Raising Children as Parents with Different Moral Frameworks.

[Trotter332]

Hey everyone.

 

I'm not a parent or in a relationship, but I have a strong interest in someone. I stick with NAP as a basis for my morality and she doesn't agree with it and believes a state is required. My question is, if either of us don't change our thoughts and we begin raising children, what implications would there be for the children?

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Before you ponder what this means for the children, might you ponder what this means for you? She is willing to have you thrown in a cage for withholding money for services you don't think are valuable. Isn't that an assault on your dignity as a human being? 

 

Are you sure you have made the case for her clearly enough for her to understand what she is advocating when she says she supports a state? Has she been so literal as to say she wouldn't mind you being thrown in a cage for disagreeing with her on what you should pay for? 

 

If so, that sounds like a serious red flag. Especially since women are the direct beneficiaries of the state in relationships, in that they use the state to extort their ex-partners for cold, hard cash. Remember, these things aren't always so abstract for people, or else they would give up their positions a lot easier.

[dsayers]

You said you have a strong interest in somebody who is okay with violence as a method of problem solving. What does this mean? Are they smoking hot? Can you honestly say that you "stick with NAP as a basis for my morality" if you're willing to look past somebody who advocates aggression to the point of entertaining having children with them from the "strong interest" phase of your non-relationship? "How much of myself would I be willing to sacrifice for the bragging rights of having been with Eliza Dushku for one night?"

 

I'm with Matthew M. in that this is an opportunity for self-knowledge. Look at how much you're saying by avoiding saying it?

[jpahmad]

 

A situation to be avoided at all costs.  

[Trotter332]

Thank you for your input everyone.

Currently I'm surrounded by people that support the state and advocate the use of force against me. My flatmates advocate, she advocates and both claim it's "justified given the benefits it provides.". I brought it up with my therapist and she used terms along the lines of "It's not about being the perfect parent, but the good enough parent.", "couples can have differences in morals and in the end it is the child's choice to choose what's right for them.".

When hearing those I immediately cringed because my thoughts were "That's the excuse poor parents make", "Good enough" infers "I did the best with what I had.".
It's been hard being surrounded by people following the same compass when mine points another direction while they say "Your compass is broken."

 

 

Are you sure you have made the case for her clearly enough for her to understand what she is advocating when she says she supports a state? Has she been so literal as to say she wouldn't mind you being thrown in a cage for disagreeing with her on what you should pay for? 

 

If so, that sounds like a serious red flag. Especially since women are the direct beneficiaries of the state in relationships, in that they use the state to extort their ex-partners for cold, hard cash. Remember, these things aren't always so abstract for people, or else they would give up their positions a lot easier.

 

She hasn't been so literal as to say so, I've been scared to "call the spade a spade" because I have been enjoying my time with her. 

 

You said you have a strong interest in somebody who is okay with violence as a method of problem solving. What does this mean? Are they smoking hot? Can you honestly say that you "stick with NAP as a basis for my morality" if you're willing to look past somebody who advocates aggression to the point of entertaining having children with them from the "strong interest" phase of your non-relationship? "How much of myself would I be willing to sacrifice for the bragging rights of having been with Eliza Dushku for one night?"

 

I'm with Matthew M. in that this is an opportunity for self-knowledge. Look at how much you're saying by avoiding saying it?

 

Yes she is somewhat physically attractive. But I'm more interested in her because she is really intelligent and we share similar past experiences. When morality isn't part of the discussion, we have a great time and I don't want to lose that.

[dsayers]

I brought it up with my therapist and she used terms along the lines of "It's not about being the perfect parent, but the good enough parent.", "couples can have differences in morals and in the end it is the child's choice to choose what's right for them.".

When hearing those I immediately cringed because my thoughts were "That's the excuse poor parents make", "Good enough" infers "I did the best with what I had.".

It's been hard being surrounded by people following the same compass when mine points another direction while they say "Your compass is broken."

This was my reaction too. For what it's worth, there was a time before I pursued self-knowledge that I started to believe my compass was broken. It's the same shit with drugging children for not accepting faulty programming. I think the therapist made a mistake by using the word "perfect." You can be imperfect and still not steal from people. Also, what if the child decides theft is right for them? Would you therapist argue that this is a question without an objectively correct answer? It sucks that some therapists focus on personal acquiescence rather than personal health.

 

Yes she is somewhat physically attractive. But I'm more interested in her because she is really intelligent and we share similar past experiences. When morality isn't part of the discussion, we have a great time and I don't want to lose that.

I hear you. Is she saying to you that if you don't have kids with her, she's never going to speak with you again? Because I don't see how you will "lose that" if you don't have kids with her. Have you been able to make use of the time you've spent together to identify how/why she believes a State is necessary despite being intelligent? Learning this might help to understand how to help her reconcile this information.

