A strange life.

Someone is living a very strange life.

He has caretakers who threaten him with emotional blackmail and material blackmail when he doesn’t do what they want. These caretakers will even hit him when he still refuses to do what they want. It’s like they don’t think he has the right to disagree. That’s assault and a denial of free will, don’t you agree?

Not only that, but he must also believe what they believe, once again under emotional blackmail. He must self-identify as they identify themselves, even though he doesn’t really understand what the terms mean or imply.

So his caretakers take pretty bad care of him, but he has a hard time even when he’s away from them. He has to sit in a room for hours and hours on end listening to someone drone on topics about which he has little interest, and he’s not allowed to leave. They even force him to get permission to go the bathroom. This is a very strange way to treat someone (but I suppose not much worse than work).

When going to and from these rooms, he’s forced to socialize with hundreds of other people like him, who, because of being so numerous, collapse into cliques and factions which nurture dysfunctional behavior. So our friend learns how to be dysfunctional simply from having friends.

Another strange thing is that our friend not only does not have any right we take for granted, but he has no means to change that state of affairs, since he cannot vote or otherwise get any form of respect. The deck is stacked against him: the media constantly declares him to be “getting worse and worse,” a probable drug addict and without any virtue. But at least he’s not a woman, for she then would also be presented as a sexual object by the media, making her a constant victim of sexual harassment without being able to defend herself.

At least it’s better than what happened before, when our friend was treated like an animal, forced to live in a cage and strapped to chairs. Even more bizarre, this treatment was taken for granted by everyone around him.

Weirdly enough, his caretakers assume that he is of their religion, and everyone around him identifies him as being of the religion of his caretakers. The much-vaunted freedom of speech and freedom of conscience don’t apply to him. So much for human rights.

You may have discovered by now that I am actually talking about the treatment given to children. I was making the point that the way we treat children would seem absurd and disgraceful if we applied it to any other category of human beings. But that’s all right, because children are not human beings anyway; they are beasts and must be treated as such. Everything I said above must therefore be perfectly normal and natural; if it doesn’t seem so, remind yourself again that children are beasts and not fully human, until you “get it.”

Advertisements

40 thoughts on “A strange life.

  1. Francois Tremblay October 23, 2011 at 23:38

    To the joker who posted a troll comment about children actually being beasts, you’ve been banned. Have fun trolling someone else.

  2. Asher October 24, 2011 at 00:33

    So, when does this free will thing kick in? Do you have a testable hypothesis?

    • Francois Tremblay October 24, 2011 at 00:38

      Yea… that was a bad use of terms. I actually don’t believe in free will any more. I write entries months in advance- I actually have an entry coming in February against free will and choice as part of my upcoming series on abortion.

      • Asher October 24, 2011 at 01:02

        Here’s an interesting idea: if minimizing pain is the goal then wouldn’t it make more sense to end a biological entity through chemical injection after birth, rather than most abortion procedures. Just wondering, since I’m not opposed to abortion, per se.

        Also, legal reasoning aside, we all know that the majority of pregnancy terminations are because some particular female finds the consequences inconvenient. So, why is the convenience of the rest of us not a consideration? The birth of Ted Bundy was rather inconvenient for, at least, a few people. Same for Adolph Hitler. In fact, it’s pretty clear that, for most of us, the birth of some individuals is, generally, inconvenient.

        If minimizing harm is the goal then why not eliminate those inconveniences before they actually inconvenience anyone. Every single argument for allowing women to abort can be used to allow society to decide who gets to partake of the collective.

        • Francois Tremblay October 24, 2011 at 01:04

          I am fine with any way human life can be prevented from starting, as long as it’s prevented, yes.

          • Asher October 24, 2011 at 01:19

            Okay, do you draw some chronological line? Why birth? Not saying that’s your line but it seems to be the unspoken sentiment of the vast majority. Even the most die-hard pro-choicers are not likely to allow a woman to euthanize an individual that has exited the birth canal. Not even in cases of rape and incest.

            Would you oppose allowing a woman to euthanize her child at two years old if the child was a product of rape? What about ending life in the womb at 36 weeks? Anyone who would advocate the second and oppose the first needs to justify the differences in suffering inflicted. Late-term abortions clearly inflict more pain than chemical injections given at two years old.

            And, if you would allow a woman to euthanize at two years, why not allow society to euthanize at two years, if they find that particular individual inconvenient.

