Roger Donway on the impracticality of impracticality

[Starbuckle]

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/017943.html

According to an essay by Roger Donway reprinted at amnation.com, "Liberty is not the freedom of action that a people is morally obligated to put up with; it is the freedom of action that is left over after a people has put a stop to all the actions it considers intolerable."

I am not sure what this means. Does it mean that I have full liberty no matter how circumscribed my freedom of action may be in a particular society? That I have practically only the liberty that I have in practical fact is only a truism. If I am locked in a cage and can walk around that cage at will, I have all the liberty to walk around the cage that I could possibly wish.

Is there no justified moral claim to both the liberty that we're allowed to exercise AND the liberty that we aren't allowed to exercise but SHOULD be allowed to exercise in a society?

My "should" implies that there is such a moral claim. As soon as the majority imposes some atrocious ban on the minority in the name of "living together"--outlawing gay sex or whatever--Donway's argument becomes very unclear and problematic indeed. What is the status then of moral claims to greater liberty if "rights" can be scare-quoted into mythological status? What I call my political rights are nothing but a specific kind of justified moral claim in a social context--a claim against intereference from others.

Donway seems to be confusing protection of rights with rights themselves. I can have a justified moral claim to be left alone with respect to a certain abhorred activity that no one in a society respects. That doesn't mean that my justified moral claim--my right--doesn't exist. It just means that it's being violated. And how can the violation be cured, as it often has been by changes in society in various eras, unless sufficient numbers of people come to recognize the moral problem? The context in which one is trying to persuade persons to respect rights that they don't currently even recognize is certainly relevant. The lost liberty cannot be regained by talking about "axioms" is also evident. But there must be somebody who comes along and says, perhaps very "impractically": "This is WRONG! STOP!"

Perhaps if the line of reasoning were better elaborated it would make more sense, but it seems to me that Donway is blending sense and nonsense in this essay in trying to play up practical context but downplay morality and rights. The reliance on Burke doesn't exactly allay concerns about where Donway would go with this line of thought. Why does Donway seem to regard concern with rights and concern with practical context as somehow antithetical?

Moral understanding does evolve over time. One can't judge persons in every society and every era in exactly the same way given vast differences in circumstances and general states of knowledge. But, come on. Thomas Jefferson KNEW that slavery was evil. You can't read his various comments about slavery and not know that he knew that. How did he know? Because certain Locke-inspired moral conceptions nagged at him, having to do with human nature and rights and freedom and the like. Cf. the Declaration of Independence.

Edited November 21, 2010 by Starbuckle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Starbuckle,

I haven't gone into this more than a skim, but I believe Donway is simply (and implicitly):

1. Acknowledging that bullying is part of the temptations in human nature, and

2. Claiming there are no duties to be free.

Maybe I'll look at this a little later in more depth, since I happen to believe that freedom comes with responsibility.

If people of bad character achieve freedom, they always form a gang and freedom goes out the window. So to preserve freedom, we need to focus on our own individual character--and encourage others to do the same--as part of the mix.

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

"Liberty is not the freedom of action that a people is morally obligated to put up with; it is the freedom of action that is left over after a people has put a stop to all the actions it considers intolerable."

This is the sort of silly subjectivist statement you'd expect from a smart-ass freshman philosophy student. Not an adult.

Freedom is action without the initiation of force, whether as victim or instigator. We do not limit, for example, the freedom of people to rob others. There is no such "freedom."

[BaalChatzaf]

Freedom is action without the initiation of force, whether as victim or instigator. We do not limit, for example, the freedom of people to rob others. There is no such "freedom."

Freedom is the absence of a barrier or stymie. Permission is different.

ruveyn

[sjw]

"Liberty is not the freedom of action that a people is morally obligated to put up with; it is the freedom of action that is left over after a people has put a stop to all the actions it considers intolerable."

This is the sort of silly subjectivist statement you'd expect from a smart-ass freshman philosophy student. Not an adult.