 

Have you discussed this with her? How you enjoy your time together and don't want to lose that. But find an acceptance of aggression to be problematic with taking your relationship further.

 

Have you slept with her? Obviously you don't have to answer. I don't know if you're aware of how much enjoyable and fulfilling relationships with people who accept reality are compared to relationships with those who don't.

[Trotter332]

This was my reaction too. For what it's worth, there was a time before I pursued self-knowledge that I started to believe my compass was broken. It's the same shit with drugging children for not accepting faulty programming. I think the therapist made a mistake by using the word "perfect." You can be imperfect and still not steal from people. Also, what if the child decides theft is right for them? Would you therapist argue that this is a question without an objectively correct answer? It sucks that some therapists focus on personal acquiescence rather than personal health.

This has been really the only thing I've disagreed with her on. Otherwise she has helped me a lot to know more about myself, explained Ego-State Theory, Kartman triangles and helping me understand the magnitude of my experiences. I never considered if a child would believe that. My initial argument would be "it's the initiation of force, therefore immoral.", but I see what would happen. "I believe it is moral because it benefits me."

I hear you. Is she saying to you that if you don't have kids with her, she's never going to speak with you again? Because I don't see how you will "lose that" if you don't have kids with her. Have you been able to make use of the time you've spent together to identify how/why she believes a State is necessary despite being intelligent? Learning this might help to understand how to help her reconcile this information.

No, that proposition hasn't come up, nor any suggestion of it. She's in university studying law, biology and has studied some psych and philosophy. She's come to the conclusion, given her childhood experiences, that the state has the power to save abused kids and believes that the government can be improved to act morally. She disagrees with NAP but she believes, for instance, that taxation is a justified use of the extension of self defence for someone else e.g. If you don't realise a train is about to hit you, I may use force to move you out of harms way. NAP also allows for for minor harms for great benefit and feels tax also is classified here.

Have you slept with her? Obviously you don't have to answer. I don't know if you're aware of how much enjoyable and fulfilling relationships with people who accept reality are compared to relationships with those who don't.

No, I haven't slept with her due to distance and other reasons. Both of us believe that sex (if in the interest of developing a strong relationship for parenthood) should be for developing the relationship and making babies. So because we're still figuring each other out, it's off the cards, which I'm more than fine with. Something witty about Stefan and Crazy/Pussy Town here.

[dsayers]

She disagrees with NAP but she believes, for instance, that taxation is a justified use of the extension of self defence for someone else e.g. If you don't realise a train is about to hit you, I may use force to move you out of harms way. NAP also allows for for minor harms for great benefit and feels tax also is classified here.

You lost me here. It is reasonable to assume that if somebody could consent to you moving them out of harm's way, they would. In what way does this compare to taxation? Even if every last person who was taxed agreed with the way every last penny was spent (virtually impossible), it is done without their consent. Talking about harms and benefits is consequentialism, and not principled, especially when you consider that they are subjective. In your metaphor, taxation would be like saying give me your wallet, or I will push you in front of the train. Except that a mugger is clearly in the wrong and forthcoming about his identity and intention.

 

You didn't mention if you've shared your feelings with her about not wanting to lose what you have, but this being something you're concerned about.

[Will Torbald]

Hey everyone.

 

I'm not a parent or in a relationship, but I have a strong interest in someone. I stick with NAP as a basis for my morality and she doesn't agree with it and believes a state is required. My question is, if either of us don't change our thoughts and we begin raising children, what implications would there be for the children?

It is one thing to agree intellectually with a theory, NAP, and another to integrate it with your mind. If you were truly integrated with this morality, the very thought of reproducing with those who are in direct opposition with it would be immediately and viscerally disgusting to you. But you're actually interested in this person, and like her. I say forget about babies, and ask yourself what is it that you are not integrating in yourself that still makes you go after crazy women.

[AccuTron]

"When morality isn't part of the discussion, we have a great time...."

 

Red Flag City.  At what times does morality take a vacation?

[Trotter332]

You lost me here. It is reasonable to assume that if somebody could consent to you moving them out of harm's way, they would. In what way does this compare to taxation? Even if every last person who was taxed agreed with the way every last penny was spent (virtually impossible), it is done without their consent. Talking about harms and benefits is consequentialism, and not principled, especially when you consider that they are subjective. In your metaphor, taxation would be like saying give me your wallet, or I will push you in front of the train. Except that a mugger is clearly in the wrong and forthcoming about his identity and intention.

 

You didn't mention if you've shared your feelings with her about not wanting to lose what you have, but this being something you're concerned about.