            • Francois Tremblay October 24, 2011 at 01:29

              “Okay, do you draw some chronological line? Why birth? Not saying that’s your line but it seems to be the unspoken sentiment of the vast majority. ”

              No, not birth. I am not really qualified to draw a line such as this. If we’re going to have an arbitrary number for the sake of discussion, let’s say 2 years old.

              “Even the most die-hard pro-choicers are not likely to allow a woman to euthanize an individual that has exited the birth canal.”
              Well see, that’s the thing.. I am not a pro-choice advocate. In fact, I find their arguments invalid. My series on abortion will explain why in great detail. I would have to tell you to hang on until January when it starts. I’ve got 16 entries written for it, and I can’t really summarize it in a comment.

              “Would you oppose allowing a woman to euthanize her child at two years old if the child was a product of rape?”
              No.

              “What about ending life in the womb at 36 weeks?”
              No.

              “Anyone who would advocate the second and oppose the first needs to justify the differences in suffering inflicted. Late-term abortions clearly inflict more pain than chemical injections given at two years old.”

              False. Fetuses don’t feel pain.

              “And, if you would allow a woman to euthanize at two years, why not allow society to euthanize at two years, if they find that particular individual inconvenient.”

              That’s fine with me. But who gets to decide for society, or on what principles would this be done?

  3. Asher October 24, 2011 at 02:09

    Fetuses can’t feel pain? I’ll assume you can feel pain. So, sometime between the point of birth and now you hit some point where, all of a sudden, you felt pain. At what specific point in time did that take place?

    On a different note, why are principles needed? You can do it if you have the power to do it, as Hobbes noted, a power is nothing more than the ability to produce an affect, an outcome Might does not make right. Might, defined as the ability to produce an affect, IS right. There is no cause and effect here,since might and right are synonymous.

    • Francois Tremblay October 24, 2011 at 02:24

      “So, sometime between the point of birth and now you hit some point where, all of a sudden, you felt pain. At what specific point in time did that take place?”
      The fetus is actually anesthetized by the amniotic liquid during pregnancy. It is unconscious the whole time. It could only feel pain if out of that liquid. As for the point in time, I am not qualified to give you an exact location or time, but I assume that by the time you’re out of the woman you’re definitely conscious and able to feel pain.

      “Might does not make right. Might, defined as the ability to produce an affect, IS right.”
      I am not interested in debating absurdities. I’ve already debunked this here:
      https://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2007/05/13/the-might-makes-right-mindset/
      https://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/rationalizing-might-makes-right/

  4. Asher October 24, 2011 at 10:47

    Morality is a conclusion? Wait, what? I’m pretty sure that this is not how most people experience morality, they comprehend it as a premise, not a conclusion. And, after scouring your links, I failed to see where you identify where rights come from in the first place. They’re just sorta “there”, seemingly located outside of history.

    Okay, so we have a factual history of our species. At some point between now and 1 million years ago, let’s say, “rights” came into being – as an aside I have not used the term “rights” at all within the past ten or so years. Or are rights timeless and ex nihilo? The nearest thing to a justification of rights I could find was the claim to the right of self-ownership, which seemed(?) to be based in the nature right to defend oneself and one’s property. You seemed to be quoting Spooner approvingly, so I’ll take on the concept of rights as derived from the foundational natural right to defend oneself and punish others for violations of selfownership.

    First off, it’s pretty clear that people actually defend themselves without any notional need for a vindication of that natural right. Now, since no vindication for self-defense is needed to defend oneself, the next question is can one defend oneself or punish violations of selfownership. But this is a question of power and not of right. So, then, the practical application for non-philosophers is “I have a picture of how I want my life to look, and how can I get there?”. “Can” is always about power.

    I just got to thinking that we may have completely differing notions of “power”, which I regard as simply being able to produce an effect. So, if I can’t (powerless) defend myself alone I go out and look to make alliances with others for the purposes of mutual, or common, defense.

    Which brings us back to the term “morality” which is simply from the Latin “mores” meaning “customs” meaning “having practices in common”. So, morality is simply the factual existence of common practices. That’s it. Nothing more. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of us don’t even entertain the notion of mugging an old lady for her purse, even if we have the power and ability to get away with it. It just isn’t done. It’s not customary, and the few who would break that custom would get their asses kicked by the rest of us, because, well, that’s customary, too, and that’s just what we do.

    Yes, I understand that under this definition of morality even Nazism, had it stayed around long enough, would have evolved into a moral system. Yep, a moral system, just not my moral system. About the best we can do is fight to destroy moral systems like Nazism and Communism. Why? Because different moral systems compete for supremacy, at any particular place and time there can only be one dominant, governing moral system.

