Ich bin gegen covid 19. Was ist deine Meinung?

quietvoice wrote: I'm against tyranny in all forms.

Maybe in philosophy, but not in reality. Unless you believe that no act is immoral, or that regardless of action, even an immoral act should not be oppressed, then you are for some form of tyranny.

-3- Is there any process (e.g., constitutions, elections, legislation) by which human beings can transform an immoral act in to moral act (without changing the act itself)?

What is your process? From what or whom do you obtain your authority over what is moral or immoral? I have a process. I know precisely where my authority comes from as it relates to decisions about what is moral or immoral.

For example, it is an immoral act to have sex with an infant. It is not immoral to have sex with an adult. The act itself...sex...has not changed. I have transformed an immoral act (sex with an infant) into a moral act (sex with an adult). What was my process for making this transformation? From what or whom did I get my authority?

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

quietvoice wrote: I'm against tyranny in all forms.

Maybe in philosophy, but not in reality. Unless you believe that no act is immoral, or that regardless of action, even an immoral act should not be oppressed, then you are for some form of tyranny.

Philosophy is useless if not based on reality.


tyranny: cruel and oppressive use of power or control

to oppress: "verb:
keep (someone) in subservience and hardship, especially by the unjust exercise of authority"

I posit that in order to keep a peaceful order among us socially, that we each must understand and practice the principle of non-aggression.

" even an immoral act should not be oppressed "
Actions are not oppressed. Individual human beings are oppressed. Individual human beings are oppressed by and through immoral actions of other individual human beings, likely acting in concert with other like-minded individual human beings.

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

quietvoice wrote:-3- Is there any process (e.g., constitutions, elections, legislation) by which human beings can transform an immoral act in to moral act (without changing the act itself)?

What is your process? From what or whom do you obtain your authority over what is moral or immoral?

The priciple of non-aggression.

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:I have a process. I know precisely where my authority comes from as it relates to decisions about what is moral or immoral.

Please share.

For example, it is an immoral act to have sex with an infant. It is not immoral to have sex with an adult. The act itself...sex...has not changed. . . .

I have transformed an immoral act (sex with an infant) into a moral act (sex with an adult).

What was my process for making this transformation?
From what or whom did I get my authority?

Yes, how did you magically change one act into the other act? Amazing, LOL.

Allow me to explain (question #3). The immoral act of [sex with an infant], cannot be changed into the moral act of [sex with an infant], n'est pas? . . . Or else, how?

quietvoice wrote:The principle of non-aggression.

So then you either:
-1- Do not act in the face of immorality.
-2- Have others use aggression/oppression on your behalf.
-3- Have rules for when you are allowed to violate your own principle.

I'm not sure of the above...just trying to gain a better understanding of your thought process.

quietvoice wrote:Yes, how did you magically change one act into the other act? Amazing, LOL.

Allow me to explain (question #3). The immoral act of [sex with an infant], cannot be changed into the moral act of [sex with an infant], n'est pas? . . . Or else, how?

It is not magical. It is not two different acts. It is the exact same act of sex. What transforms the act from moral to immoral is the judgment of....what authority? In my case, my process is simple. I am the authority. I know the difference between right and wrong. I know what is moral and immoral. I am my own judge. It doesn't mean I'm infallible. I can be wrong. It only means that there exists no higher authority, no better judge.

Maybe a different example will work. When is cannibalism morally okay? Is it ever okay? In most instances, the wish of the deceased and any surviving family is that the corpse is not eaten. Yet stranded with no other food, acts of cannibalism occur. Maybe a person commits the act to feed themselves or to feed another person. What if the act is to feed a child to provide a chance of rescue?

Using your interpretation of sex, these are all different acts of cannabilism. Even though the act is exactly the same, "cannibalism" you are arguing morality includes more than the act. According to your definition, it includes the date, time, location, weather conditions, how long the body had been decomposing, what part of the body was eaten, what were the odds of rescue, etc. etc.

If every act is different then there is no comparison between two acts. And maybe that is the way it should be.

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote: . . . In my case, my process is simple. I am the authority. I know the difference between right and wrong. I know what is moral and immoral. I am my own judge. It doesn't mean I'm infallible. I can be wrong. It only means that there exists no higher authority, no better judge.

You didn't state how you determine what is moral and/or immoral.

as brian (not a member) says wrote:

Do you have a higher claim over my life and property than me?

Do I have a higher claim over your life and property than you?

Is it ever right for any human being,
I don't care if they call themselves a govt. agent,
I don't care if they call themselves an expert,
I don't care if they call themselves a medical professional,
does anybody have the right to initiate unjust force and violence on peaceful people who haven't harmed anybody?

So, apparently this thread lost it's OP.

quietvoice wrote:You didn't state how you determine what is moral and/or immoral.

True. I only stated that I make the decision, not how that decision is made.

Your "how"...at least in part...is via the principle of non-aggression. If an act does not violate this principle it is moral. If it violates this principle it is immoral. That is how you decide.

My how is certainly not much different than your own. I imagine there are differences in our underlying values, beliefs, and/or principles, but we both are using these same mechanisms for how we make a determination of what acts are moral or immoral.

as brian (not a member) says wrote: does anybody have the right to initiate unjust force and violence on peaceful people who haven't harmed anybody?

A right? No one needs to give me a right.

Think of it this way quiet voice...how do YOU resolve the moral dilemma of the trolley problem?

Either one person dies or five die. What if among the six people at least one of them is a family member or a loved one? The runaway trolley is unstoppable. Your action "to pull the lever" or your inaction "to not pull the lever" results in death either way...it is violence against the peaceful, the innocent.

Based on my principles I save my family members. I take care of those I love. Is it moral? Immoral? Is it consistent with non-aggression? I don't really care. I'm okay with it. Will I feel bad for taking the lives of innocent, peaceful people that did nothing wrong and didn't deserve to die? Sure. It is a tough situation. There is no "good" decision.

The point being, that the question asking if anyone has the right is irrelevant. To have a right assumes there is some authority that has the power to give that right.

Based on your principle of non-aggression I imagine you take the Buddhist path and do not touch the lever. At the same time, you rationalize that you did not have the right to interfere with destiny, the fate of those people that unfortunately found themselves on the track. You close your eyes as the trolley takes it's the predetermined course and kills five people instead of one. You are responsible for the death of those five people. You could have saved them, but to do so would require committing an act that would kill one innocent person.

A short video of the trolley problem...

https://youtu.be/bOpf6KcWYyw

`
What does the trolley problem have to do with common everyday thuggery and authoritative tyranny?

quietvoice wrote:`
What does the trolley problem have to do with common everyday thuggery and authoritative tyranny?

Thuggery and tyranny are not connected to morality?