I have expressed my feelings regarding this and she did reply with "I won't be in a relationship with someone who thinks I am immoral.". In reply I said "I don't think your immoral, but amoral. I feel like you're not understanding something or have a bias and I want to help reveal that.". I do feel it's contradictory to be in a relationship with someone who doesn't share the same values and that's why I find it difficult to make a decision when I ask my therapist and check various sources on the internet which all say "You can have moral differences.". I have thought of the implications of when the child has to understand that if their father is an atheist and their mother is a christian. If they agree with atheism, he has to acknowledge that the mother is some form of crazy or misguided and at least lose respect for the father for being in a relationship with this woman. I have thoughts like "When will anything like her initiating force on me ever occur in a practical situation" and I fail to think of instances where that could happen other than her theoretically advocating it. I'm not sure if this is because I choose not to acknowledge possible situations or because I don't think she would actually do anything herself or hire the government to do it for me. 

 

It is one thing to agree intellectually with a theory, NAP, and another to integrate it with your mind. If you were truly integrated with this morality, the very thought of reproducing with those who are in direct opposition with it would be immediately and viscerally disgusting to you. But you're actually interested in this person, and like her. I say forget about babies, and ask yourself what is it that you are not integrating in yourself that still makes you go after crazy women.

I agree that there is a difference between intellectually agreeing to it and it being in sync with your present values. I'm not sure if "viscerally disgusted" is how I should feel. I feel sad that she doesn't agree with me, but I still think there's an ability for people to learn and grow. This including people that don't agree. I'm not saying I'm going to pursue the relationship to wait and see if she does change.

One motif I have noticed with my past relationships is that all of them have suffered a great deal of abuse from their parents. I do feel a desire to help them, because I can recognise the pain and I want to help resolve it and because she sees it in me, she shares the same desire. I feel a strong connection with her in this sense and feel it's something we can build on. Do you have any thoughts on this?

 

"When morality isn't part of the discussion, we have a great time...."

 

Red Flag City.  At what times does morality take a vacation?

I didn't intend to suggest that morality is ever not in some way related to a conversation. I meant that you can discuss a grocery list without morality being the forefront of thought. What I was referring to was when we share our traumatic experiences with each other. Yes, we are thinking of the immoral nature actions inflicted upon us and how they affected us, but we also share how that made us feel, how we reacted or what we did with the trauma.

[Will Torbald]

 

I agree that there is a difference between intellectually agreeing to it and it being in sync with your present values. I'm not sure if "viscerally disgusted" is how I should feel. I feel sad that she doesn't agree with me, but I still think there's an ability for people to learn and grow. This including people that don't agree. I'm not saying I'm going to pursue the relationship to wait and see if she does change.

One motif I have noticed with my past relationships is that all of them have suffered a great deal of abuse from their parents. I do feel a desire to help them, because I can recognise the pain and I want to help resolve it and because she sees it in me, she shares the same desire. I feel a strong connection with her in this sense and feel it's something we can build on. Do you have any thoughts on this?

 

I just don't see two broken people fixing each other. Not to imply that you're "broken", but it's the metaphor. It seems to me that you're good friends, but it also smells to me like that is as good as it's going to get. Whatever psychological abuse that's been inflicted in either of you will undoubtedly flare up exponentially under an emotionally committed relationship.

[dsayers]

I have expressed my feelings regarding this and she did reply with "I won't be in a relationship with someone who thinks I am immoral.". In reply I said "I don't think your immoral, but amoral. I feel like you're not understanding something or have a bias and I want to help reveal that."

If it's helpful, keep in mind that morality evaluates behaviors, not people. Does she agree that theft is the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights? Can she explain why this is true for "just some guy," but not true for politicians, police, and soldiers? See if this is of any use to you/her:

 

[Trotter332]

I just don't see two broken people fixing each other. Not to imply that you're "broken", but it's the metaphor. It seems to me that you're good friends, but it also smells to me like that is as good as it's going to get. Whatever psychological abuse that's been inflicted in either of you will undoubtedly flare up exponentially under an emotionally committed relationship.

I didn't mean to suggest that we're going to "fix" each other. I'm in therapy, she's just recently started therapy and we reflect on our experiences with each other. I don't plan on fixing her, but I do want to help her heal. I'm also willing to accept that there will be times where we have trouble cooperating due to our experiences, but so far in our conversations we've felt comfortable enough to point out behaviours and indicators that have occurred and explore them. 

If it's helpful, keep in mind that morality evaluates behaviors, not people. Does she agree that theft is the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights? Can she explain why this is true for "just some guy," but not true for politicians, police, and soldiers? See if this is of any use to you/her:

 

I had a watch of the video and thank you for it. I'll definitely use it in the future. We haven't been talking so much recently but I'll respond with an update when I get some information. 

