The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Religion & Culture / Christian Fools
|Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini||Date: 10/1/2012 5:36 PM|
|Author: Frydaze1||Number: 183094 of 198322|
She used to post at Atheists all the time.
I'm familiar with, and have great respect for, her writings.
"Origins of Morality"
Interesting. What she described there is Libertarianism in its purest form. With ovrer 300 posts, I don't expect I'll get through it all today. But I'm sure someone else mentioned that already. I'm interested to see where that goes.
The problem with what she stated is that it doesn't actually work that way. They're awesome ideals. I'd even happily agree to them as morality as its finest. But I believe it fails some of the test of "universal morality" because I can already find a gaping hole in it: children.
Allowing a two year old to behave with complete autonomy would be morally indefensible. Se we already have to write in some exceptions.
Additionally, this phrase:
b) No individual can be compelled into a transaction that goes against their interests
Who gets to define what their interests are? Now we're back into judgements.
Don't get me wrong. I like it. I'm still a libertarian at heart. And it definitely comes closest to my version of morality. But I don't know that I could honestly say it's universal.
But I'll keep reading the thread. I'm sure I haven't said anything here that someone else didn't already bring up. I look forward to reading the discussion.
|Copyright 1996-2016 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|