A bit of (no doubt faulty) philosophy

It was asserted to me the other day (while discussing politics, ectics and morality) that there are no absolutes. I submit that although absolutes may not, in reality exist, but that non-existence is irrelavent. The idea of an ideal is a useful tool to use as a reference point for measuring change in a system, and therefore setting goals to change that system. I submit that the idea of the ideal is the absolute.

a Grand Unified Theory:
I agree that if a universal "natural law" or "absolute truth" cannot be discovered (or indeed, does not exist outside the realm of the supernatural) then there can be no universal ethic*.
With that being said, would it not be practical to start with a premise that is simple enough to be universally agreed upon, (or at least not refuted) agree upon a logical methodology to build upon that premise, and fashion an artificial universal ethic?


*in this work, I use the word ethic and ethics to describe interactions that are external to the individual, and independent of morality. I define morality as a person's subjective sense of right and wrong.
For example: under an ethical system whose premise is "might makes right" , it would be "ethical" for a person to murder another. It would be assumed that since the person was able to get the best of his victim, he was in some way, "mightier". Whether such a killing was "moral" depends upon what system of morality the observer uses, and is beside the point.

Things you should know about the united States government (but won't learn in the media)

1. We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Democracy is a terrible form of government.



please add your own.

Hypocracy on both sides

I debated with an individual, the other day, who said that no one should make over $250,000, because there is no way that they would need that much money every year, that there was no work that a person could do to "earn" that much money. He said that they should give any money over that amount to the needy. I asserted that any amount that an individual contracts for, and fulfills the contract, he has earned, because that is what the work was worth to the individual who paid him. He asserted that anyone who kept any more money than that was "greedy". This got me thinking. This person was a liberal, and was entitled to his opinions, but calling those who produce, and do not give away the product of their labor, "greedy" is making a moral judgement. This is something that the liberals accuse the conservatives of when it comes to the "gay marriage" issue, and the abortion issue. Using the Government to enforce "charity" (in the form of welfare) is no different (or any more proper) from using government to enforce religious doctrine. Both are using the power of government to enforce a code of morality. The function of government is not to enforce morality, but to protect the individual from the use of force by another individual, or individuals.

The Choice of a social system under which to live is no different (from a logical standpoint) from the choice of a religious system. Both are a conscious choice. Any social system which does not allow the individual to choose his own way is as bad as forcing a religious choice upon an individual, and has no benefit for society as a whole.

For example:
progressivism, socialism, Marxism (whatever you call it, it is the same premise) does not allow for people to "opt out" of the system, because one of the premises of this system is that the labor of the individual is owned by the group, and not the individual. If he leaves the system, the system considers that labor "stolen" from the group. This is not at all what this country was founded on, and is bad for the group as a whole, because if you see no more benefit from working your hardest, than a person working just enough to meet their quota, then the product of the entire system will be much less. This makes for a materially poor nation.

on the other hand, libertarianism, the system which was set up by the founding fathers, does not prohibit socialist style systems within its framework, it just guarantees that if an individual wants to "opt out" then he is free to do so. Under this system, if a person works harder, he gets the benefits of his labor. If he chooses not to work, he receives no benefits. This makes for a materially rich nation, because those who wish to prosper, do not have to support those who don't care to do what is necessary to prosper.


comments are welcome.