reason, only their religion. The people have to be reasonable.

Thomas Aquinas would disagree.

Really? Did he ever entertain the prospect that the Bible wasn't absolute truth?

And I find plenty of Christians to be fairly reasonable. They can go from their start to end points with reasoned debate.

They can not go outside of their own bias. To do so would be a sin. They are instructed to rely on their own faith, and not their understanding.

And where would the fact that I don't consider you reasonable at all fit in?

Seeing that you are biased towards yourself, and that all of your arguments reflect that fact, that means nothing.