    Finally, you say that “All other things being equal, it is better for all involved if rights are respected, than if they aren’t.”. But this is a completely practical, and not moral consideration, and completely outside the framework of rights as making absolute, uncompromisable claims.

    Alright, so, I have a parable demonstrating how the absolutist notion of right plays out in practice. A great number of women out there will explicitly state that there are certain rights they have as women to engage in rather impolitic behavior. But what they really mean is that they have the right to behave in any way they feel and suffer no consequences. I cannot tell you the number of times I have encountered people who are convinced some absolute right has been violated because they have experienced consequences of their actions. Frankly, in my experience, that is the most common assertion of rights, in practice.

    So, at the point a term has degenerated into “that which I subjectively desire at any particular point in time, and deserve without consequences”, how is it possible to make it intellectually relevant. I’m not arguing that “might” makes some absolute demand for some notion of right, but, rather that the very notion of “right” is so debased that it is pointless to spend any intellectual energy presenting arguments for a term that means, often vastly, different things to different people. There are, in practice, millions of different notions of “rights”, many of them in direct conflict with each other at very salient points.

    A term used to describe a vast array of things, many in direct contradiction, effectively describes nothing.

    • Francois Tremblay October 24, 2011 at 12:53

      The justification for rights lies in the fact that people, living in society, experience conflicts, and we need to decide who is in the right (if any). Because that is a universal fact, any answers you give to that problem must be universal.

      I know there are many conceptions of rights. That is why, every time I talk about it, I repeat exactly what I mean by right (that which I have written above). So there’s no reason to fault me on that.

      • Asher October 24, 2011 at 13:31

        Uh, no. I understand that the idiom “universal fact” has achieved a high degree of usage, but I hotly dispute that it means much of anything. Sorta like “common sense”. It’s either blatantly misleading or trivially true. A fact is always particular and related to some describable state of affairs. That conflict between people in proximity to each other is inevitable is a generalization, not a fact. Actually, until there is an actual conflict, there is no conflict, in fact, although the universal generalization still holds that at some point there will be conflict.

        Now if the factual, particular conflicts are factually dissimilar then we will needs different rules of behavior to address them. What you’re saying is that access to rights is justified because we need them to function. I’m pretty certain you’re robustly demolishing the distinction between is and ought, although I can’t figure out which way you’re going with it.

        What it looks like you’re saying is this:

        A) We need rights
        B) Therefore, we have a right(!) to rights

        There’s no discussion about the practical mechanisms that might apply in various diverse situations to implement those rights, just a repeated declaration of rights. Honestly, it looks like pure hand-waving to me, like if you repeat the mantra of rights enough times everyone will somehow just magically come together and live in peace and harmony. Sorry, but that is what it looks like, to me. Honestly, most very very smart people I know expend lots of serious brainpower pursuing ideas and theories that seem blatantly contradicted by experience.

        I am reasonably certain that there are a great number of people in this world with whom I would have irreconcilable conflicts. The only solution I know to that is separation by political means. Additionally, many people with whom I can reconcile differences are going to have some of the same irreconcilable differences as me. Those shared differences and share similarities will, over time, coalesce into different moral systems. Yes, in the abstract you have “right” and “wrong” pertaining to those competing systems, but you have very different particulars that differentiate those moral systems. and there is no meta-moral system to judge which is superior. Different types of life will produce different types of morality and there is no mechanism to universalize between those systems, outside of the abstract categories of “right” and “wrong”, which are empty until filled with particulars.

        And if the particulars are different then it’s erroneous to claim you have a universal standard.

        • Francois Tremblay October 24, 2011 at 13:40

          So again, your objection is that I only talk about “propositional philosophizing” and not about how to implement things. I’ve already told you that’s pretty much all I do. I don’t know why you expect anything else from this blog.

  5. Asher October 24, 2011 at 11:20

    I think I may need to clarify that people, in practice, perceive moral claims are restrictions on future actions, but they much more rarely seem to look at it as a result of a particular history. So, morality is the product of real historical events, and if some of that history involves coercion then those customs (mores) are the product of power. My objection is to the following sequence:

    A) some theorizer constructs a model, on paper, of how the world ought to be ordered
    B) the world doesn’t respond in the way the theorizer anticipates
    C) the theorizer uses any method feasibly available to hammer the world into shape to conform to his system of ideas
    D) the further from ideal expectations the world gets from the ideal system, the more radical the methods the idealist is willing to use

    Which lead to the mindset of “ve vill improoff mankind, comrade”.

