Emma_85 wrote:What I mean is that we have invented moral so that we can get along in groups and in a society. No society can function in without any form of moral, you don't have societies without morals. Of course we all have morals, so maybe that makes it part of human nature sort of. What I meant is that it is not like something encoded in your genes, but man made so that we can live in groups.
Well, maybe the specifics of our morality are not encoded in our genes. This is obvious, because a Chinese person adopted by English parents would be more or less English, morally speaking, just as he would speak the English language. But I think it's quite possible that the ability to collectively invent and learn moral codes is something that may be encoded in our genes, just as the ability to learn languages probably is. People like Richard Dawkins and E.O. Wilson have interesting things to say about how morality may in fact be an evolutionary adaptation. Wilson, an expert on the physical and social life of ants, is also the originator of one of my favorite pithy statements; "Communism; great theory, wrong species".
Emma_85 wrote:What do you mean with human behaviour, though? If you mean how humans would behave without morals (as they would behave like naturally (I mean, like they would behave like if genes were all that counted and no sort of education existed)) then we mean the same thing. Maybe I just didn't explain it right.
You seem to buy into a sort of Hobbesian view of the human species; that "in the state of nature", without the domesticating effects of society, we would be nothing but selfish nasty brutes. But wasn't it Aristotle who said that we are [face=SPIonic]poli/tikon zw=|on[/face]
(pardon me if I didn't spell that right)? That is, we are political animals, or, since he was thinking in terms of a [face=SPIonic]po/lij[/face]
, perhaps that should be translated as social animals. In other words, isn't it possible that being social, forming societies, is part of our nature just as it is the nature of birds to form flocks and dogs to form packs? I think this picture of human nature is more accurate than your vision of brutes who invent morality. How would such a brute have the vaguest clue how to do so?
Emma_85 wrote:You argue that we don't have a right to anything really.
No, I most certainly do not! I argue, first of all, that you have a right to your own life, which means it's wrong for others to take it or enslave you. I also argue that you have a right to your own property, which you need to sustain your life. But those rights also apply to others. That implies that you do not have the right to the life or property of others. So, if you need something with which to sustain your life, and are not fortunate enough to be a trust fund baby, that means you have to work for a living and pay your own way, or rely on what charity you can get.
Emma_85 wrote:That I should not pay the government any money, so basically it doesn't do anything, I don't do anything for it and so I don't have a right to ask anything of it.
My, how you are misinterpreting me! Is classical liberal political theory so foreign to everybody today? I don't say that the government doesn't provide anything. I say that it provides too much. Unfortunately, most of what it provides, it has essentially stolen.
Emma_85 wrote:Humans would have got nowhere without the formation of nations or even towns or villages. Only together they are strong. There would be no culture if all people did was earn money and spend it on themselves, as no one can earn enough money themselves to pay for something like a road, only if everyone pays a few cents a year, can a motorway be built, from which everyone can then profit. That is a basic law of economics and you are at fault to ignore this very basic thing.
Yes, it would be impossible for the free market to provide cars for us to drive on those roads, too, and the gas (petrol) stations that fuel them. It's a good thing that we have nationalized car plants that provide us with cars, and nationalized petrol plants and stations to fuel them, or where would we be? And thank God for nationalized farming! Else how would we eat! And the nationalized stores! Whew, good thing we have those! In privatized stores, we'd be standing in line for hours! Seriously, Emma, stay away from economic arguments; they aren't your forte. Most of our needs are provided by the (semi-)free market, and provided better than they would be by a government. And many of the services that the government does provide could and should be privatized. Perhaps even, yes, roads.
I'm not necessarily arguing for some sort of classical liberal anarchy (although if such a beast would work, I wouldn't be against it, either). I'm just saying that we should be honest about the nature of government, and limit our use of legitimized force (which is what government is) to the lowest level possible. If we don't do this, we get embarrassing situations like the current US government, which is taking away our rights right and left in order to supposedly safeguard our rights. It's a bit like fighting for peace or fucking for virginity.
Not murdering people is a legal duty. Not stealing is a legal duty. Giving money to pay for the educations of underprivileged children, on the other hand, is not a legal duty.
Is law not what the state, that is its sovereign or its people decide should be law?
That depends on whether you buy into the positivist theory of law, or think that it's possible that a law can be decided by a sovereign, or even in a purely democratic way by a population, and yet still be an unjust law, that is to say, in a very real sense not true law at all. The majority is not always right. Thinking that the mob is always right, is just as much a fallacy as the idea that might is always right. In fact, I think it's fair to say that pure democracy is the theory that might through sheer numbers is always right. It should be obvious that such a theory is fallacious, but most people give the dark side of democracy such little thought these days, if they don't outright worship it, as our American neo-conservative crusaders for democracy do, that it's downright frightening.
Emma_85 wrote:And taking many things into account they have decided that education is something everyone has a right to, as they have come to the conclusion that everyone is equal at birth.
Equal under the law, or really, truly equal in all ways? If the former, then the classical liberal political philosophy says precisely that. All people are equal under the law; which means that all people have the right to their own life and property. If the latter, then the people who have decided this are fools. People are not equal in all ways; that is simply reality, and trying to pretend otherwise is sheer folly. If you ignore reality, it will eventually find a way of regaining your attention. And sometimes reality's wake-up calls are a real bitch.
Emma_85 wrote:Rich kids don't deserve an education and the resulting opportunities an education offers anymore than poor kids do.
Are rich kids worth more?
Who said anything about "deserve"? I certainly didn't.
Emma_85 wrote:The world is not just, so rich kids do have it better, but not that much better.
No, the world is not just. What's more, it's not fair, either. You see, I use the words differently than you do. I use them in the classical sense. To me, there is "justice" when a man gets to keep his own rightfully owned property. When it is taken away from him by force, that is not "just". Now, "fairness" is something completely different, even though most people nowadays tend to confuse "justice" with "fairness", ala John Rawls. Those who understand the distinction sometimes use the weasel words "social justice" instead, as a way of subtly confusing the two. But the fact of the matter is, the world isn't fair, and never will be. And if you attempt to make it fair by force, then you sacrifice justice.
Emma_85 wrote:It is possible to alleviate this injustice, it's easy when everyone sticks together and pays some taxes, so why not do it? Is it not a moral duty to try and fight injustice where every possible? I think that is very important.
Perhaps it would be easy to alleviate this unfairness
, if everybody wanted to, but not everybody does. And maybe it is a moral duty to do so. But, as I said before, I distinguish between moral duties and legal duties. In other words, I believe that there are times when using force to uphold duties is just. These duties I call legal duties. There are other times when it is not just to use force to uphold duties. These duties I call moral duties. You apparently think that all moral duties should also be legal ones. That's why I consider you a compassion fascist. Not only is compassion fascism a really bad idea for practical economic reasons and because it imprudently over-concentrates power in the hands of the government, but it also destroys the true spirit of compassion and charity.
I, Lex Llama, super genius, will one day rule this planet! And then you'll rue the day you messed with me, you damned dirty apes!