Of course I have the ability to make moral decisions without my hand being forced. I choose not to eat meat. I choose to use public transport rather than drive. I choose to support charity despite not having much money. I have the power to boycott products I believe represent something immoral. I get an uncountable number of chances to freely express my moral leanings every day without pressure. I don't make them with the fear of being watched because I know the government doesn't have much care for whether I do any of those things. Besides, the government has always had spies, and even when you were growing up it was always possible that you were being watched. Did that remove your ability to make your own moral decisions, or your ability to prove you did?
Ah, Kohlberg. Stages of moral development, right? As I understand it, Kohlberg thought morality was developed through imitation of role models - each stage initiated by new experiences with new role models. However, that isn't a perfectly self-reproducing system since there are many other role models besides a child's parents, and when it comes to forming moral positions on specific issues many other influences besides role models (especially when it comes to Kohlberg's fifth and sixth stages). Those other influences can come from observation of society, and fitting those observations into the pre-existing framework that imitation provided to form original moral positions. Since it isn't perfectly self-replicating, Kohlberg's theory hardly proves that moral standards don't change with time. Unless I'm badly misunderstanding what your point was, anyway.
Once again: we are allowed to have different definitions of freedom. If I decide something gives me freedom, it is has given me freedom. Likewise, if you decide something gives you freedom it has given you freedom. Freedom *is* subjective and not measurable, it is not something it is possible to prove was greater in one time than another or experienced more fully by one person than another. I am free because I feel I am free - that's the only way freedom can be experienced.
Government may be made of fallible humans, but they are elected fallible humans. In a more-or-less fair democracy, they more-or-less represent the spectrum of the population accurately and that wouldn't be achievable any other way. That means at least some power rests with us, the people, the electorate. And it isn't a case of government being infallible; no-one is saying it is, and no-one is claiming that should be the aim. A government of humans will never be infallible.
Bare in mind I have no idea how old you are, so I'm thinking back about ten or twenty years (enough time for it to be possible for there to be a reasonable difference). Bare in mind also that I live in the UK, and the balance of probability tells me that you don't. However... I am free to travel to another country and kill myself, with very little fear that my family will be prosecuted if they assist me. Men and women are free to express their sexuality in private with very little shame associated with it. Same-sex marriage. Improved access to (free) contraception. I have the internet; cheaply available, fast and mostly uncensored. I have access to the myriad of things the internet can offer me - the internet represents the decentralization of the paths of communication. I am free to express far left and far right political views and unconventional religious views with minimum risk of legal prosecution and fear of being blacklisted. I am allowed to request access to classified government documents through the freedom of information act. I have access to media which scrutinizes government activity more investigatively than ever before. I've got a lot people didn't have not so long ago.
No, you list your freedoms. I will not insult them by rejecting their status as "freedoms", but it is quite possible that I don't despair at missing out on them. And that's okay - I can choose what I want.
I do want to make clear that the written word can come across considerably more harsh than intended. Without body language, facial expressions, and voice tone, a civil debate can come across unintentionally hostile.
My replies to your first paragraph alone would take half a page. It would be improbable to really justify spending so much time on a topic that neither of us will agree on.
A quick note for consideration, however...
...Hitler was elected democratically, then reelected before rendering elections unnecessary. He's not the only recent example of a democratically elected dictator that I could give.
My point is that we should always be suspicious of our elected government. Trusting in those whom we grant power...is dangerous. Feeling comfortable, and becoming acclimated to intrusive powers is foolhardy.
How many of you believe you are free?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Of course I have the ability to make moral decisions without my hand being forced. I choose not to eat meat. I choose to use public transport rather than drive. I choose to support charity despite not having much money. I have the power to boycott products I believe represent something immoral. I get an uncountable number of chances to freely express my moral leanings every day without pressure. I don't make them with the fear of being watched because I know the government doesn't have much care for whether I do any of those things. Besides, the government has always had spies, and even when you were growing up it was always possible that you were being watched. Did that remove your ability to make your own moral decisions, or your ability to prove you did?
Ah, Kohlberg. Stages of moral development, right? As I understand it, Kohlberg thought morality was developed through imitation of role models - each stage initiated by new experiences with new role models. However, that isn't a perfectly self-reproducing system since there are many other role models besides a child's parents, and when it comes to forming moral positions on specific issues many other influences besides role models (especially when it comes to Kohlberg's fifth and sixth stages). Those other influences can come from observation of society, and fitting those observations into the pre-existing framework that imitation provided to form original moral positions. Since it isn't perfectly self-replicating, Kohlberg's theory hardly proves that moral standards don't change with time. Unless I'm badly misunderstanding what your point was, anyway.
Once again: we are allowed to have different definitions of freedom. If I decide something gives me freedom, it is has given me freedom. Likewise, if you decide something gives you freedom it has given you freedom. Freedom *is* subjective and not measurable, it is not something it is possible to prove was greater in one time than another or experienced more fully by one person than another. I am free because I feel I am free - that's the only way freedom can be experienced.
Government may be made of fallible humans, but they are elected fallible humans. In a more-or-less fair democracy, they more-or-less represent the spectrum of the population accurately and that wouldn't be achievable any other way. That means at least some power rests with us, the people, the electorate. And it isn't a case of government being infallible; no-one is saying it is, and no-one is claiming that should be the aim. A government of humans will never be infallible.
Bare in mind I have no idea how old you are, so I'm thinking back about ten or twenty years (enough time for it to be possible for there to be a reasonable difference). Bare in mind also that I live in the UK, and the balance of probability tells me that you don't. However... I am free to travel to another country and kill myself, with very little fear that my family will be prosecuted if they assist me. Men and women are free to express their sexuality in private with very little shame associated with it. Same-sex marriage. Improved access to (free) contraception. I have the internet; cheaply available, fast and mostly uncensored. I have access to the myriad of things the internet can offer me - the internet represents the decentralization of the paths of communication. I am free to express far left and far right political views and unconventional religious views with minimum risk of legal prosecution and fear of being blacklisted. I am allowed to request access to classified government documents through the freedom of information act. I have access to media which scrutinizes government activity more investigatively than ever before. I've got a lot people didn't have not so long ago.
No, you list your freedoms. I will not insult them by rejecting their status as "freedoms", but it is quite possible that I don't despair at missing out on them. And that's okay - I can choose what I want.
--
Anonymous Post Author
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I do want to make clear that the written word can come across considerably more harsh than intended. Without body language, facial expressions, and voice tone, a civil debate can come across unintentionally hostile.
My replies to your first paragraph alone would take half a page. It would be improbable to really justify spending so much time on a topic that neither of us will agree on.
A quick note for consideration, however...
...Hitler was elected democratically, then reelected before rendering elections unnecessary. He's not the only recent example of a democratically elected dictator that I could give.
My point is that we should always be suspicious of our elected government. Trusting in those whom we grant power...is dangerous. Feeling comfortable, and becoming acclimated to intrusive powers is foolhardy.