Moral Minimalism

[Agammamon]

How about we boil morals down to a single concept: The right of consent.

The premise is that I have the right to do whatever I want with anyone/s who consents.

I wanna take a welding torch and draw pretty pictures on my skin? Go ahead.

Can I take a welding torch and draw pretty pictures on your skin? Only if you decide that's ok with you.

I think this sort of thing covers the basics like murder, theft, rape.

The difficulty comes in deciding what requires consent. Do I get to run around naked? Depends on whether or not I need the consent of passerby.

As for all of the other little stuff would come down to social convention (like it tends to do now).

[Keneke]

Do what you will, that it harms none? How Wiccan of you.

To borrow from another thread, do you agree with pre-emptive strikes on rogue nations? How much of an imminent threat must they pose before we are allowed to act?

[Bluefire]

That is really _political_ minimalism.

The question of what you have a right to do in a social context is political.

Morals/Ethics covers much more, eg what is _right_ to do.

Of course, what you consider a person _has_ a right to do, in some way rests on a view of what _is_ right to do.

But what do you say for the possibility of, say, some not being willing to consent to you doing what ou want (shopping, whatever) with your own hard earned cash? I don't think the consent principle by itself can be complete.

You need some sort of arbitration principle where these consents collide (eg. like property rights).

[Gulliamo]

The difficulty in answering this lies with who has to pay for the consequences of each others actions. If you choose to weld pictures into your skin-> then you have to go to the hospital-> which in turn raises my health insurance cost-> causing me to vote against the legality of skin blow torching.

If you want to torch yourself go for it. If there is a chance that I'll have to pay for your stupidity then I have a problem.

[Agammamon]

Its an extreme example to be sure (honest, I have no desire to torch either myself or anyone else) but with that sort of reasoning we would need to outlaw smoking, drinking, non-monogamous sexual relations, make people wear jackets when its cold outside, drop the speed limit to around 15 mph.

As for what you have the right to do and what it is right to do this setup delineates the minimums of what it is wrong to do, it doesn't really say anything about what is right. Even under our existing system you generally aren't forced to do what is right. There are no laws forcing you to give to charity but there are laws prohibiting littering.

There definitely would still need to be a court system for arbitration or confirmation of consent and to deal with people who violate the principle.

As for the shopping mall example there would probably need to be some sort of pre-existing assumption that allows free passage in public areas. Though it gets kind of tricky if the shop owner decides no to consent to selling to you.

And this setup is a bit more liberal than the Wiccan commandment. Harm is allowed as long as all involved parties enter into an agreement with full awareness.

I agree in principle with pre-emptive strikes but don't believe that our last one was justified. As for how much of a threat, perhaps North Korea. Having openly declared their intentions to create WMD and sell to whoever wants to buy it, they are and have been a much more imminent threat than Iraq has ever been. I'd like to not go on with this particular subject as its a bit off-topic for this thread. Though it does illustrate a particular case where the ROC can be superseded by survival considerations.

[Gulliamo]

Originally posted by Agammamon
Its an extreme example to be sure (honest, I have no desire to torch either myself or anyone else) but with that sort of reasoning we would need to outlaw smoking, drinking, non-monogamous sexual relations, make people wear jackets when its cold outside, drop the speed limit to around 15 mph.


Hmmm. Very good point. I may have to rethink my stance.

How would you suggest we balance personal freedom with social consciousness?

[Dancing David]

Verra verra nice

Do What Tou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law
(between consenting adults and given competency to decide)
Love Is The Law, Love Under Will

(some restrictions may apply not legal in all sates)

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Agammamon
How about we boil morals down to a single concept: The right of consent.
I prefer the Bill and Ted approach: Be excellent to each other, and party on dudes!

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Agammamon
How about we boil morals down to a single concept: The right of consent.
Because that's not adequate.

The Golden Rule is as minimal as you can get.

[Agammamon]

What if someone doesn't want you to do unto them as you would do unto yourself? There are things that I would not want done to me that I may be perfectly willing to do for/to another should they desire them. The Golde Rule seems like a good thing to layer over the ROC but I would say it isn't as minimal.

Balancing personal freedom vs social responsibilities would seem to be a matter of deciding where consent is and is not required. Not an insurmountable problem since most of our basic laws seem to provide answers to this anyway.

The more I think about the more I realize that this won't provide an eternal/unchanging code of conduct. The very question of who can/has to consent can vary between generations and locales, meaning that things permissable in one area may be effectively (if not explicitly) forbidden elsewhere just by the simple matter of making you get everyone's consent before acting.

An example may be sex in public. One place may allow it under the assumption that the only people that need consent are the ones actively involved. Another place may effectivley forbid it by insisting that the passerby need consent to view it.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Agammamon
What if someone doesn't want you to do unto them as you would do unto yourself?

What Golden Rule are you using? The one I'm acquainted with implies that I should "do unto you" as you would prefer; that may or may not be what I would prefer for you to "do unto me".

And no, kiddies, I'm not referring to sex. Pay attention, please. :D

Finally the Golden Rule -- he who has the gold makes the rules -- is just a corollary of the actual "rule"; Might Makes Right.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Agammamon
What if someone doesn't want you to do unto them as you would do unto yourself?
(sigh) This is the question about maschoists again. If masochists want to be hit, shouldn't they go around hitting other people?

Of course not, because there something more important than being hit that masochists want. They want their desires to be respected. Hence they should respect other people's desires. Consequently we arrive at a situation where the maschoist gets hit (because that is what he wants) and where he does not hit other people (because that is not what they want).

The problem is in identifying what it is you actually want.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Yahzi

(sigh) This is the question about maschoists again. If masochists want to be hit, shouldn't they go around hitting other people?

Of course not, because there something more important than being hit that masochists want. They want their desires to be respected. Hence they should respect other people's desires. Consequently we arrive at a situation where the maschoist gets hit (because that is what he wants) and where he does not hit other people (because that is not what they want).


So why doesn't the Golden Rule say "Do Unto Others as They Would Have You Do Unto Them"?

In fact, this is _not_ the purpose of the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule is supposed to be a guideline of how to act _without_ having to refer to others. The Golden Rule gives you that answer without having to ask someone. But then, you get back to the masochist problem.

What's wrong with "Don't do unto others what you would not have them do unto you"?