    I just got to thinking that there is probably a vast chasm between your theoretical notion of “rights” and how most people understand the notion, in practice. So, what it looks like, to me is that you are a theorizer with an ideal system with “rights” as a very central concept. However, the world, ordinary people, have a massively different practical application of the concept “rights”. So, what are you going to do about it? Most intellectuals who have ideal systems I have encountered either advocate radical methods to implement their ideal systems, or they sit around moping and spitting venom at the world. Not saying that this is you, but, if not, you’d pretty much be the only one with an ideal system outside of those two categories.

    I’m also very leery of anyone proclaiming “awakening”, as if the entire history is one of darkness, out of which we are just awakening. Seems pretty imperious to declare oneself as awakening, elevating oneself in a superior position to others Now, I have no issue with that … but, then, I’m not the anarchist, here.

    One think I try to avoid is propositional philosophizing. That’s dogma, and I see no difference between propositional philosophy and religious dogma.

    I guess I just reject that morality emanates from ideas that are ex nihilo.

    Just some scattered musings and observations.

    • Francois Tremblay October 24, 2011 at 12:59

      “Most intellectuals who have ideal systems I have encountered either advocate radical methods to implement their ideal systems, or they sit around moping and spitting venom at the world. Not saying that this is you, but, if not, you’d pretty much be the only one with an ideal system outside of those two categories.”
      Sure I advocate “radical methods.” Any method that is not politicking, which has never brought about positive change, is by definition “radical.” Gandhi was a radical. MLK was a radical. The people who saved Jews during WW2 were radicals. Anyone who does anything worthwhile for social order is a radical.

      “Seems pretty imperious to declare oneself as awakening, elevating oneself in a superior position to others Now, I have no issue with that … but, then, I’m not the anarchist, here.”
      Very funny. I guess you’re not familiar with the concept of awakening as presented in Buddhism. I make no pretense to be awakened myself, but I agree with the goal or objective.

      “One think I try to avoid is propositional philosophizing. That’s dogma, and I see no difference between propositional philosophy and religious dogma.”
      Then why are you even on this blog? That’s pretty much ALL I do.

      “I guess I just reject that morality emanates from ideas that are ex nihilo.”
      Well, at least we agree on that, if anything.

  6. Asher October 24, 2011 at 13:49

    I’m still trying to figure out where you think morality comes “from”. Okay, here’s a question for you:

    Is morality independent of causality? Or within the causal world? I would think that “positive change is always radical” indicates that morality is independent of cause and effect. So, we have some human actions that are caused and others that are not? So, is there some set of distinguishing criteria?

    • Francois Tremblay October 24, 2011 at 13:54

      Where does morality come from? It is founded in evolution, the evolution of social behaviour, and it is extended by human reasoning and sensibilities such as empathy and higher emotions.

      “Is morality independent of causality?”

      Nope. No such animals.

      “I would think that “positive change is always radical” indicates that morality is independent of cause and effect.”
      Um, no. Why would you think such a thing? It’s rooted in the facts of causality. We observe that in every instance of positive change, radical actions were needed. By induction, we conclude that there is probably a causal relation there.

      “So, we have some human actions that are caused and others that are not?”
      Nope. Humans are determined.

      • Asher October 24, 2011 at 14:28

        We agree that morality is a biological function and caused by evolution, extended by other complementary instincts and functions. I’m pretty sure that human beings do have the function of evaluating various courses of action and making decisions that are not determined in the most rigid sense. Yeah, it’s going to be very constrained but it does seem like there is such a thing as “choosing” in the layperson understanding of the term. I am choosing to stay here and have an interesting conversation with you, rather than go to work and make money.

  7. Asher October 24, 2011 at 13:54

    Here’s another question: name one radical change you’d like to see implemented for positive change. And please don’t say something abstract like “anarchism”. Also, what methods would you used to implement that radical change?

    • Francois Tremblay October 24, 2011 at 13:55

      I keep pointing out to you that my goal is only to identify principles, not methods of change, but you still don’t seem to be getting it.

  8. Asher October 24, 2011 at 14:06

    Okay, look, you are very clever and have a high degree of sophistication in arguing for your positions. I am dumbfounded by your stated lack of desire in implementing your stated proposals, and I’ll be upfront about probing you for things that deep down you really want to implement. It’s very strange, I mean if you think you’re ideas are that stellar you’d be itching for ways of turning them into practice..

