Berlin- two concepts of liberty
Rachaels- elements of moral philosophy
Read em op.
op don’t read them it’s a trick.
Alright, I’m going to run with this example for a moment.
If a person is morally opposed to premarital sex, is their freedom to engage in premarital sex taken away? Noooo, they can still have sex whenever and with whoever they’d like. They are still “free” in that sense, and they’re excercising that freedom by making a choice for themself. The way I see it is, if morals have anything to do with freedom, it’s that they’re an example of it – the freedom to make choices based on a personal moral code – rather than a hindrance to it.
If that’s what he’s trying to say, I fail to see why we’re even having this conversation, as the idea of someone being completely free of influence is totally unrealistic.
I’m going to have to go with Jesus on this one, sorry Smears.
It’s not a choice if morality is indoctrinated into children at a young age…ohhhhohohoho, what now? You didn’t see that one coming, did you?
So when a child grows up they are not capable of thinking critically about life and the world around them and deciding for themselves what is right and wrong?
I’m a firm believer in taking responsibility for yourself. It’s all well and good to say, “This is what I believe because it is what I was taught” but at some point a person has to grow up. It’s the same as people saying they’re all fucked up in the head because of some mommy issues stemming from their childhood – deal with it, but then realize that you are grown and have power over your life and the decisions you make. I don’t think anyone can 100% escape being a product of their environment, but you don’t have to let your past dictate your present or future (choices).
Never trust a guy named Jesus. What are you thinking?
That doesn’t mean that you’ve chosen “good”. It means that you’ve been restricted from “evil” your whole life. How can you make a choice while being denied one for your whole life?
Freedom necessarily includes evil. You can’t become free without becoming evil. You can’t “choose” anything without opening the possibilities toward evil actions.
So, then, by your logic, people who have been raised in strict, moral environments shouldn’t be capable of evil. Do you actually think that is true?
No, I think people raised in a morally strict environment tend to become the worst types of killers, criminals, and sadistic fucks on the planet. Because they are repressed from evil, censored from it. They are stressed about how evil it is, to do immoral actions. Then, someday, when the heavy moralist breaks down, and commits such actions, he or she becomes addicted to them. This may explain serial killers and their addiction to evil.
Once you get a taste of something you’ve been constricted from your whole life, then they lose control.
But if you are educated in a freer way, and shown about good and evil, the benefits and drawbacks of both, if you are raised with a sense of objectivity, then you can realize what morality and freedom are, and begin go move beyond good and evil.
Right, and in order for them to get a taste of that which they’d always been restricted from, they’d have to choose to do so. They are still able to do evil regardless of the morality ingrained in them.
Choice is a different element in this equation. Choice is not the same as freedom and morality.
Because choice presumes that you’re educated to know the difference. Not everybody is educated about good and evil. In fact, most atheists outright reject the existence of good and evil, thus denying morality and moral teachings.
That doesn’t make any sense. “Opening the possibilities toward evil actions” is not even close to the same thing as “becoming evil”.
I can tell you from personal experience that the exercise of freeing your mind eventually leads to a deeper moral life. Morality–true morality–is something that comes out of the human soul when it is not buried by the distorting influences that society has burdened the mind with.
Morality is just “what a people generally do”.
Religious morality is making that way of acting into a disciplined, unfree way of life.
Doing what you do is moral and free, but turning it into a dogma is moral and unfree.
Anyone arguing that religiously moral people are free because they have the choice to be immoral is being obtuse. However, if your irreligious morality just so happens to fit in with a religious moral code, then you ARE exercising freedom of choice.
All that aside, freedom doesn’t exist without constraints. People can’t grow wings and fly off into the sun at will (except maybe in dreams). When people talk of freedom, they mean relative freedom in one way or another. And yes, realistic choices don’t all have to be taken in order to prove (relative) freedom.
I think that a lot of people really don’t dig deep regarding their morality, freedom, and choices in life. If you really valued freedom, which I doubt many do, then killing somebody you hate is no different than sparing the life of somebody you love. There is no evil, if all criminal actions are equally as valid as legal actions. You can steal from your neighbor, that’s perfectly acceptable.
But is it? No, it’s not. Now, why do you believe stealing is wrong?
There are a dozen ways for you to accept or reject stealing. Were you taught not to steal, and accept your indoctrination? Are you open to “living on the edge”, and stealing because of the thrill? Do you steal from the rich, to give to the poor? Do you steal to survive? Do you starve to death, instead of stealing?
We can go about this a hundred ways. But once you accept that freedom includes evil, then you’ll see more of what I mean.
I’m trying to figure out how freedom is such an equalizer. Maybe someone can explain this to me?
But you’ve already admitted that people can choose contrary to their indoctrinated morals.
Me too. And I’m trying to argue, it’s not. Freedom from societal indoctrinations only allows the more universal and instinctual human propensities to come out–and I’m fairly convinced those propensities tend to be good.