Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Spooky, May 23, 2018.
By individual liberty - I am referring to liberties outside the legitimate purview of Gov't. The legitimate authority of Gov't in our system is - protection from harm - direct harm - one person on another - rape, murder, theft and so on.
Utilitarianism has "ZERO" regard for individual liberty. All that is considered is "increased happiness for the collective".
Utilitarianism is an anathema to the Rule of Law - (one person is not to be punished for the actions of another - innocent until proven guilty)
I agree that in grey area's using such justification for law can be applicable but, not as a general principle for making law.
The claim that someone harming themselves through alcohol "harms all of us" is different than someone harming themselves through sport is false. (I don't think you know what a strawman is ? - perhaps you mean false dichotomy). If someone is injured in sport this "harms all of us - via increased medical costs" in the same way as treating an alcoholic for medical ailments.
Regardless - you would have to make a specific argument for me to comment much further.
The fact of the matter is that - "increased medical costs" is not a valid justification for law in general. This action seeks to punish all for the actions of a few - a clear violation of the rule of law - never mind how it is often a fallacious utilitarian argument (meaning that the law will not increase happiness overall).
And do you know where income inequality is the worst? Good old liberal Califonia, home of corrupt politicians, Hollywood stars, and homeless people. "Liberals" have fixed it so no working stiff can buy a house, let alone pay the taxes. So is New York.
I am a nice person, I am also an honest person, which is more than I can say for half the people on this site.
Well Jesus was a liberal, most of the things Jesus stood for far right Christians oppose...
I think that Jim Croce put it best in his song "Which Way Are You Going". Far right Christians "Say they love the baby, then crucify the man"
That's the thing that confuses me, leftwits always want to hijack Jesus even as they say he never existed...
Read your posts. First you clam that public schools are the place kids learn the "correct" social behavior, and that if a parent wants their kids to be idiots then don't put them in public school. You wanted them homeschooled, clearly believing that home schooling produced idiots, insinuating that public school was the only "correct" place for education. Then you backed off in your next post.
No but he did tell a rich man to sell everything he had and give to the poor.
Meaning if what you have causes you to put more importance on stuff or your own special freedoms...you are doing it wrong.
Like the repealed Seattle head tax law circus. Who knows what those shysters at the top are doing.
I dont see why having a safety net for disenfranchised people is so hated. A growing government will happen with either party because the system is messed up.
He didn't tell you to tell the rich man to sell his stuff, or to worry about what the rich man has
Jesus didn't comment on government policy. The absence of his advice on government can't be construed as a suggestion that there be no government.
The Bible DOES address this issue where there ARE comments on requirements of citizens, as in Deuteronomy 15.
The rich are require to loan to the poor. On the day of forgiveness, those loans not repaid are forgiven.
In essence, the government of the Israelites required a direct transfer of wealth.
I never mentioned no government, but nice try
Did he tell anyone to forcibly take rich people's money?
Well, when you mentioned that Jesus didn't tell his guys to take people's money, I assumed you were referring to some sort of legal process.
I think we can all agree Jesus wouldn't have promoted a mugging.
I do like pointing out errors in ideological thinking (in this case as presented by Giftedone, who claimed that Utilitarianism has "zero concern for the rights of the individual")
eg, the concept of "liberty of the individual" must be subject to definition in relation to the liberty of other individuals, when there is more than one individual in the world.
I already said, "no" I could not find such a teaching.
But Jesus did say "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars' and unto God the thing that are God's ", indicating acceptance of taxation levied by earthly authorities.
Where does it say that you should ask your rulers to levy heavier taxes on those with more than you, or think that's proper?
Government is simply the surrogate for the mob that seems obsessed with everybody else's posessions. In exchange for their vote, the government does the mugging, enriches and empowers itself, and sprinkles back crumbs on the willful little recipients.
The first story in the Bible outside of Eden speaks of a man who is jealous of what his brothers has accomplished. Pretty much sums up human nature
You know, our government isn't based on the bible. It's based on years of secular advancement in government. In fact, the advances our own government demonstrates did not come from the bible. One might note that one of the larger steps in the evolution of our government was the separation of government from religion.
So, I'm not so sure that it means much of anything if something our government does isn't based on some verse in the bible.
Is that so?
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America".
"The greatest good for the greatest number" is not necessarily incompatible with individual liberty - that's a false dichotomy.
Actually Utilitarianism depends on Rule of Law.
Again you are defining concepts, eg Rule of Law, to fit your own world view. Rule of law exists to promote well-ordered relations between naturally self-interested individuals, in order to avoid anarchy - a much larger concern than the mere avoidance of unjust punishment of the individual.
Separate names with a comma.