    Okay, here’s another question: does your gut tell you that you have equal moral duties to everyone? I don’t hold that. My instincts tell me that I have a vast array of different moral duties to different people, and that, to some, I have no moral obligations, at all.

    • Francois Tremblay October 24, 2011 at 14:14

      “Okay, look, you are very clever and have a high degree of sophistication in arguing for your positions. I am dumbfounded by your stated lack of desire in implementing your stated proposals”
      Why? Everyone else’s blogs are either about current events or trying to implement various proposals. Why can’t I do something different, a purely theoretical blog? That’s what I like and am good at. I am not good at talking to people.

      “and I’ll be upfront about probing you for things that deep down you really want to implement. It’s very strange, I mean if you think you’re ideas are that stellar you’d be itching for ways of turning them into practice..”
      If you have an ability to do it, then go out there and do it. I’ll do everything I can to support you at the argument/theoretical level, or provide you with resources I know about. That’s part of what I’m working for. Every social movement needs ideas to propagate, good analogies, good objections to opposing arguments, etc.

      “Okay, here’s another question: does your gut tell you that you have equal moral duties to everyone? I don’t hold that. My instincts tell me that I have a vast array of different moral duties to different people, and that, to some, I have no moral obligations, at all.”
      Yes, that’s fair. But you have certain duties towards everyone- such as not killing them.

  9. Asher October 24, 2011 at 14:13

    So, if morality is something that is externally-determined, then whatever we do *is* moral, right? Or another way to look at it is people are gonna do what they’re gonna do and morality is extraneous to the process. But, if our actions are externally-determined, what’s the point of principles? I mean, people are just gonna do what they’re gonna do anyway.

    • Francois Tremblay October 24, 2011 at 14:18

      “So, if morality is something that is externally-determined, then whatever we do *is* moral, right?”
      No… our values are internally-determined- by our biology, by our emotions, by our constructed desires, etc. And whatever we do is consonant with our values, but that doesn’t make it moral.

      “Or another way to look at it is people are gonna do what they’re gonna do and morality is extraneous to the process.”
      No it’s not. People’s conceptions of good and evil very much enter into why we do things.

      “But, if our actions are externally-determined, what’s the point of principles? I mean, people are just gonna do what they’re gonna do anyway.”
      Look, if you don’t care about principles, then that’s fine. Just don’t read my blog. I don’t see what your big to-do is. Just go out there and do whatever you’re gonna do.

  10. Asher October 24, 2011 at 14:52

    Well, you have interesting things to say, and are able to present your positions in a well-ordered way. If nothing else, it’s good brain exercise.

    One thing I’ve noticed is that most principles are just generalizations from one’s own particular sentiments, impulses and desires.

    Consider the claim: I have a right to my own body
    Followed by:

    A) therefore, i have a right to not be raped
    B) therefore, i have a right to not be raped no matter how I’m dressed
    C) therefore, I have a right to walk through any neighborhood, at any time, alone, dressed in any way I like and not be raped
    D) therefore, other people owe me the resources for and implementation of that right

    So
    I deserve not to be raped
    becomes
    You owe me an environment where I can do whatever I like with zero risk of rape

    In practice, most right language I’ve encountered quickly becomes “gimme dat”, something not conducive to a well-ordered and livable social environment. No, if fact, I don’t owe you squat.

    • Francois Tremblay October 24, 2011 at 15:11

      So your argument is just a variant of “fuck society, I do what I wunt.” Not very constructive.

  11. Asher October 24, 2011 at 17:42

    No, the argument is that moral considerations are reciprocal, or they’re not going to have any lasting hold. Are you saying that moral considerations are not reciprocal? Most people I encounter quite accept that such considerations are reciprocal, and that moral considerations are formed by shared conceptions of what is right and wrong. You have a moral duty to those who have a generally shared understanding of the world but less, or no, duty to those who share very little in common.

    This is why I prefer the Greek “ethos” to the Latin “mores”, even those the practical effects are roughly equal.

    No shared understanding, therefore, no ethos, no ethics.

    Ethos, shared understanding
    Mores, common practice

    That’s all they mean. They’re not lofty abstractions, they’re practical tools for ordering social environments.

    But, yeah, to people who refuse to acknowledge reciprocity, fuck ’em.