That about sums it up. But I have to say that Rand could be just as bad. Read her essay on intellectual property, particularly the part where she essentially says "too bad" to the poor second inventor. Rand set the precedent here for being unprincipled about rights; Donway has just taken her method to the extreme.

Shayne

[kiaer.ts]

Freedom is action without the initiation of force, whether as victim or instigator. We do not limit, for example, the freedom of people to rob others. There is no such "freedom."

Freedom is the absence of a barrier or stymie. Permission is different.

ruveyn

Once again, Bob, you fall for conventional and rather naive nonsense. If freedom is simply doing whatever you want then freedoms conflict and you are not truly free if you cannot murder whom you like at will. For someone who believes that equations must be balanced, how can you believe this utter nonsense? Political freedom defined as action without coercion either you coercing others, or them coercing you, is a perfectly well defined and useful concept compatible with the concept of freedom enshrined in the constitution. Mine is a moral concept. Yours reduces men to mindless moving objects that aren't free because they run into physical barriers.

[Starbuckle]

I don't know what MSK is responding to.

[Brant Gaede]

I happen to believe that freedom comes with responsibility.

Now there's a loaded statement--and a bromide.

--Brant

Edited November 22, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[BaalChatzaf]

Mine is a moral concept. Yours reduces men to mindless moving objects that aren't free because they run into physical barriers.

No one with a working brain is mindless.

And we are objects and processes. All that exists is physical.

And don't be so upity about your "moral concepts". Morality is opinion. Not one moral principle flows from the physical laws of the cosmos. Nature provides us with Is. We in our conceits produce the Oughts.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited November 22, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't know what MSK is responding to.

Starbuckle,

On rereading that the way I did it, I don't either.

I will try to make that more intelligible later today.

I happen to believe that freedom comes with responsibility.

Now there's a loaded statement--and a bromide.

Brant,

I agree that does need to be qualified correctly.

The fact is that if we do not look after humans in a weakened and/or helpless state from good character, there will always be power-mongers around to hold up weak and/or helpless folks who are neglected and screwed up and say that the government has to look after them since human beings cannot be trusted to do that without coercion.

People of good character, with the present neurons humans have, look after these folks from a sense of empathy and decency.

And don't be so upity about your "moral concepts". Morality is opinion. Not one moral principle flows from the physical laws of the cosmos. Nature provides us with Is. We in our conceits produce the Oughts.

Bob,

You always pretend that mankind is not part of nature. I don't know why.

Morality flows from the physical laws and conditions that govern human beings--i.e., extra-human reality plus human nature.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

You always pretend that mankind is not part of nature. I don't know why.

Morality flows from the physical laws and conditions that govern human beings--i.e., extra-human reality plus human nature.

Michael

You have just denied Free Will. Congratulations.

Some humans have chosen to moral. It is not a physical necessity. There is nothing in physical laws that implies a particular moral code. All moral codes are the result of choice. Morality is not a logical necessity, it is a happenstance.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

And don't be so upity about your "moral concepts". Morality is opinion. Not one moral principle flows from the physical laws of the cosmos. Nature provides us with Is. We in our conceits produce the Oughts.

Ba'al Chatzaf

So speaks a citizen of a nation founded upon "Oughts".

Beats me how you can forget.

Tony (also uppity)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You have just denied Free Will. Congratulations.

Bob,

I certainly did not.

Free will is part of man's nature.

Maybe man has no free will over what his nature is, but nothing else does either.

Stuff exists and stuff happens.

Man certainly has free will over how he uses that nature.

Once again, I see your argument as claiming that only the bottom exists for an enclosed shape, and there can be no top, or vice-versa. Simple identification from observation shows you that all enclosed shapes have both top and bottom.

Man has a specific nature and he has free will. I have always wondered what is so difficult about that to understand. Yet oodles of people do not understand it.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

You have just denied Free Will. Congratulations.

Bob,

I certainly did not.