 

Again, thank you for your input everyone. I appreciate the time and effort you're all putting into this conversation. I'm trying to be as transparent as possible and appreciate being asked the "spade is a spade" questions.

[J. D. Stembal]

Hey everyone.

 

I'm not a parent or in a relationship, but I have a strong interest in someone. I stick with NAP as a basis for my morality and she doesn't agree with it and believes a state is required. My question is, if either of us don't change our thoughts and we begin raising children, what implications would there be for the children?

 

I used the against me argument on my ex-girlfriend and she utterly failed it. In fact, the very act of me suggesting the hypothetical question shocked and appalled her. I suggest that you do the same before you think about bumping uglies with this person.

 

Remember, you cannot reason people out of beliefs that they were not reasoned into.

[J. D. Stembal]

I would also suggest getting a different therapist solely based on her outlook on parenting, and morality.

[Trotter332]

I would also suggest getting a different therapist solely based on her outlook on parenting, and morality.

I'm moving cities soon so I'll be finding a new one soon enough. Thanks for the advice.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

She's in university studying law, biology and has studied some psych and philosophy. She's come to the conclusion, given her childhood experiences, that the state has the power to save abused kids and believes that the government can be improved to act morally. She disagrees with NAP but she believes, for instance, that taxation is a justified use of the extension of self defence for someone else e.g. If you don't realise a train is about to hit you, I may use force to move you out of harms way. NAP also allows for for minor harms for great benefit and feels tax also is classified here.

No, I haven't slept with her due to distance and other reasons. Both of us believe that sex (if in the interest of developing a strong relationship for parenthood) should be for developing the relationship and making babies. So because we're still figuring each other out, it's off the cards, which I'm more than fine with. Something witty about Stefan and Crazy/Pussy Town here.

 

Well, for what my opinion is worth, I think the fact that she is intelligent and is somewhat connected to her childhood, is in therapy, are all good things (actually being intelligent is not necessarily good, but it can help you hold her to the highest standard possible when discussing NAP and other subjects).

 

 don't understand what you mean when you say she believes, "given her childhood experiences," that the gov't can save abused children. Why would a matter of fact, such as it is, be dependent on what she experienced as a child? The fact that you mentioned her position in this way gives me the suspicion that you believe her to be emotionally attached to the idea that the government could do this, rather than thinking rationally and evidence based. If the government can save abused children, why is it currently separating families with the war on drugs, funding single mother homes with welfare, destroying the incentives of marital bonds with alimony, funding psychiatrists and prescription based zombie pills to make abused children disappear, funding and forcing children into prison environments, where they are subject to abuse, manipulation and indoctrination; I could go on and on. If the government could be moral, why isn't it being moral? Why is it being the exact opposite of morality? And does the fact that it is currently the largest source of evil in society have any bearing on whether it is sane to think it can be a source of virtue in society? And if it could, would it have to be based on a bloody, murder based effort from the top down to make people good, or will it come as the result of an intellectual and moral revolution that will come as a result of good people speaking up and refusing to submit to an immoral society?

 

I think if you really prepared an argument like this (not that it would be easy to confront her like this), you could get to the heart of the matter pretty quickly. Is the open to hearing more, is there any hesitation she has to reconsider her positions, or is she going to immediately know JUST what to say, implying she is already certain, and therefore emotionally attached to the idea that by the magic of voting the most murder and theft based institution in society can be made to promote virtue.

I have expressed my feelings regarding this and she did reply with "I won't be in a relationship with someone who thinks I am immoral.". In reply I said "I don't think your immoral, but amoral. I feel like you're not understanding something or have a bias and I want to help reveal that.". I do feel it's contradictory to be in a relationship with someone who doesn't share the same values and that's why I find it difficult to make a decision when I ask my therapist and check various sources on the internet which all say "You can have moral differences.". I have thought of the implications of when the child has to understand that if their father is an atheist and their mother is a christian. If they agree with atheism, he has to acknowledge that the mother is some form of crazy or misguided and at least lose respect for the father for being in a relationship with this woman. I have thoughts like "When will anything like her initiating force on me ever occur in a practical situation" and I fail to think of instances where that could happen other than her theoretically advocating it. I'm not sure if this is because I choose not to acknowledge possible situations or because I don't think she would actually do anything herself or hire the government to do it for me. 

 

I agree that there is a difference between intellectually agreeing to it and it being in sync with your present values. I'm not sure if "viscerally disgusted" is how I should feel. I feel sad that she doesn't agree with me, but I still think there's an ability for people to learn and grow. This including people that don't agree. I'm not saying I'm going to pursue the relationship to wait and see if she does change.

