Locke Posted February 14, 2007 Author Share Posted February 14, 2007 Yes they would, take for example a english law which forbids blasphemy, if the people where to decide that blasphemy was to be against the law one year. Then the next year they decided that was discrimination towards people who do not beleive in God they would get the law removed. If people are in constant control of the law, it wouldn't be discriminatory. It only became discriminatory at the time they decided to change it, and by changing it, eliminated it. So how would your initial point even be relevant? If people vote to ban gay marriage and it passes, there is no possible way it could be discriminatory. What would your point even be then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 It became discriminatory at the time they beleived it, not the time they changed it. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irulepoker Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Yup, America has fallen into a new category... Hell II. (If you don't get it, resort to your Roman Numerals. *Hint* My Farewell thread. Please post nicely, or die. :^_^:Yea, I'd vote for him too. But I don't think they let Iraqis vote :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 And I have said before, i beleive banning gay marriarge to be discrimination. However if the majority of society is in favour of it then it is down to them not me. The state i propose would educate people on the harm principle and so on and therefore i would hope their vote to be based on that fact that they arn't harming anyone and respecting the principle of the state that the individual is sovereign. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 14, 2007 Author Share Posted February 14, 2007 It became discriminatory at the time they beleived it, not the time they changed it. So this is your official stance? All morality is subjective, and therefore, all views on morality have equal weight. For this reason, all laws that are created need only the majority to vote them into place and need no justification whatsoever because justification would suggest an absolute of some sort. If something discriminatory is voted into law by the majority, it is no longer discriminatory. Therefore, laws banning gay marriage are not discriminatory and should be allowed. You would then support the principle behind making slavery legal again if the majority voted for the law, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Actually i said justification was required and would be accepted as long as it wasn't discriminatory. This system places a huge amount of trust that it's members understand the harm principle and that the individual is sovereign. I have stated this system is to good for humans before, and I will say it again. Society at the moment wouldn't fit within this system because i doubt they would understand the principles it relies on, or the power of freedom they have. My official stance would be All morality is subjective, and therefore, all views on morality have equal weight. For this reason, society as a whole should understand the individual is sovereign and therefore base their decisions on the principle that unless something is harming you, you have no reason to censor such behaviour. However if you still beleive it to be better for society as a whole then you may vote this way as a vote against what you truley beleive in does not respect the states own principle. All laws that are created need only the majority to vote them into place but require the voter not to vote based on his or her own discriminations. If something discriminatory is voted into law by the majority, it is no longer discriminatory and vice-versa. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 14, 2007 Author Share Posted February 14, 2007 Actually i said justification was required and would be accepted as long as it wasn't discriminatory. This system places a huge amount of trust that it's members understand the harm principle and that the individual is sovereign. I have stated this system is to good for humans before, and I will say it again. Society at the moment wouldn't fit within this system because i doubt they would understand the principles. 1. Justification assumes an absolute good. 2. I'm not talking about a specific system of government based on the harm principle. Why after me saying that so many times can you not understand that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 By justification i mean they have a reason that is not discrimatory (as defined by the majority) or just not having any reason. It's based on the individual being sovereign and the harm principle is an aid for society to help them make decisions. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke_Freedom Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Since when is discrimination subjective and why do so many debates in the off topic board seem to end up in discussions about "absolute truths"? Definition discrimination: An act based on prejudice. Definition prejudice: Preconceived judgment or opinion. I don't see where the subjective part comes into play? Discrimination is a completely well-defined objective concept. However, it is partly true that there have been times that people did not realize/consciously ignored that something was discrimination - that does not stop it from being discrimination though. The value of my bank at its height. Estimated value at the peak of the rares market: 250 billion+.Most likely the largest trade in RuneScape ever. Estimated value at the peak of the rares market: 70 billion+. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Locke did not accept that by voting for discrimination you are still banning something for having no reason which is discrimination. As he thought the reason you are voting for discrimination was that it was better for society. Apparently me saying that 'voting against subjective consensus morality was in itself faulty as that person would still be accepting the best way of change to be non-discrimination ' was not allowed. