Topic: Socially obligated values
+Anonymous A — 10 months ago #66,466
In the United States, we’re socially obligated to believe that freedom for the sake of freedom is good. If someone ever gives an argument for why the ability to legally do something is either bad for us or bad for society as a whole, we’re supposed to respond by giving some argument that begs the question and basically say, "Freedom is good because without freedom we wouldn’t have freedom." Except with different words so it sounds like you’re making a valid argument when you’re really saying nothing of substance.
In the US there are some iconic phrases like, "give me liberty or give me death," and "those who desire safety over freedom deserve neither," that suggest that the most important thing in life is freedom, to the point where freedom is more important than life, as if it’s possible for an inanimate dead body to have any type of freedom somehow. It sort of reminds me of the concept of dharma in Hinduism. In Indian culture, there’s this idea, that the most important thing is not the outcome of your actions, it’s whether you are living out your life correctly according to your dharma. So for example, hypothetically, if you were a soldier in a war, and you were tasked with killing your brother for your country, even though you might not want to kill your brother, you should do it, because it is the task that you have been assigned in this life, and your place in the next incarnation will be determined by how well you lived your role. Logic and causality aren’t important. Living by a code is more important. It’s similar to the idea that freedom is more important than life. It doesn’t matter if the right to own guns leads to children dying in schools. The value of freedom is in living out the role that God gave to you. It is not about the morality of the consequences of the right to own guns. God gave you freedom, therefore you should be free and it doesn’t matter what happens to anybody because of it. "Those who desire safety over freedom deserve neither."
I think the difference between me and libertarians, is that for some reason, I want to be successful, and I care about the outcome of my actions, and I also care about the outcome of other people’s actions. I don’t want to live in a society where all of my goals could be cut short at any moment. If people who deserve safety over freedom deserve neither, it follows that no one is safe. Morality is a human construct. Some people don’t care if people die. There is nothing objectively good or bad about that. I have an opinion, but I know that my opinion means nothing. The universe already put everyone in the world on death row.
In the US there are some iconic phrases like, "give me liberty or give me death," and "those who desire safety over freedom deserve neither," that suggest that the most important thing in life is freedom, to the point where freedom is more important than life, as if it’s possible for an inanimate dead body to have any type of freedom somehow. It sort of reminds me of the concept of dharma in Hinduism. In Indian culture, there’s this idea, that the most important thing is not the outcome of your actions, it’s whether you are living out your life correctly according to your dharma. So for example, hypothetically, if you were a soldier in a war, and you were tasked with killing your brother for your country, even though you might not want to kill your brother, you should do it, because it is the task that you have been assigned in this life, and your place in the next incarnation will be determined by how well you lived your role. Logic and causality aren’t important. Living by a code is more important. It’s similar to the idea that freedom is more important than life. It doesn’t matter if the right to own guns leads to children dying in schools. The value of freedom is in living out the role that God gave to you. It is not about the morality of the consequences of the right to own guns. God gave you freedom, therefore you should be free and it doesn’t matter what happens to anybody because of it. "Those who desire safety over freedom deserve neither."
I think the difference between me and libertarians, is that for some reason, I want to be successful, and I care about the outcome of my actions, and I also care about the outcome of other people’s actions. I don’t want to live in a society where all of my goals could be cut short at any moment. If people who deserve safety over freedom deserve neither, it follows that no one is safe. Morality is a human construct. Some people don’t care if people die. There is nothing objectively good or bad about that. I have an opinion, but I know that my opinion means nothing. The universe already put everyone in the world on death row.
·Anonymous A (OP) — 10 months ago, 23 minutes later[T] [B] #662,185
Also tbh, there’s also another more simple issue. "Unreliable rights from their creator." So, there are two possibilities, either you might believe there is no God, or you might believe there is a God. I mean more towards God existing, but it doesn’t really matter because the flaw is the same regardless of whether you’re an atheist or atheist. If you’re an atheist, God didn’t give you rights because there is no God. If you’re religious, God never said you had the right to say anything you want. Blasphemy is a sin, and you can go to Hell for it. What religion says you can say anything and you deserve no punishment? Because I’ve never heard of that religion. Either way, it’s false that God gave us unalienable rights. God did not give us rights. But God is the central justification for everything. I don’t think rights are bad, because there are other reasons why rights are good, like for example, they benefit the collective wellbeing of society. That would be a valid argument that could be made. But saying rights are from God isn’t true. It doesn’t matter what religion or no religion at all. It’s just not true.
·Anonymous A (OP) — 10 months ago, 19 seconds later, 23 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #662,186
+Anonymous B — 10 months ago, 15 minutes later, 38 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #662,187
If you are an atheist, all rights are already given to you without the command of God. They believe that since there is no God, there is no omniscient being to set any rules and set rights for humans to follow. I think atheist and religious ideas for "freedom" and "rights" is not a spectrum and are different concepts by themselves. So if you are religious, God gave you some rights and forbade some things, such as blasphemy. But if you are an atheist, you don't need rights to be given to you, you already have all of them given to you.
+Anonymous C — 10 months ago, 5 hours later, 6 hours after the original post[T] [B] #662,225
@OP
> I have an opinion, but I know that my opinion means nothing. The universe already put everyone in the world on death row.
Pretty much of all tinychan, social media normie site and the internet as a whole. Best part is most of us are cognizant of the idea you speak of and yet willfully will turn a blind eye to all of that because of convenience.
> I have an opinion, but I know that my opinion means nothing. The universe already put everyone in the world on death row.
Pretty much of all tinychan, social media normie site and the internet as a whole. Best part is most of us are cognizant of the idea you speak of and yet willfully will turn a blind eye to all of that because of convenience.
+Anonymous D — 10 months ago, 1 hour later, 7 hours after the original post[T] [B] #662,235
