THE HARMONIKZ
New Member
I'd argue that freedom is a concept of which we know little about, further I'd postulate that freedom has limits which make the question incomprehensible.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Nemesiah said:Aught3 said:Kant: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
John Stuart Mill and the idea that the only legitimate restriction on freedom is the harm it might cause to others is pretty good.
Yes but are we WISE enough to understand the ramifications of our actions?
For example:
Driving a car seems harmless enough as long as you are sober, not speeding, abiding by the driving regulatory code, obeying traffic signs, etc...
So I'm not harming anyone by driving my car to work, right?
Well, let,´s take it one step further; by using a car by myself I,´m polluting quite alot for just one individual, so maybe I should get on a carpool and try to go to work with at least 4 others so that we can minimize the impact on the environment.
It turns out I was harming the environment, which causes decaeses and sometimes even deaths of the very young or the elderly and many animals; It was not what I intended but In the end I,´m contributing to the harm of others.
Let's take it another step further
By buying a foreign car I,´m depriving my countrymen of jobs and resources to feed their families, I liked the car, it was cheap, gave good mileage (always thinking about the environment) but in the end by buying from a brand produced in my country I could have helped a family in my country have a slightly better life.
I was harming my economy by prefering a cheaper car instead of a localy produced one.
Let' s take it one step further
By using an internal combustion vehicle Im creating a demand for gasoline or some other oil derivate; nowadays there is a war being fought in the middle eats so the USA can steal their oil so I can consume it; thousands of innocents are diying so that people can keep using cars. Today's cars run on blood, not on gas.
So I was harming the world by fueling a war by my driving a car.
So what seem as a harmless enough act had very nasty consequences, Am I really free to drive a car? Can I drive a car and still think of myself as a good person? Do I hava a right to put my oil addiction before the lives of the people from Irak? Do I have Too much freedom In this respect?
Lallapalalable said:How much freedom can we enjoy before it becomes a hazard to others or encroaches on their own equal freedoms?
Jaguar said:Nemesiah said:"Aught3: Kant: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
John Stuart Mill and the idea that the only legitimate restriction on freedom is the harm it might cause to others is pretty good."
Yes but are we WISE enough to understand the ramifications of our actions?
For example:
Driving a car seems harmless enough as long as you are sober, not speeding, abiding by the driving regulatory code, obeying traffic signs, etc...
So I'm not harming anyone by driving my car to work, right?
Well, let,´s take it one step further; by using a car by myself I,´m polluting quite alot for just one individual, so maybe I should get on a carpool and try to go to work with at least 4 others so that we can minimize the impact on the environment.
It turns out I was harming the environment, which causes decaeses and sometimes even deaths of the very young or the elderly and many animals; It was not what I intended but In the end I,´m contributing to the harm of others.
Let's take it another step further
By buying a foreign car I,´m depriving my countrymen of jobs and resources to feed their families, I liked the car, it was cheap, gave good mileage (always thinking about the environment) but in the end by buying from a brand produced in my country I could have helped a family in my country have a slightly better life.
I was harming my economy by prefering a cheaper car instead of a localy produced one.
Let' s take it one step further
By using an internal combustion vehicle Im creating a demand for gasoline or some other oil derivate; nowadays there is a war being fought in the middle eats so the USA can steal their oil so I can consume it; thousands of innocents are diying so that people can keep using cars. Today's cars run on blood, not on gas.
So I was harming the world by fueling a war by my driving a car.
So what seem as a harmless enough act had very nasty consequences, Am I really free to drive a car? Can I drive a car and still think of myself as a good person? Do I hava a right to put my oil addiction before the lives of the people from Irak? Do I have Too much freedom In this respect?
I have received criticism as somewhat of a radical liberalist, but here's my contribution for the League to judge.
There are two main of my behaviour. The 1st one is Total Individual Freedom/Total Individual Responsability. That means we are free to think and act as we please, but in order to avoid tyranny or hypocresy you must take responsability for your actions.
And the 2nd axis is equality. I execise my freedom but I ackowledge you have the same right. That leads me to acknowledge you as an equal and I come to a reasoning that goes like this: I don't want you to harm me, so I'm not going to harm you either; and we both understand that.
I know that sounds a bit utopic, but I do apply it on a daily basis as far as I can. Speaking in realistic terms, it is possible to achieve such a society, but that can only happen through freethinking education.
Now, I quoted Nemesiah because I have bones to pick up with him/her. Your analogy is flawed because it is fatalistic. You are assuming, for example, that a termite does the same damage to a house than an elephant in an otherwise equal escenario.
You could go to the furthest point and say that your existance is taking up the space someone else might need to exist and that would make us all murderers.
Now, I liked the fact that you picked up and environmental issue, because I happen to be a environmental engineer by trade, and I can tell you that if you expect to do something without causing an impact on the world, that's never gonna happen.
You could argue that since animal respiration emits carbon dioxide, we are all killing ourselves for the simple fact of breathing. But that's not true. Harm to life forms and the environment cames also from natural sources. A volcanic eruption causes a great deal of acute pollution, but you can't say volcanoes are destroying the planet because ultimately the environment has ways to deal with such damages, ways to clean and repair itself.
Earthquakes which cause thousands of deaths are natural happenings. Extinction of species are natural happenings as well.
