Proof of secular ethics: Against moral violence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-03-2014, 10:40 PM
RE: Proof of secular ethics: Against moral violence
(13-03-2014 10:33 PM)Vipa Wrote:  Where's the problem exactly? I would've no reason to respect my parents had they ever hit me and I would do pretty much the same thing... flaws are nice and everything, but if you can't control yourself towards a child... that's just weak.

The problem though is that Molyneux holds parents to an incredibly high standard. He once even said that if your parents are statists, you should leave them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2014, 10:56 PM (This post was last modified: 13-03-2014 11:02 PM by Vipa.)
RE: Proof of secular ethics: Against moral violence
(13-03-2014 10:40 PM)shimmyjimmy Wrote:  The problem though is that Molyneux holds parents to an incredibly high standard. He once even said that if your parents are statists, you should leave them.

Oh that's funny (in a crazy way) Big Grin But still... their choice to accept what he says. Now I never heard him say it (because I'm not a big fan either), but did he say something like: if your parents are statists it's likely they want, like a state, respect for themselves from the child no matter what happens, because they are in some sense a childs' state? So as to say that they want power and obedience because they are a state and states want this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2014, 11:02 PM
RE: Proof of secular ethics: Against moral violence
(13-03-2014 10:56 PM)Vipa Wrote:  
(13-03-2014 10:40 PM)shimmyjimmy Wrote:  The problem though is that Molyneux holds parents to an incredibly high standard. He once even said that if your parents are statists, you should leave them.

Oh that's funny (in a crazy way) Big Grin But still... their choice to accept what he says. Now I never heard him say it (because I'm not a big fan either), but did he say something like: if your parents are statists it's likely they want like a state respect for themselves from the child no matter what happens, because they are in some sense a childs' state? So as to say that they want power and obedience because they are a state and states want this.

Nope. There's a distinction between authoritarian and statist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2014, 11:04 PM (This post was last modified: 13-03-2014 11:10 PM by Vipa.)
RE: Proof of secular ethics: Against moral violence
(13-03-2014 11:02 PM)shimmyjimmy Wrote:  Nope. There's a distinction between authoritarian and statist.

That's not necessarily what he says and thinks, that's what you say and think. But I asked for his take Wink

Edit: I understand the distinction, but I don't assume he does Tongue I want to understand his reasoning.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2014, 11:13 PM
RE: Proof of secular ethics: Against moral violence
(13-03-2014 11:04 PM)Vipa Wrote:  
(13-03-2014 11:02 PM)shimmyjimmy Wrote:  Nope. There's a distinction between authoritarian and statist.

That's not necessarily what he says and thinks, that's what you say and think. But I asked for his take Wink

Edit: I understand the distinction, but I don't assume he does Tongue I want to understand his reasoning.

A 'statist' is (according to Molyneux) someone who wants to use force -- byway of the government -- without getting their own hands dirty.

Modern liberals are characterized this way by fellow libertarian types.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2014, 11:18 PM
RE: Proof of secular ethics: Against moral violence
(13-03-2014 11:13 PM)shimmyjimmy Wrote:  A 'statist' is (according to Molyneux) someone who wants to use force -- byway of the government -- without getting their own hands dirty.

Modern liberals are characterized this way by fellow libertarian types.

I see, thanks. But due to this definition I still don't think my chain of thought is that far off from what his reasoning might be behind his "statist parents are evil" remark.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2014, 11:21 PM
RE: Proof of secular ethics: Against moral violence
I have ethics and make moral judgments without reference to god. There's your proof for secular ethics, they exist and I have a particular set. Rolleyes

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
14-03-2014, 03:36 AM (This post was last modified: 14-03-2014 05:40 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Proof of secular ethics: Against moral violence
(13-03-2014 07:58 PM)shimmyjimmy Wrote:  Molyneux's grand solution to ending violence and government in their entirety is to stop hitting children.

Yep.

He asserts that violent behaviour, and by extension 'statist' (belief in government) tendencies, purely derive from his vague notion of 'child abuse'.

The problem though is that Molyneux holds parents to an incredibly high standard. He once even said that if your parents are statists, you should leave them.
I haven't heard that one statement. Seems rather simplistic to me. I'd rather guess that Stefan speaks against the idea that we should never ever leave anyone, no matter how bad they treat us.

How can it be vague? Getting beaten, yelled at, humiliated, ordered around, overlooked, underestimated and condescended to is never vague. And we treat strangers better - or people at work. So this is not a high standard of behavior for anyone. Parents should treat their children as people, at least as well as strangers. But since they are supposed to love their children, they should treat them actually much better.
Parents can and do control themselves perfectly in front of people they're afraid of - such as visitors or strangers on the phone. If phone rings in the middle of their hulking out at a small child, they change voice to resemble a dripping honey to talk with an adult stranger. Then go back to yelling. This isn't love. I just wasn't allowed to say so before.

(13-03-2014 11:21 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I have ethics and make moral judgments without reference to god. There's your proof for secular ethics, they exist and I have a particular set. Rolleyes
Wonderful. Is it derived from first principles? Does it lead to happiness (loving relationships), peace (no wars) and twice as much money? (no taxes) If so, please share it with us Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2014, 06:05 AM
RE: Proof of secular ethics: Against moral violence
(14-03-2014 03:36 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(13-03-2014 07:58 PM)shimmyjimmy Wrote:  Molyneux's grand solution to ending violence and government in their entirety is to stop hitting children.

Yep.

He asserts that violent behaviour, and by extension 'statist' (belief in government) tendencies, purely derive from his vague notion of 'child abuse'.

The problem though is that Molyneux holds parents to an incredibly high standard. He once even said that if your parents are statists, you should leave them.
I haven't heard that one statement. Seems rather simplistic to me. I'd rather guess that Stefan speaks against the idea that we should never ever leave anyone, no matter how bad they treat us.

How can it be vague? Getting beaten, yelled at, humiliated, ordered around, overlooked, underestimated and condescended to is never vague. And we treat strangers better - or people at work. So this is not a high standard of behavior for anyone. Parents should treat their children as people, at least as well as strangers. But since they are supposed to love their children, they should treat them actually much better.
Parents can and do control themselves perfectly in front of people they're afraid of - such as visitors or strangers on the phone. If phone rings in the middle of their hulking out at a small child, they change voice to resemble a dripping honey to talk with an adult stranger. Then go back to yelling. This isn't love. I just wasn't allowed to say so before.

(13-03-2014 11:21 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I have ethics and make moral judgments without reference to god. There's your proof for secular ethics, they exist and I have a particular set. Rolleyes
Wonderful. Is it derived from first principles? Does it lead to happiness (loving relationships), peace (no wars) and twice as much money? (no taxes) If so, please share it with us Smile

Honestly Luminon, I didn't read your wall of text in the OP; because I have never learned anything valuable from all of your other wall o' texts beside the fact that you're a peddler of woo-woo.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2014, 06:16 AM
RE: Proof of secular ethics: Against moral violence
(14-03-2014 06:05 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Honestly Luminon, I didn't read your wall of text in the OP; because I have never learned anything valuable from all of your other wall o' texts beside the fact that you're a peddler of woo-woo.
Thanks for your honesty.
Would you be please more specific? As I was told earlier in this thread, it doesn't look good to start from conclusions. It doesn't tell us how did you get there, it doesn't show that you didn't just jump to conclusions. But I know explaining the way can get kind of... prolonged, so I have an understanding, if that's your case as well.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: