You are not logged in to Prodigits. Please
|
@vampboy | |
|
I will use an example of two philosophers to get this discussion started. On one hand, you have Mill who is a utilitarian who developed the harm principle stating that no individual action should be subject to restrain as long as it doesn't harm anyone else, and it is the state's function to promote individual rights and only enforce obligations in such a pursuit which would lead towards contributing the common good. Lord Delvin on the other believes in the notion that society shares morality and it is a very important element. |
||
|
27
Replies
726
Views
0 Favourites
|
||
Page #: 1/3 |  
|
|
|
@vampboy | 5 June 18 |
|
According to Delvin, every society has different sense of morality and it just so happens that in the west much of the morality is derived from Christianity. He believes that this is the case even if Christianity is no longer prevalent
|
||
|
@ogdenz | 5 June 18 |
|
How can you be certain some individual action won't harm someone further down the line or that some immediately harmful action won't be beneficial at a later point?
|
||
|
|
@vampboy | 5 June 18 |
|
According to him if this shared morality is weakened, it would lead to the destruction of society inevitably and as no society wants to see its own destruction, it would avoid enforcing morals that would cause its own destruction, such as treason is punishable as it threatens society's existence irrespective of the moral opinion held by the indivudual. Delvin in a nutshell believes society is entitled to punish any act which if the shared morality dictates it to be ''grossly immoral''
|
||
|
@tranie | 5 June 18 |
|
Would mass immigration by a load of people that are fundamentally opposed to western ethnics be classed as self destruction of society?
|
||
|
|
@vampboy | 5 June 18 |
|
There isn't any certainity, but should that stop legislatures from allowing complete freedom to individuals free from restraint which may also be a sure fire way to tell in the future if the action is inevitably harmful or not?
|
||
|
@bozzalad | 5 June 18 |
|
@ tranie - 5.06.18 - 12:27pm Would mass immigration by a load of people that are fundamentally opposed to western ethnics be classed as self destruction of society? Wilful |
||
|
|
@vampboy | 5 June 18 |
|
Do things we consider and/or know as harmful always lead to bad outcomes in the future?  or does it often bring an irreversible change and a new way of thinking?
|
||
|
@9362 | 5 June 18 |
|
@ tranie - 5.06.18 - 12:27pm Would mass immigration by a load of people that are fundamentally opposed to western ethnics be classed as self destruction of society? Yes, that's why I say Scottish people should not be allowed out of Scotland |
||
|
|
@vampboy | 5 June 18 |
|
If freedom is key, and restraint should not be used against most individual liberty as long as it harms no one, where does this leave children or ''primitive peoples''? Does that mean we can dictate our own moral opinion on children and they can be subject to biased education in schools where they are taught racism? What about self-harm? If I get myself injured through drugs or drinking or driving without a seatbelt, do I not harm others by imposing cost on society's medical service, maybe depriving my dependents of support and the taxman of revenue? Can law on this basis then not prohiibit dangerous activities like mountaineering too then also?
|
||
|
@shadow27 | 5 June 18 |
|
@ vampboy - 5.06.18 - 12:45pm Do things we consider and/or know as harmful always lead to bad outcomes in the future? or does it often bring an irreversible change and a new way of thinking?Reminds me of that quote from Charlie Wilson's War. |
||
|
|