One motif I have noticed with my past relationships is that all of them have suffered a great deal of abuse from their parents. I do feel a desire to help them, because I can recognise the pain and I want to help resolve it and because she sees it in me, she shares the same desire. I feel a strong connection with her in this sense and feel it's something we can build on. Do you have any thoughts on this?

 

I didn't intend to suggest that morality is ever not in some way related to a conversation. I meant that you can discuss a grocery list without morality being the forefront of thought. What I was referring to was when we share our traumatic experiences with each other. Yes, we are thinking of the immoral nature actions inflicted upon us and how they affected us, but we also share how that made us feel, how we reacted or what we did with the trauma.

 Who said she is immoral? Why would she bring that into the equation, as if whether she is moral or immoral has any bearing on what morality is philosophically? It sounds like she is being manipulative rather than curious in this regard, but I wasn't there so I will defer to you. Do you think she was trying to manipulate you into accepting false philosophies, because it would be less personally tumultuous for her to? What were the details surrounding this statement of hers?

 

I think this is a lot less about whether you can "be" with someone who holds different moral values than you. To me, that is a complete cop-out and totally not intimate. It is acting as if philosophy is just some personal taste, as if there isn't a true answer (or a more true answer) than can be decided mutually, lovingly, with respect to one another's capacity to reason and maturity to accept the truth, even when it is not pleasant emotionally. 

 

If you have given her the strongest arguments possible, and she does not understand or has not been open about why she finds your position emotionally difficult for her to process (which of course would be very honest, vulnerable, and would show trust in you to help her understand the logic while being empathetic of the hurt it may be causing her), then I think you are being a bit manipulative and controlling by acting as if there is something she is not understanding, or has a bias that she'd be willing to share but is completely unaware of, and I don't think it would be honest with yourself to presume so. There could very well be information I'm missing out on on misinterpreting, so please refer to your information and experience of your time with her. But I wanted to provide this possibility if it is even remotely possible, because to enter into a serious relationship with a woman who is withholding her emotional experience from you when it is difficult for her is a very dangerous situation to get into. 

 

Last thing with regard to this girl, your therapist, and women in general. I think a really good test of the empathy and caliber of a woman is to bring up issues of females lacking responsibility (like single motherhood) or male disposability. I don't know about you, but any woman who is unwilling to come to understand the struggles men face in society, as children and adults, and the extent to which women are on the feasting end of this disposability, is not a woman I'd want to touch with a ten foot pole. That doesn't mean you need to be confrontational at all, because that does not show the vulnerability required for a relationship to succeed, but that ultimately, you need to be honest about your thoughts and emotions, and you cannot afford a woman who will erase your honesty for her comfort or for the comfort of other women in society. Or at least I can't afford that! I don't think you can either

[Trotter332]

 

Well, for what my opinion is worth, I think the fact that she is intelligent and is somewhat connected to her childhood, is in therapy, are all good things (actually being intelligent is not necessarily good, but it can help you hold her to the highest standard possible when discussing NAP and other subjects).

 

 don't understand what you mean when you say she believes, "given her childhood experiences," that the gov't can save abused children. Why would a matter of fact, such as it is, be dependent on what she experienced as a child? The fact that you mentioned her position in this way gives me the suspicion that you believe her to be emotionally attached to the idea that the government could do this, rather than thinking rationally and evidence based. If the government can save abused children, why is it currently separating families with the war on drugs, funding single mother homes with welfare, destroying the incentives of marital bonds with alimony, funding psychiatrists and prescription based zombie pills to make abused children disappear, funding and forcing children into prison environments, where they are subject to abuse, manipulation and indoctrination; I could go on and on. If the government could be moral, why isn't it being moral? Why is it being the exact opposite of morality? And does the fact that it is currently the largest source of evil in society have any bearing on whether it is sane to think it can be a source of virtue in society? And if it could, would it have to be based on a bloody, murder based effort from the top down to make people good, or will it come as the result of an intellectual and moral revolution that will come as a result of good people speaking up and refusing to submit to an immoral society?

 

I think if you really prepared an argument like this (not that it would be easy to confront her like this), you could get to the heart of the matter pretty quickly. Is the open to hearing more, is there any hesitation she has to reconsider her positions, or is she going to immediately know JUST what to say, implying she is already certain, and therefore emotionally attached to the idea that by the magic of voting the most murder and theft based institution in society can be made to promote virtue.