Now, back on the environment. Let's take the example of hybrid cars. I haven't checked the last numbers but I think thay save up to 60-70% in fuel. That sounds great doesn't it? Well, but the thing is that in order to fabricate the electronical compartments it requires minning. And ore minning is one of the contributors of the worst kind of toxic wastes. Does that mean hybrid cars are bad? No, they are a better option than regular cars but they are not perfect because nothing in world is perfect.
When it comes to the environment, we need to understand that no matter what we do, we affect it. The ethical thing to do is look for alternative ways of doing things that result in less damage, on one hand, and try to restore the loss, on the other.
Finally, in order for the progression of consequenses you wrote to happen, you are not considering magnitude. The simple chain of logical events doesn't sustain itself, in this case, because you are escalating magnitudes in the results but not on the causes.
Economy is build so it can absorb the damage made by some people who chose to buy a foreign car, for example, the same way the environment has a certain level of tolerance to impacts. You buy the cheap foreign car, for example, and carpool so the damage to the national economy is lessed: instead of you and your buddies buying four cheap foreing car, you buy just one. You can argue that will damage the other contry's economy. But you are not considering that cheap car is sold in more countries, and that the price of products is designed to get a profit even without selling all the items. You also forget to consider that your own country may make cheap cars to sell in other countries to compensate for the cheap ones you bought from a foreigner.
As you can see, things get too complicated and no one can really see all the tangents and possible outcomes. But you can't assume a fatalistic possition doing nothing because everything will bring an ill consequence because that's... well, that is just cowardice, and that doesn't help anyone.
That is my point all along. You act freely, but take responsabilty for what you do. If your free will resulted in a third party's damage, then you must do something to compensate.
- The Jaguar
Jaguar said:I have received criticism as somewhat of a radical liberalist, but here's my contribution for the League to judge.
There are two main of my behaviour. The 1st one is Total Individual Freedom/Total Individual Responsability. That means we are free to think and act as we please, but in order to avoid tyranny or hypocresy you must take responsability for your actions.
And the 2nd axis is equality. I execise my freedom but I ackowledge you have the same right. That leads me to acknowledge you as an equal and I come to a reasoning that goes like this: I don't want you to harm me, so I'm not going to harm you either; and we both understand that.
I know that sounds a bit utopic, but I do apply it on a daily basis as far as I can. Speaking in realistic terms, it is possible to achieve such a society, but that can only happen through freethinking education.
Jaguar said:Now, I quoted Nemesiah because I have bones to pick up with him/her. Your analogy is flawed because it is fatalistic. You are assuming, for example, that a termite does the same damage to a house than an elephant in an otherwise equal escenario.
Jaguar said:You could go to the furthest point and say that your existance is taking up the space someone else might need to exist and that would make us all murderers.
Jaguar said:Now, I liked the fact that you picked up and environmental issue, because I happen to be a environmental engineer by trade, and I can tell you that if you expect to do something without causing an impact on the world, that's never gonna happen.
Jaguar said:You could argue that since animal respiration emits carbon dioxide, we are all killing ourselves for the simple fact of breathing. But that's not true. Harm to life forms and the environment cames also from natural sources. A volcanic eruption causes a great deal of acute pollution, but you can't say volcanoes are destroying the planet because ultimately the environment has ways to deal with such damages, ways to clean and repair itself.
Jaguar said:Earthquakes which cause thousands of deaths are natural happenings. Extinction of species are natural happenings as well.
Jaguar said:Now, back on the environment. Let's take the example of hybrid cars. I haven't checked the last numbers but I think thay save up to 60-70% in fuel. That sounds great doesn't it? Well, but the thing is that in order to fabricate the electronical compartments it requires minning. And ore minning is one of the contributors of the worst kind of toxic wastes. Does that mean hybrid cars are bad? No, they are a better option than regular cars but they are not perfect because nothing in world is perfect.
Jaguar said:When it comes to the environment, we need to understand that no matter what we do, we affect it. The ethical thing to do is look for alternative ways of doing things that result in less damage, on one hand, and try to restore the loss, on the other.
Jaguar said:Finally, in order for the progression of consequenses you wrote to happen, you are not considering magnitude. The simple chain of logical events doesn't sustain itself, in this case, because you are escalating magnitudes in the results but not on the causes.
Jaguar said:Economy is build so it can absorb the damage made by some people who chose to buy a foreign car, for example, the same way the environment has a certain level of tolerance to impacts. You buy the cheap foreign car, for example, and carpool so the damage to the national economy is lessed: instead of you and your buddies buying four cheap foreing car, you buy just one. You can argue that will damage the other contry's economy. But you are not considering that cheap car is sold in more countries, and that the price of products is designed to get a profit even without selling all the items. You also forget to consider that your own country may make cheap cars to sell in other countries to compensate for the cheap ones you bought from a foreigner.
Jaguar said:As you can see, things get too complicated and no one can really see all the tangents and possible outcomes. But you can't assume a fatalistic possition doing nothing because everything will bring an ill consequence because that's... well, that is just cowardice, and that doesn't help anyone.
Jaguar said:That is my point all along. You act freely, but take responsabilty for what you do. If your free will resulted in a third party's damage, then you must do something to compensate.