Free will is part of man's nature.

Maybe man has no free will over what his nature is, but nothing else does either.

Stuff exists and stuff happens.

Man certainly has free will over how he uses that nature.

Once again, I see your argument as claiming that only the bottom exists for an enclosed shape, and there can be no top, or vice-versa. Simple identification from observation shows you that all enclosed shapes have both top and bottom.

Man has a specific nature and he has free will. I have always wondered what is so difficult about that to understand. Yet oodles of people do not understand it.

Michael

Morality is contingent, not necessary. If we were bound to be moral (according some favored code) then the morality would be determined and free will would not be operative.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[kiaer.ts]

And don't be so upity about your "moral concepts". Morality is opinion.

Do you not see the irony in your opinion morally criticizing me for having an opinion about morality? You contradict yourself at every turn.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Morality is contingent, not necessary.

Bob,

Some values are contingent and some are not. Morality is a code of which values to pursue. If you pursue poison as your nutrition, you will not pursue anything for long.

The "contingency" for that--in terms of effect--is the nature of the poison, not the subjectivity of the person. I don't call that a contingency in the same manner as I call a passing whim a contingency. And even so, the person had to make a choice as to whether to eat the poison or not--and use a code of values of some sort in making that choice.

So morality as a frame of guidance is necessary to a volitional consciousness. It's part of how our minds operate. We can no more become amoral than we can become a-conceptual or a-emotional (in fact and in mental operation, not in opinion). Some of the kinds of values one chooses to pursue within any given moral code are optional and some are not--because reality sets the conditions for the non-optional values. This goes for all religions and philosophy, and the biggest, most irrational, religion of all (when the fundies attack): science.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Morality is contingent, not necessary.

Bob,

Some values are contingent and some are not. Morality is a code of which values to pursue. If you pursue poison as your nutrition, you will not pursue anything for long.

The "contingency" for that--in terms of effect--is the nature of the poison, not the subjectivity of the person. I don't call that a contingency in the same manner as I call a passing whim a contingency. And even so, the person had to make a choice as to whether to eat the poison or not--and use a code of values of some sort in making that choice.

So morality as a frame of guidance is necessary to a volitional consciousness. It's part of how our minds operate. We can no more become amoral than we can become a-conceptual or a-emotional (in fact and in mental operation, not in opinion). Some of the kinds of values one chooses to pursue within any given moral code are optional and some are not--because reality sets the conditions for the non-optional values. This goes for all religions and philosophy, and the biggest, most irrational, religion of all (when the fundies attack): science.

Michael

No particular moral code is "preferred" by nature. That is no particular moral code flows logically from physical laws. All moral codes are contingent. They are choses by this group of humans or that group of humans. About the only "wired in" behavior of humans I can see is the inclination to take care of one's own young and even that is not invariant. Some mothers abuse, kill or neglect their issue. A species which does not develop some kind of protection modality for their issue will soon become extinct. But taking care of one's babies is not so much moral as it is wired in as it is in sufficient number of cases to insure our continuation as a species.

I have yet to see a -moral fact- (not to be confused with a fact about this moral code or that moral code).

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

No particular moral code is "preferred" by nature. That is no particular moral code flows logically from physical laws.

Bob,

Check your own premises. See below.

Some mothers abuse, kill or neglect their issue. A species which does not develop some kind of protection modality for their issue will soon become extinct.

Heh.

In other words, they cannot choose to "abuse, kill or neglect their issue" and still choose to avoid extinction. That's reality-based morality. There is no moral code in societies where people destroy their reproduction. That's because there are no such societies. Reality kills them off.

But taking care of one's babies is not so much moral as it is wired in as it is in sufficient number of cases to insure our continuation as a species.

Sayin' it ain't so doesn't make it not so. Taking care of the young does involve morality.

I have yet to see a -moral fact- (not to be confused with a fact about this moral code or that moral code).

I don't know if you saw it, but you sure mentioned it.

Michael