|
Not Quite The UF Philosophy Corner | by MatthewDBA | 2009-04-16 10:54:41 |
| I disagree. |
by Peace_man |
2009-04-16 11:58:41 |
If all men were evil, then the job of government would be only to create fear in them in order to perpetuate itself in power. IMO this is not the case, nor is it the way a government should act.
A much better assumption would be that people are inclined to help each other, and obey lawful authority for the benefit of all. However, this assumption is not quite right either. Instead, add to this assumption that any person may at any time become tempted to act to the detriment of his fellow citizens, and that laws and enforcement must exist to abate the ill effect of this, and to prevent recurrence.
The possibility of anyone being 'evil' has to be acknowledged. But the assumption that all are is definitely false and detrimental to good lawmaking. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Grat assumption! | by RetiQlum2 | 2009-04-16 12:05:52 |
|
I did explain that. | by Peace_man | 2009-04-16 12:59:59 |
|
Depends on your viewpoint. | by subbywan | 2009-04-16 13:58:16 |
|
Yes, it could. | by Peace_man | 2009-04-16 14:39:32 |
|
Then no one is free | by subbywan | 2009-04-16 14:43:03 |
|
You'll have to elaborate on that. | by Peace_man | 2009-04-16 14:53:42 |
|
Pick a freedom you would give to someone. | by subbywan | 2009-04-16 14:56:40 |
|
Freedom from attack by others. (n/t) | by Peace_man | 2009-04-16 15:05:26 |
|
You're limiting the freedom of others to attack. ( (n/t) | by subbywan | 2009-04-16 15:08:11 |
|
Of course :-) | by Peace_man | 2009-04-16 15:10:37 |
|
You said: | by subbywan | 2009-04-16 15:18:08 |
|
No. | by Peace_man | 2009-04-16 15:20:34 |
|
Because you believe we're entitled to things | by subbywan | 2009-04-16 15:26:06 |
|
We'll have to agree to disagree. | by Peace_man | 2009-04-16 15:35:32 |
|
Something sounds not quite right about that | by MatthewDBA | 2009-04-16 12:08:56 |
|
Do we need to go back to defining what | by Peace_man | 2009-04-16 12:46:37 |
|
That is incorrect | by subbywan | 2009-04-16 14:01:55 |
|
I beg to differ. | by Peace_man | 2009-04-16 14:19:28 |
|
The purpose is to prevent wrong. | by subbywan | 2009-04-16 14:25:12 |
|
Maybe we need to see what the definition of | by Peace_man | 2009-04-16 14:34:04 |
|
No, because I believe in limiting certain freedoms | by subbywan | 2009-04-16 14:40:18 |
|
Maybe we need to converge here. | by Peace_man | 2009-04-16 14:47:09 |
|
That's because you believe we're entitled to | by subbywan | 2009-04-16 14:51:05 |
|
Entitled? Maybe. Maybe it is just something that | by Peace_man | 2009-04-16 14:59:23 |
|
Psychology disagrees there. | by subbywan | 2009-04-16 15:07:15 |
|
True. | by Peace_man | 2009-04-16 15:18:51 |
|
Not herrings at all. We've already stated the case | by subbywan | 2009-04-16 15:22:46 |
|
Well, stated like that, we actually agree. | by Peace_man | 2009-04-16 15:27:47 |
|
Yes. Good should be considered when creating | by subbywan | 2009-04-16 15:30:37 |
|
And I have to agree - reluctantly :-) | by Peace_man | 2009-04-16 15:40:16 |
|
you got the first 1/2 right :P | by subbywan | 2009-04-16 15:48:38 |
|
Macchiavelli overstates the point. | by kelli217 | 2009-04-16 12:19:35 |
|
Maybe this comes down to what the purpose of | by Peace_man | 2009-04-16 12:52:31 |
|
With regards to good and evil, I would contend | by merlin | 2009-04-16 12:55:06 |
|
That's pretty general though. | by Peace_man | 2009-04-16 13:04:33 |
|
I disagree. | by RetiQlum2 | 2009-04-16 13:12:30 |
|
Wait: I forgot the main point! | by RetiQlum2 | 2009-04-16 13:15:31 |
|
And you are refuting my point with this | by Peace_man | 2009-04-16 13:20:59 |
|
Huh? Of course they aren't perfect. | by RetiQlum2 | 2009-04-16 13:29:22 |
|
If that's so, can you please explain how giving | by Peace_man | 2009-04-16 13:51:36 |
|
I'd say | by MatthewDBA | 2009-04-16 13:01:13 |
|
I'm not sure what you mean by 'enabling themselves | by Peace_man | 2009-04-16 13:08:17 |
|
Good doesn't need to be enabled. | by subbywan | 2009-04-16 13:34:10 |
|
Good does need to be enabled. | by Peace_man | 2009-04-16 13:37:16 |
|
Why does good need to be enabled? | by subbywan | 2009-04-16 13:55:04 |
|
As you just said yourself: | by Peace_man | 2009-04-16 14:12:58 |
|
Um, leaving it alone doesn't enable it. | by subbywan | 2009-04-16 14:15:46 |
|
What makes you think this is not so? | by Peace_man | 2009-04-16 14:26:32 |
|
That isn't what was said previously though | by subbywan | 2009-04-16 14:28:41 |
|
Hmm - how about this logic statement? | by Peace_man | 2009-04-16 14:37:25 |
|
No. Because good would exist even with evil | by subbywan | 2009-04-16 14:46:59 |
|
How does that constitute a 'no'? | by Peace_man | 2009-04-16 14:50:35 |
|
Because good is there, regardless of laws | by subbywan | 2009-04-16 14:55:22 |
|
I disagree. | by Peace_man | 2009-04-16 15:02:10 |
|
Yes, it is. | by subbywan | 2009-04-16 15:09:13 |
|
Protect and safeguard what? | by Peace_man | 2009-04-16 15:13:32 |
|
Whatever it is you decide to protect and safeguard | by subbywan | 2009-04-16 15:15:14 |
|
And we're back to the beginning. | by Peace_man | 2009-04-16 15:23:44 |
|
No. Merely explored some of its nuances. | by subbywan | 2009-04-16 15:28:37 |
|
I agree with that. Well, mostly :-) | by Peace_man | 2009-04-16 15:38:09 |