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke_Freedom Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Locke did not accept that by voting for discrimination you are still banning something for having no reason which is discrimination. As he thought the reason you are voting for discrimination was that it was better for society. Ah that explains some. Discrimination can never be "better for the society" either as discrimination is not 'useful' in the first place. It's irrational, as simply follows from the definition of discrimination. Irrationality is not "better for the society" at all. The value of my bank at its height. Estimated value at the peak of the rares market: 250 billion+.Most likely the largest trade in RuneScape ever. Estimated value at the peak of the rares market: 70 billion+. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Binyam Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Locke did not accept that by voting for discrimination you are still banning something for having no reason which is discrimination. As he thought the reason you are voting for discrimination was that it was better for society. Ah that explains some. Discrimination can never be "better for the society" either as discrimination is not 'useful' in the first place. It's irrational, as simply follows from the definition of discrimination. Irrationality is not "better for the society" at all. You see, that implies an absolute. In Satenza's world view, all morality is subjective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deeno13 Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 I live in Olympia, Washington! :o Last year the Legislature banned bestiality because a man died while making naughty with a horse. We get some good bills down here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 15, 2007 Author Share Posted February 15, 2007 Locke did not accept that by voting for discrimination you are still banning something for having no reason which is discrimination. As he thought the reason you are voting for discrimination was that it was better for society. Ah that explains some. Discrimination can never be "better for the society" either as discrimination is not 'useful' in the first place. It's irrational, as simply follows from the definition of discrimination. Irrationality is not "better for the society" at all. That's only if you believe in an absolute to define "better." Some people might think irrationality is better. Some people might believe discrimination is better. Unless there is an absolute good, "better" cannot exist absolutely as you suggest. All morality is subjective, and therefore, all views on morality have equal weight. For this reason, society as a whole should understand the individual is sovereign and therefore base their decisions on the principle that unless something is harming you, you have no reason to censor such behaviour. Terrible. You just created one of the most basic fallacies in moral philosophy. You can't jump from an "is" statement to an "ought" statement like that unless there is an absolute good. Period. It can't be done. Since you don't believe in an absolute good, your views are inconsistent. However if you still beleive it to be better for society as a whole then you may vote this way as a vote against what you truley beleive in does not respect the states own principle. Assumes a specific state, which makes your view not universal, which is pointless. All laws that are created need only the majority to vote them into place but require the voter not to vote based on his or her own discriminations. If something discriminatory is voted into law by the majority, it is no longer discriminatory and vice-versa. No. You are making up your own definition of discrimination. That doesn't work. Try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 All morality is subjective, and therefore, all views on morality have equal weight. For this reason, society as a whole should understand the individual is sovereign and therefore base their decisions on the principle that unless something is harming you, you have no reason to censor such behaviour. Terrible. You just created one of the most basic fallacies in moral philosophy. You can't jump from an "is" statement to an "ought" statement like that unless there is an absolute good. Period. It can't be done. Since you don't believe in an absolute good, your views are inconsistent. This reflects the system of subjective consensus morality. Which is all about the individual being sovereign. So inflicting a ban on someone who isn't harming you is imposing on the individual who is needed. However if you still beleive it to be better for society as a whole then you may vote this way as a vote against what you truley beleive in does not respect the states own principle. Assumes a specific state, which makes your view not universal, which is pointless. I don't understand your point that it assumes a specific state, individual is sovereign and so not voting for what they beleive in would not follow that. The individual is sovereign is subjecitve consensus morality. All laws that are created need only the majority to vote them into place but require the voter not to vote based on his or her own discriminations. If something discriminatory is voted into law by the majority, it is no longer discriminatory and vice-versa. No. You are making up your own definition of discrimination. That doesn't work. Try again. As you would not accept that voting for discrimination isn't allowed as you are voting for no reason which is against subjective consensus morality. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 15, 2007 Author Share Posted February 15, 2007 This reflects the system of subjective consensus morality. Which is all about the individual being sovereign. So inflicting a ban on someone who isn't harming you is imposing on the individual who is needed. If you don't believe in an absolute good, you can't go from is/ought no matter what. What's "best for society" is always subjective, and so what you "should' do is never set in stone. I don't understand your point that it assumes a specific state, individual is sovereign and so not voting for what they beleive in would not follow that. The individual is sovereign is subjecitve consensus morality. You're assuming that by voting for discrimination that it's going against the principles of the state. That assumes a specific state which you can't do, because the state is fluid. Your view has to be universal because there is no absolute good, so anything that is done by