    • Francois Tremblay October 25, 2011 at 00:13

      “You have a moral duty to those who have a generally shared understanding of the world but less, or no, duty to those who share very little in common.”
      No, that’s a terrible belief. Equality should be a fundamental principle of any society, regardless of what the people in that society actually believe.

      • Asher October 25, 2011 at 08:22

        Yes, we agree that some rough notion of social equality is fundamental to a well-ordered society But what you’ve just done is just trade one problematic term, or premise for another.

        So, the salient question “What are my moral duties?” has been switched to “Who is a member of my society?”. But they’re the same question. Co-members of a society can be identified by shared understandings of the world. The fact that someone lives in a geographical region that is represented on some map by drawn boundaries does not make them a co-member of my society.

        The United States is not a society. It is a power-based entity with a ruling-class, itself its own little society, with allegiances only to itself, and ruling over a vast polyglot of various societies, each with allegiances only to themselves and their members. Living in a multi-societal body-politic, many, probably most, individuals I encounter throughout my day are not members of my society. This is not some subjective opinion, but a factual observation about the nature of duty, allegiance and shared moral/social reciprocity.

        Morality is simply an organizing tool to order a society, i.e. the tribe. Equality and exclusion being two sides of the same coin – the more exclusive the membership, the greater and more compelling the claims for equality.

        Nationalism (exclusion) and Socialism (equality) are two sides of the same coin.

        • Francois Tremblay October 25, 2011 at 13:42

          Now you’re just being offensive for the sake of being offensive. Let’s just agree to disagree, because I don’t want to argue with you if you’re gonna be like this.

  12. Asher October 25, 2011 at 14:31

    Offensive? Huh? Wait, what? Look, where I come from the term “offensive” is used to identify people who, for example, claim that Jews bake matzoh balls with the blood of gentile children. Or people who call other people’s momma dirty names.

    What in the bloody hell was even remotely resembling offensiveness in what I said????? Could you please clue me in? I am befuddled over how you could possibly consider what I said offensive.

    • Francois Tremblay October 25, 2011 at 14:33

      Associating my position with nationalism and making allusions to national socialism? Come on now.

      • Asher October 25, 2011 at 15:03

        No, no, no. I am a national socialist, although I have no issue with Jews, who have made, on average, the most amazing contributions out our species.

        That being said, if what Hitler had said about the Jews had been true, the Holocaust would have been justified. An alien moral system, and the group advocating it, that threatens to terminally disrupt the social order is fair game for systemic exterminatio

  13. Asher October 25, 2011 at 14:58

    Okay, let me offer you a proposition, since you seem so fond of them: of the existing individuals of the species homo sapiens I owe less than 90 percent of them any moral consideration, at all. Over 90 percent of individuals in the species lie outside of the category of morality, when considering potential action.

    There is a child who was just born a second ago in Tajikistan. I will not kill that child, and the reason has nothing to do with morality. The reason I will not kill that child is not a moral consideration but a practical consideration. I will not kill that little Tajiki child because it is not convenient to me, it does not advance causes I advocate.

    So, most outcomes you would consider moral, e.g. “not killing” have nothing to do with morality and are only dictated by practicality. Here;s another thought experiment: select any random individual in the world. Now apply the sentiment that you do not want me killing that person. Do you think I will kill that person? No, the statistical likelihood of killing that person is, effectively, zero. But statistical likelihoods are not moral obligations, and, yet, they produce the same results. So, if a practical, statistical probability produces the same result as your moral imperative, why do you care which one is the governing principle?

    Earlier in our conversation you made the assertion that we owe a basic duty not to kill. But, if you randomly select any individual alive today I will not kill that person, and I don’t need a moral consideration to not kill that person. It’s a simple statistical fact, and morality is superfluous

    Therefore, morality, also known as “right”, is superfluous.

    • Francois Tremblay October 25, 2011 at 15:00

      All right, I think we’re just going in circles here. You don’t think principles are relevant, I don’t believe anything but principles are relevant, and this issue is not really relevant to anything. If you want to say they’re not relevant, then fine, but they are what this blog is about. I am not going to close down this blog just because you disagree with its aims. Sorry.

  14. […] “Someone is living a very strange life.” I can’t say more about this post because it will kill all the fun, but it’s really, really, really brilliant. This is a blogger who keeps disagreeing with me, and the feeling is mutual. But he is totally worth checking out. […]

  15. […] have already commented on the strange life children lead. Children are not considered, or treated, as human beings, they are not considered to be endowed […]

  16. […] – They both believe that children are not full human beings. […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: