jpahmad

Libertus, there are no rules that exist in the world of platonic ideals that we are trying to reveal with these models that we invent. In my model, person C had no moral agency if a gun is pointed at him. Is it arbitrary? No, I've decided that if a person is under a state of coercion and there is NO AVOIDABILITY, then in my model, this person is not a moral agent. You can certainly make the claim that coercion plays no role in moral agency. That's fine. But the functionality of that model would be much harder to apply to human society than the one I'm proposing. You must remember, that "morality" is defined by humans. Yes, once defined it must be universally consistent, but at it's core, it's simply axiomatic and derived from the human experience (aggression being undesirable). The whole point is to come up with a functional and practical system of secular ethics. Go ahead an try to make a model based on your desire to have C bear some level of moral responsibility when under a state of coercion. I think that you'll find that it makes things much more complicated and ultimately useless for society.

The distress someone is put under when they have a gun pointed at their head and told they are about to die I would say certainly takes away their moral agency. How can someone make any kind of rational decision under those circumstances?

subbed

Yeah, I think it is a question of avoidability. C could possible avoid an assault (fight back, run, overpower assailant etc..) But C can't avoid a bullet.

Yeah, I was referring to people who push the "don't vote" strategy. I suppose it might be a misrepresentation. Although I've had anarchist tell me that not voting will expose the state for what it is and then people will just stop paying taxes or something. You're right, inaction is not action. But does not voting signal anything to others? Does it not send an explicit message of some kind? For example, if everyone just didn't vote in this election, is that not some kind of statement? Yeah, I was trying to be provocative in the title. I wanted some "click bate." Maybe it wasn't a good idea "in a democratic society" means simply a statist society where they have democratic elections. Honestly, I probably skipped over many steps. I'm not even sure if it is logically sound or not. I was more or less thinking out loud and through a video essay. I know it's risky to publicly proclaim "oughts", especially on a philosophy forum, but I'm a bit obsessed with the topic and would rather have embarrassment and resolution that constant cognitive indecision on the matter. Dsayers, take my thought for what their worth and discard the stuff that doesn't make sense. I'm hoping that someone will just correct me and perhaps build on a line of reasoning that I started. Maybe I was on to something and went astray, maybe my whole premise is flawed and the whole thing should just be thrown out. Either way, I done so much thinking and defending and re-hashing and analyzing that I'm just utterly mentally exhausted for now. I'm gonna give it a break and think more about this perhaps at another time. Thanks again for your criticism and suggestions. BTW, I corrected something in my previous post about the morality of voting. It should be appearing on the threads soon.

Hey, I'm going to research that and get back to you. I'm mentally exhausted at the moment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRboKQ56rZA

Ethics can only be concerned with observable behavior. Thanks for the plus 1

My argument for voting. I think it's a great video, and if not logically sound for some reason, at least a great jump off for discussion about this important matter for all of us. Please critique and offer feedback. Much appreciated everyone!

Wow! Thanks dsayers. I was really worried that I made a mistake somewhere. But if you don't think so, then I am thrilled. You are very sharp when it comes to spotting inconsistencies in logic (as demonstrated in previous threads throughout this forum) I knew I had to pass the "dsayers test."

Here is my logical proof that voting does not violate the NAP. Let me know if there is something wrong with the logic. I'm open to throwing the whole thing out if it is flawed.

My logical proof that voting does not violate the NAP

This may come as a shock to some of you. How the concepts of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation serve to undermine child development by discouraging the development of strength of character. www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIdu9OZ-eB8

There were some other good one-liners she had in that first program the year before. I should have made a mash-up of them all.

Graphics take for ever for me. I thought I'd switch it up and try something different. Especially with the shorter videos. If there is a concept that I really want to clearly get across, then I'll use graphics. Thanks for the feedback though. I really appreciate your response! Yeah, so, I suppose we right off all literature that is over 50 years old.

Everyone misunderstands poor Miss Rand. This video will tell you how.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUMaU2C77dI&feature=youtu.be

Freedomainradio

Thanks Matthew

Vote in self-defense. Keep borders closed. And spread peaceful parenting + philosophy.

My analysis of the key point of disagreement between the two of them. From a philosophical point of view.

Sam Harris thinks we're all children. Just listen at the 5 minute mark. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wr3Ti8Hboc

Hi friends, this is the final video in the series. It's the most emotionally charged essay of all of them, as well as the most entertaining. At leas I think so. I'm happy with it. I added some new twists to the style of presentation. Some of you may find my conclusions a bit off-putting I suppose. I feel like the monkey is off my back though. I've said all I wanted to say about this topic (this big topic) and I'm done...for now. Feedback is always much appreciated.

I think about this story all the time. It's horrifying. I secretly hope they confess to feeding her gasoline as a baby, that way I'll be able to sleep well at night knowing that this sort of thing can't occur without a major parenting F$!k up.

You can also vote to defend someone else. Like the 1%. There is no way that voting to keep someone from being stolen from is a bad idea. It is immoral to vote for the initiation of theft, however, it is moral to vote to defend yourself or someone else from theft.