Comments on: Moral Imperative http://enableate.com/steve/2008/1262 make it happen Thu, 09 Sep 2010 12:35:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2 By: darwin http://enableate.com/steve/2008/1262#comment-17724 darwin Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:54:51 +0000 http://enableate.com/steve/2008/1262#comment-17724 That's fine. My real point in relation to this post is that there has to be a seperation between morality and moral arguments. Every system has a base morality that provides it's motiviation for taking any stance on any issue; but if it's a valid position, it ussually then goes on to ake practical and logical arguments to support those moral positions. A moral argument may indicate that there's no better practical argument to be found, but we shouldn't generalize this to say that anyone pushing a moral system is wrong. That’s fine. My real point in relation to this post is that there has to be a seperation between morality and moral arguments. Every system has a base morality that provides it’s motiviation for taking any stance on any issue; but if it’s a valid position, it ussually then goes on to ake practical and logical arguments to support those moral positions. A moral argument may indicate that there’s no better practical argument to be found, but we shouldn’t generalize this to say that anyone pushing a moral system is wrong.

]]> By: Michael http://enableate.com/steve/2008/1262#comment-17714 Michael Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:17:36 +0000 http://enableate.com/steve/2008/1262#comment-17714 You're right, darwin, Libertarianism has a moral imperative, but it is a more passive kind, i.e. don't use the government to coerce, an example of "Negative Liberty." Liberalism has come to mean a more active approach to morals, i.e. coerce people into giving money and create a system to give healthcare to those who cannot afford it, "Positive Liberty." It's the difference between a stance against larceny and a stance of requiring charitable giving. I'll take the one that gives me more freedom. You’re right, darwin, Libertarianism has a moral imperative, but it is a more passive kind, i.e. don’t use the government to coerce, an example of “Negative Liberty.” Liberalism has come to mean a more active approach to morals, i.e. coerce people into giving money and create a system to give healthcare to those who cannot afford it, “Positive Liberty.”

It’s the difference between a stance against larceny and a stance of requiring charitable giving. I’ll take the one that gives me more freedom.

]]> By: darwin http://enableate.com/steve/2008/1262#comment-17690 darwin Tue, 30 Sep 2008 00:33:22 +0000 http://enableate.com/steve/2008/1262#comment-17690 More to the point, the entire Libertarian argument is based on a moral imperative stating that it's wrong for anyone (including the government) to use coercive force against another person. Without that morality, there's no reason to be a libertarian. Ever other political affiliation has a similar morality underlying thier arguments, of course. More to the point, the entire Libertarian argument is based on a moral imperative stating that it’s wrong for anyone (including the government) to use coercive force against another person. Without that morality, there’s no reason to be a libertarian. Ever other political affiliation has a similar morality underlying thier arguments, of course.

]]> By: Jamie http://enableate.com/steve/2008/1262#comment-17546 Jamie Thu, 25 Sep 2008 19:44:53 +0000 http://enableate.com/steve/2008/1262#comment-17546 2 points. 1.) I think some people would question whether morality and religion are the same thing. 2.) Haven't you taken sides with those that have stated that it is our obligation as a country to bring democracy to others who don't have democracy? Is this not a moral argument? 2 points.

1.) I think some people would question whether morality and religion are the same thing.

2.) Haven’t you taken sides with those that have stated that it is our obligation as a country to bring democracy to others who don’t have democracy? Is this not a moral argument?

]]> By: Dan http://enableate.com/steve/2008/1262#comment-17545 Dan Thu, 25 Sep 2008 17:54:46 +0000 http://enableate.com/steve/2008/1262#comment-17545 My understanding of the argument here is that the healthcare market is different from the automobile market because there is such a large and more dangerous potential for market failures resulting from asymmetrical information in healthcare - this is the rationale that is used to justify the tremendous amount of government regulation that currently exists in healthcare. My understanding of the argument here is that the healthcare market is different from the automobile market because there is such a large and more dangerous potential for market failures resulting from asymmetrical information in healthcare - this is the rationale that is used to justify the tremendous amount of government regulation that currently exists in healthcare.

]]>