In her childhood she received a lot of physical, verbal and mental abuse. She feels that, had the Government stood in to save her, she would've been much better off. I believe she is emotionally attached to the idea of Government being there for good intentions, does make some poor decisions, but ultimately is beneficial. We're living in New Zealand, but most of the actions of the Government are the same. Still has welfare, war on drugs and I know that most people going to therapy receive medication which only handles the symptoms and not the problems. 

 

 Who said she is immoral? Why would she bring that into the equation, as if whether she is moral or immoral has any bearing on what morality is philosophically? It sounds like she is being manipulative rather than curious in this regard, but I wasn't there so I will defer to you. Do you think she was trying to manipulate you into accepting false philosophies, because it would be less personally tumultuous for her to? What were the details surrounding this statement of hers?

 

I think this is a lot less about whether you can "be" with someone who holds different moral values than you. To me, that is a complete cop-out and totally not intimate. It is acting as if philosophy is just some personal taste, as if there isn't a true answer (or a more true answer) than can be decided mutually, lovingly, with respect to one another's capacity to reason and maturity to accept the truth, even when it is not pleasant emotionally. 

 

If you have given her the strongest arguments possible, and she does not understand or has not been open about why she finds your position emotionally difficult for her to process (which of course would be very honest, vulnerable, and would show trust in you to help her understand the logic while being empathetic of the hurt it may be causing her), then I think you are being a bit manipulative and controlling by acting as if there is something she is not understanding, or has a bias that she'd be willing to share but is completely unaware of, and I don't think it would be honest with yourself to presume so. There could very well be information I'm missing out on on misinterpreting, so please refer to your information and experience of your time with her. But I wanted to provide this possibility if it is even remotely possible, because to enter into a serious relationship with a woman who is withholding her emotional experience from you when it is difficult for her is a very dangerous situation to get into. 

 

Last thing with regard to this girl, your therapist, and women in general. I think a really good test of the empathy and caliber of a woman is to bring up issues of females lacking responsibility (like single motherhood) or male disposability. I don't know about you, but any woman who is unwilling to come to understand the struggles men face in society, as children and adults, and the extent to which women are on the feasting end of this disposability, is not a woman I'd want to touch with a ten foot pole. That doesn't mean you need to be confrontational at all, because that does not show the vulnerability required for a relationship to succeed, but that ultimately, you need to be honest about your thoughts and emotions, and you cannot afford a woman who will erase your honesty for her comfort or for the comfort of other women in society. Or at least I can't afford that! I don't think you can either

I had wrongly accused people who perform immoral actions to be entirely immoral and hadn't made the distinction that good people can commit immoral actions, but that doesn't make them an immoral person. I was of the mindset that if she disagrees with the NAP and believes tax is "good", then she is immoral. Though I am in a similar position after having this conversation with the members here. If we can't agree on the NAP and I feel like she won't agree, then an intimate relationship with this person isn't possible.

I also have come to the conclusion that it is a cop-out and also why I feel more confident in my initial thoughts before I started "buckling" or "thinking my compass was broken".

I can't be certain that I've given her the strongest arguments possible. I feel like I don't have the certainty and personal understanding that I can make a strong argument, especially when I already feel like she has the advantage, given her time studying philosophy. I agree that it does seem manipulative and it isn't my intention to be. It's good to have it pointed out though, so thank you. 

She does have an understanding of the inequality that men suffer as well in society. She also has a strong distrust and is cautious around men given her previous experiences. 

 

I need to head to. I'm having a conversation with her tonight regarding the questions and information I've been given here. I just hope that I'll be courageous enough to provide a strong argument while also being empathetic. 

[bitcoin]

Hey everyone.

 

I'm not a parent or in a relationship, but I have a strong interest in someone. I stick with NAP as a basis for my morality and she doesn't agree with it and believes a state is required. My question is, if either of us don't change our thoughts and we begin raising children, what implications would there be for the children?

 

I am curious why you might be interested in someone who would consciously use initiate force against others? Isn't that unempathetic and largely disturbing?

[Matthew Ed Moran]

 

I can't be certain that I've given her the strongest arguments possible. I feel like I don't have the certainty and personal understanding that I can make a strong argument, especially when I already feel like she has the advantage, given her time studying philosophy.

 

Yea, sure. And just to be clear, sometimes it doesn't matter how good your arguments are. I used to bring up NAP with a friend, and no matter how clear I would make it to him that government was the initiation of force, he was not going to let this affect his moral sensibilities. He would just reason backwards to always try and justify government ad hoc, despite the fact that I showed him how it is defined as the initiation of force. Sometimes he would lead me on and agree with my points to an extent, and I'd think he was really getting it, but he never changed his position and to any degree I thought he was starting to "get it," he would come back a day later with insulting arguments and defensiveness. In fact he told me that I will never convince him, no matter what (had a few people say this to me, which I think is like the finger in the ears response to my arguments)

 

So I think if you're being reasonably clear, which it seems like you have been, and she just doesn't care about initiating force. Like she will make some excuse for doing it no matter what, then that is pretty.. abominable.. and I wouldn't want you or your kids to be around someone like that. it would be really dangerous  to become intimately involved with someone who will make excuses to initiate force against you.