the majority is "good." As you would not accept that voting for discrimination isn't allowed as you are voting for no reason which is against subjective consensus morality. No. You are still changing the definition. Discrimination is an actual word with an actual definition. I can cast a vote that is purely out of discrimination if I want, and if the majority votes that way, it's best for society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 This reflects the system of subjective consensus morality. Which is all about the individual being sovereign. So inflicting a ban on someone who isn't harming you is imposing on the individual who is needed. If you don't believe in an absolute good, you can't go from is/ought no matter what. What's "best for society" is always subjective, and so what you "should' do is never set in stone. Exactly, and so to know whats best there needs to be a system which has the capability to do that. The individual being sovereign means that there right to individuality is fundemental. I don't understand your point that it assumes a specific state, individual is sovereign and so not voting for what they beleive in would not follow that. The individual is sovereign is subjecitve consensus morality. You're assuming that by voting for discrimination that it's going against the principles of the state. That assumes a specific state which you can't do, because the state is fluid. Your view has to be universal because there is no absolute good, so anything that is done by the majority is "good." It goes against what they are voting for. If someone thinks dicrimination is best for society, they don't agree how society is ran and therefore by partaking in that society (by voting) they are accepting in some form that discrimination is bad. As you would not accept that voting for discrimination isn't allowed as you are voting for no reason which is against subjective consensus morality. No. You are still changing the definition. Discrimination is an actual word with an actual definition. I can cast a vote that is purely out of discrimination if I want, and if the majority votes that way, it's best for society. Discrimination is acting on a prejudice, therefore treating someone differently without reason. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 15, 2007 Author Share Posted February 15, 2007 Exactly, and so to know whats best there needs to be a system which has the capability to do that. The individual being sovereign means that there right to individuality is fundemental. There can't be a system with the capability to do "best." That's contradictory of there not being an absolute good. It might be fundamental, at the time, but since there are no absolute goods, it can only be fundamental until the majority disagrees. You're basically saying, "Because an absolute good does not exist, and therefore "best" can not exist, we can conclude that individual sovereignty is best for society, despite "best" not being possible." It goes against what they are voting for. If someone things dicrimination is best for society, they don't agree how society is ran and therefore by partaking in that society (by voting) they are accepting in some form that discrimination is bad. It can't be bad in any form. "Bad" can't exist. So under your belief if someone votes for discrimination they are simultaneously in agreement and disagreement with the principles of the state. Therefore, under your belief, it is possible for the impossible to exist. That's not contradictory at all! Discrimination is acting on a prejudice, therefore treating someone differently without reason. They might not have a reason for the discrimination, but the reason for the law itself can still be discrimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Exactly, and so to know whats best there needs to be a system which has the capability to do that. The individual being sovereign means that there right to individuality is fundemental. There can't be a system with the capability to do "best." That's contradictory of there not being an absolute good. It might be fundamental, at the time, but since there are no absolute goods, it can only be fundamental until the majority disagrees. But the principle of subjective consensus morality is the individual is sovereign, and so voting for something which takes away an individuals freedom you are challenging this. Yet you still are aknowledging by voting the fact the best way for society to move forward is through the individual being sovereign which is a contradiction for that person. It's like me not agreeing with democracy, so therfore i will vote against democracy. I am aknowledging that democracy is the best way for society to move forward as I am doing it myself. You're basically saying, "Because an absolute good does not exist, and therefore "best" can not exist, we can conclude that individual sovereignty is best for society, despite "best" not being possible." Individual being sovereign is subjective consensus morality and so, it's implied by this system of voting. It goes against what they are voting for. If someone things dicrimination is best for society, they don't agree how society is ran and therefore by partaking in that society (by voting) they are accepting in some form that discrimination is bad. It can't be bad in any form. "Bad" can't exist. So under your belief if someone votes for discrimination they are simultaneously in agreement and disagreement with the principles of the state. Therefore, under your belief, it is possible for the impossible to exist. That's not contradictory at all! Refer back to the democracy example above.The statement in itself is contradictory. Discrimination is acting on a prejudice, therefore treating someone differently without reason. They might not have a reason for the discrimination, but the reason for the law itself can still be discrimination. Explain that please. