Sunday, November 23, 2014
Your society is not free
if prostitution is not legal.
The demonization of individuals who either need or prefer to pay another for sex is just another form of mob bullying.
In this regard, it seems a particularly useful starting point for discussion.
The demonization of individuals who either need or prefer to pay another for sex is just another form of mob bullying.
In this regard, it seems a particularly useful starting point for discussion.
Is Cynical Socialism Viable?
Everyone is important.
Everyone needs to eat.
Everyone needs to work.
Everyone needs to live.
This extreme failed.
That extreme failed.
I guess you could say that the failure of each is its inevitable incrementalism.
I guess you could say that the only thing that could ever be viable is a perpetual swinging of the pendulum, with the accompanying perpetual declarations of the moral righteousness of "the other extreme" whenever the current one proves its immorality/has its immorality exposed/is no longer able to cover for the immorality of the participants.
Maybe the most naive expectation and desire is for any sort of conclusion.
Questions of morality are always most interesting when faced with ultimately limited resources. Until then the philosophies are probably at least somewhat meaningless. After that point the concept is probably moot.
"If there exists a solution that benefits us all to at least some reasonable degree then perhaps that solution can be considered morally superior. Once that is no longer the case, is there any morality other than that which increases my and mine's chances of survival?"
In conclusion, many aspects of religion appear absolutely legitimate. "Ye are flawed and limited, of limited intelligence and capability, and a dedication to religiously defined morality (help others, avoid greed, etc.) is the only truth." Science, and every other earthly pursuit is destined to lead to a lesser morality.
One could summarize this, if they were cynical enough, as "i am desperate enough to fall back on the safety blanket of religion."
I don't believe it's inconsistent to say i both agree and disagree.
Everyone needs to eat.
Everyone needs to work.
Everyone needs to live.
This extreme failed.
That extreme failed.
I guess you could say that the only thing that could ever be viable is a perpetual swinging of the pendulum, with the accompanying perpetual declarations of the moral righteousness of "the other extreme" whenever the current one proves its immorality/has its immorality exposed/is no longer able to cover for the immorality of the participants.
Maybe the most naive expectation and desire is for any sort of conclusion.
Questions of morality are always most interesting when faced with ultimately limited resources. Until then the philosophies are probably at least somewhat meaningless. After that point the concept is probably moot.
"If there exists a solution that benefits us all to at least some reasonable degree then perhaps that solution can be considered morally superior. Once that is no longer the case, is there any morality other than that which increases my and mine's chances of survival?"
In conclusion, many aspects of religion appear absolutely legitimate. "Ye are flawed and limited, of limited intelligence and capability, and a dedication to religiously defined morality (help others, avoid greed, etc.) is the only truth." Science, and every other earthly pursuit is destined to lead to a lesser morality.
One could summarize this, if they were cynical enough, as "i am desperate enough to fall back on the safety blanket of religion."
I don't believe it's inconsistent to say i both agree and disagree.
Friday, November 21, 2014
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)