 

Best of luck and keep us posted!

[Trotter332]

I am curious why you might be interested in someone who would consciously use initiate force against others? Isn't that unempathetic and largely disturbing?

Yeah, I've come to the same conclusion. It's like if there was an Atheist father and a Christian mother. Why would you marry someone who believes you are going to hell and why would you marry someone who thinks your belief system is built upon a mythical sky ghost. 

 

Yea, sure. And just to be clear, sometimes it doesn't matter how good your arguments are. I used to bring up NAP with a friend, and no matter how clear I would make it to him that government was the initiation of force, he was not going to let this affect his moral sensibilities. He would just reason backwards to always try and justify government ad hoc, despite the fact that I showed him how it is defined as the initiation of force. Sometimes he would lead me on and agree with my points to an extent, and I'd think he was really getting it, but he never changed his position and to any degree I thought he was starting to "get it," he would come back a day later with insulting arguments and defensiveness. In fact he told me that I will never convince him, no matter what (had a few people say this to me, which I think is like the finger in the ears response to my arguments)

 

So I think if you're being reasonably clear, which it seems like you have been, and she just doesn't care about initiating force. Like she will make some excuse for doing it no matter what, then that is pretty.. abominable.. and I wouldn't want you or your kids to be around someone like that. it would be really dangerous  to become intimately involved with someone who will make excuses to initiate force against you.

 

Best of luck and keep us posted!

I had a discussion last night with her and I made the decision to not continue in a romantic relationship with her. She made the statement "I don't apply morality around taxation. It was democratically decided through a majority vote and if you're the minority, you just have to deal with it or leave.". She doesn't see taxation as theft because it's been previously consented. She thinks NAP is a valid critique, but she doesn't agree with it. So it's either I don't have a strong enough argument or any argument won't make a difference. I would like to think that if I were better at arguing or "more", she would agree with me. But I get to learn from this experience and grow from it.

 

We've decided to stay as friends for the time-being. I am upset about it because I envisioned some really nice situations and really enjoyed the idea of growing with someone, but I feel like this is the best decision for me.

 

I'm still interested in her as a person and want to know how her therapy goes for her. In time, as I gain knowledge and assurance in my knowledge I may make the decision to discontinue the relationship altogether. I watched Stefan's "Against Me" video and understand that I may be seen as performing a cowardly action or even a coward, but I'm okay with that. I still gain value from her for now.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

I had a discussion last night with her and I made the decision to not continue in a romantic relationship with her. She made the statement "I don't apply morality around taxation. It was democratically decided through a majority vote and if you're the minority, you just have to deal with it or leave.". She doesn't see taxation as theft because it's been previously consented. She thinks NAP is a valid critique, but she doesn't agree with it. So it's either I don't have a strong enough argument or any argument won't make a difference. I would like to think that if I were better at arguing or "more", she would agree with me. But I get to learn from this experience and grow from it.

 

 

It is not up to her whether taxation is immoral. It doesn't matter whether she wants to apply morality to taxation or not. Considering taxation is a gigantic issue in society, the fact that she is not willing to apply morality to it is cowardly. You can't make people see what they are unwilling to look at. Right here, she's being quite clear she is not willing to look at the evil of taxation. 

 

She admits NAP is valid, but she doesn't agree with it? Hold on for a second, let me pick up my jaw from the ground..........

 

So I guess she is so vain to think she can pick and chose when something is immoral or not based on her personal taste. And this of course gives no respect to you, because she is saying your methodology is valid, but she is going to disagree with you anyway. This woman sounds like a complete nut-job. I am now really curious what you found attractive in her...

 

I personally am less concerned whether you are a coward or not, but whether you think being around someone who is so erasing of you and who is so quick to disregard whether she may be supporting evil or not, based on her personal vanity to pretend she can decide what is true or false. How could you ever count on her to treat you ethically, and admit fault, when she thinks she is the sole dictator of what is right or wrong, and that she could and has shown she is willing to disregard the truth based on her personal whim! NAP is valid... but I disagree with it.. what does that confess other than incredible vanity and emotional immaturity?!

 

Maybe this comes from her own mother, or her childhood in general, so hopefully she can gain some clarity on the difference between reality and her opinion in therapy.