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 15, 2007 Author Share Posted February 15, 2007 But the principle of subjective consensus morality is the individual is sovereign, and so voting for something which takes away an individuals freedom you are challenging this. Yet you still are aknowledging by voting the fact the best way for society to move forward is through the individual being sovereign which is a contradiction for that person. It's like me not agreeing with democracy, so therfore i will vote against democracy. I am aknowledging that democracy is the best way for society to move forward as I am doing it myself. So you admit that your theory is able to contradicts itself? Individual being sovereign is subjective consensus morality and so, it's implied by this system of voting. So you admit that your theory is able to contradict itself? Refer back to the democracy example above.The statement in itself is contradictory. Because your theory, in itself, is contradictory. Explain that please. Example: "I don't like black people for no reason. I just don't like them. I think society would be best if they weren't allowed in public places because I don't like them. I'm voting to stop them from being allowed in public places." My reason for voting is discrimination at its core, despite there not being a reason for the discrimination itself (by definition). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 But the principle of subjective consensus morality is the individual is sovereign, and so voting for something which takes away an individuals freedom you are challenging this. Yet you still are aknowledging by voting the fact the best way for society to move forward is through the individual being sovereign which is a contradiction for that person. It's like me not agreeing with democracy, so therfore i will vote against democracy. I am aknowledging that democracy is the best way for society to move forward as I am doing it myself. So you admit that your theory is able to contradicts itself? It's not contradicting, but that person is on some level agreeing with the system by part-taking in it. Instead of revolting or something. Explain that please. Example: "I don't like black people for no reason. I just don't like them. I think society would be best if they weren't allowed in public places because I don't like them. I'm voting to stop them from being allowed in public places." My reason for voting is discrimination at its core, despite there not being a reason for the discrimination itself (by definition). Not allowed since the reason of banning black people from public places is absent. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 15, 2007 Author Share Posted February 15, 2007 It's not contradicting, but that person is on some level agreeing with the system by part-taking in it. Instead of revolting or something. Yes it is. It simultaneously asserts both that "individual sovereignty is best for society" AND "individual sovereignty is not best for society." That goes against the law of non-contradiction, making it a contradiction. Not allowed since the reason of banning black people from public places is absent. 1. Everything is allowed in a subjective society. 2. The reason for banning them is that I don't like them and it will make society better. The reason might not satisfy you, but it's all subjective so it doesn't matter. There is no "right" or "wrong" reason in a subjective society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 It's not contradicting, but that person is on some level agreeing with the system by part-taking in it. Instead of revolting or something. Yes it is. It simultaneously asserts both that "individual sovereignty is best for society" AND "individual sovereignty is not best for society." That goes against the law of non-contradiction, making it a contradiction. His statement is a contradiction, by voting that this way of rule is not what he wants he is still accepting that part-taking in society is the best way to get the outcome he wants. Not allowed since the reason of banning black people from public places is absent. 1. Everything is allowed in a subjective society. 2. The reason for banning them is that I don't like them and it will make society better. The reason might not satisfy you, but it's all subjective so it doesn't matter. There is no "right" or "wrong" reason in a subjective society. That isn't a reason, a reason requires justification. "I don't like" isn't justification for anything and his statement remains discrimination. He is supposed to vote because he beleives something to be best for society. Saying "I don't like" doesn't mean he is voting for whats best for society and by saying "I think it's best for society" he still lacks a reason as to why he thinks it's best for society. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 15, 2007 Author Share Posted February 15, 2007 His statement is a contradiction, by voting that this way of rule is not what he wants he is still accepting that part-taking in society is the best way to get the outcome he wants. Exactly! Your subjective belief system allows for contradictions. Contradictions are illogical. Your belief system allows for illogical happenings. That isn't a reason, a reason requires justification. "I don't like" isn't justification for anything and his statement remains discrimination. No! I have already stated this many times. "I don't like" is a reason in a subjective society. "Justification" requires an absolute standard which you don't believe in. That is a contradiction. Why do you keep doing that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 His statement is a contradiction, by voting that this way of rule is not what he wants he is still accepting that part-taking in society is the best way to get the outcome he wants. Exactly! Your subjective belief system allows for contradictions. Contradictions are illogical. Your belief system allows for illogical happenings. So does every system today if we had a vote of this nature for it. If i don't beleive the democracy I live in to be the best form of government and I vote for change it is the same situation we see here. That isn't a reason, a reason requires justification. "I don't like" isn't justification for anything and his statement remains discrimination. No! I have already stated this many times. "I don't like" is a reason in a subjective society. "Justification" requires an absolute standard which you don't believe in. That is a contradiction. Why do you keep doing that? That does not change a defintion of a reason, it is a rational motive for a beleif or action. "I don't like" is not a rational motive for a beleif. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now