[Trotter332]

It is not up to her whether taxation is immoral. It doesn't matter whether she wants to apply morality to taxation or not. Considering taxation is a gigantic issue in society, the fact that she is not willing to apply morality to it is cowardly. You can't make people see what they are unwilling to look at. Right here, she's being quite clear she is not willing to look at the evil of taxation. 

 

She admits NAP is valid, but she doesn't agree with it? Hold on for a second, let me pick up my jaw from the ground..........

 

So I guess she is so vain to think she can pick and chose when something is immoral or not based on her personal taste. And this of course gives no respect to you, because she is saying your methodology is valid, but she is going to disagree with you anyway. This woman sounds like a complete nut-job. I am now really curious what you found attractive in her...

 

I personally am less concerned whether you are a coward or not, but whether you think being around someone who is so erasing of you and who is so quick to disregard whether she may be supporting evil or not, based on her personal vanity to pretend she can decide what is true or false. How could you ever count on her to treat you ethically, and admit fault, when she thinks she is the sole dictator of what is right or wrong, and that she could and has shown she is willing to disregard the truth based on her personal whim! NAP is valid... but I disagree with it.. what does that confess other than incredible vanity and emotional immaturity?!

 

Maybe this comes from her own mother, or her childhood in general, so hopefully she can gain some clarity on the difference between reality and her opinion in therapy.

I agree that taxation has more problems than being immoral, but the point should stand independently that it's a repetition of the initiation of force and therefore should be avoided if possible.

 

She believes that morals are subjective and therefore there is no one True Morality or True North. To quote, "I don't think any moral framework is strictly immoral. I see them having legitimate differences.". 

 

The qualities I find attractive in her include: Intelligence, honesty, empathy, funny, pretty and is able to understand my traumatic experiences and validate them. I think it's fair to say you can appreciate the beauty of some animals before you realise they're going to eat you. Not that I'm comparing her to an animal, but I think my point gets across. I do plan on continuing these discussions with her and I'll feel more comfortable arguing given I don't have the intention of romancing her. She's still useful for exploring my experiences with and I think I can still learn from her. I'll still be cautious around her and if I feel she is more damaging than beneficial, I'll remove myself from the relationship.

[bitcoin]

Personally, I see it less so in the sense of religion, but rather in terms of a willingness to commit acts of violence, force and aggression.

 

Either way, I sincerely wish you the best. I am extremely glad to hear you came to the forums and hopefully gained some valuable perspectives and knowledge.

 

All the best my friend !

[dsayers]

"I don't apply morality around taxation. It was democratically decided through a majority vote and if you're the minority, you just have to deal with it or leave."

"I don't apply morality to gang rape. It was democratically decided through a majority vote and if you're the minority, you just have to deal with it or leave." Reality isn't democratic.

 

That video I linked did a fantastic job of explaining that you cannot give something to somebody else that you do not have. If she does not have the right to take money from her neighbors, she cannot give that right (by voting) to other people.

[Trotter332]

Personally, I see it less so in the sense of religion, but rather in terms of a willingness to commit acts of violence, force and aggression.

 

Either way, I sincerely wish you the best. I am extremely glad to hear you came to the forums and hopefully gained some valuable perspectives and knowledge.

 

All the best my friend !

Yeah, I understand that. Am I correct in saying, "it's not the rules or obligations of the framework, but the behaviour the framework allows"?

Thanks for your insight, I've definitely received a lot of useful information.

 

"I don't apply morality to gang rape. It was democratically decided through a majority vote and if you're the minority, you just have to deal with it or leave." Reality isn't democratic.

 

That video I linked did a fantastic job of explaining that you cannot give something to somebody else that you do not have. If she does not have the right to take money from her neighbors, she cannot give that right (by voting) to other people.

That's a good distinction. I'll be sure to use that example in the future as well. It's got a strong emotional driver as well.

I agree, that video was great. I'll be showing it to her when I next talk with her.

[Thus_Spake_the_Nightspirit]

 

 

Yes she is somewhat physically attractive. But I'm more interested in her because she is really intelligent and we share similar past experiences. When morality isn't part of the discussion, we have a great time and I don't want to lose that.

 

You may be having a great time now, but is that really the kind of person you would be happy spending the rest of your life with? Eventually these issues do demand to be noticed and addressed.

 

My husband and I have been together four years and he is also intelligent, attractive, and we share experiences in common. But philosophically, we are just not on the same page, much like you and your partner. We're at the point where we're considering starting a family, but I have to say, even though I love him, I have serious misgivings about raising children with him.

 

I think seeking out therapy together is a good idea. It will (hopefully) give you some much needed information about what kind of future you'd have with her and what kind of a mother and wife she would be. If she doesn't want to go or doesn't want to be an active participant in the sessions, then I think you'll have your answer right there.