Oh, then by whom, by virtue of their existence, are they rightfully owned or to whom are they rightfully indebted? — Tzeentch

Unsurprising that someone who has a Thomas Sowell quote in their biography jumps on the opportunity to transform a metaphysical fact into an issue of property rights. When all you have is a hammer...

Humans are socially natal beings, born into a network of societal ties, absorb and are molded by the customs, mores, laws, languages, institutional arrangements, socio-political structures. Let's see how far you would have gotten in life without the social absorption of language acquisition. Let's see how radically different as a person you would be if you were born in a peasant barn in 1520 France.

None of which, at least initially, a result of his voluntary choice. — Tzeentch

Oh look moral voluntarism...that's just an internet philosophy

And you are just an internet philsopher. Your point?

Look one post above that, champ

None of which, at least initially, a result of his voluntary choice. — Tzeentch

But this is senseless. A 'voluntary choice' can only be made by an agent which can rationally assess options which are available to them, on the basis of motivations, desires, wants, etc. You think people pop-out ready to do that? That's more Cinderella-world stuff.

"Man is born free" is one of those grand sounding phrases that sounds immediately stupid as soon as anyone actually says it out loud.

Yes, you would like to make the claim that individuals owe their existence to the societies they are born into, forgetting the fact that man doesn't choose what society he is born into, nor does he choose to exist at all. I see no reason why this situation would forfeit his essential freedom, which can only be a result of voluntary choice, or such is my view.

This is the 'individualist' philosophy: you tether 'freedom' to a standard that cannot conceivably exist, and then whine about how everything is oppressing you because the only thing able to meet that standard of 'freedom' would be literal nonexistence. Hence this rubbish, which is this logic pushed to its natural conclusion:

nor does he choose to exist at all. — Tzeentch

This is metaphysical rubbish in the worst sense of the term. It's a 'philosophy' designed for no one who exists on this Earth. Philosophical LARPing.

For one, the State owns your body, literally. — baker

Morally that is certainly not the case, assuming we can agree on such basic things as the right to bodily integrity.

If such is the case in practice, then I hope we can also agree that it is morally reprehensible and such situations should have been done away with in 1863, which is already several millenia too late.

Metaphysical rubbish, for which you have no proper answer?

Man, at the very least initially, does not choose to exist. That much is a fact, and no amount of tirading will change that.

Man, at the very least initially, does not choose to exist. — Tzeentch

This is a meaningless statement. A grammar mistake elevated to metaphysical significance.

"A fish did not choose to be a tree" makes as much sense.

I see no reason why this situation would forfeit his essential freedom, which can only be a result of voluntary choice, or such is my view — Tzeentch

If voluntary choice is the one true expression of freedom irrespective of socially and situational context, then we must admire the conditions of Robinson Crusoe. Shipwrecked on a deserted island, sure, but every action is done of his own will. What freedom!

...but pretty much any human is born into webs of social, political and even ecological relations which pretty much everything around it, webs upon which they are dependent upon for their very existence.
— StreetlightX

None of which, at least initially, a result of his voluntary choice.

Therefore I believe none of these to hold any moral claim to him. — Tzeentch

That's pretty radical; I'd call myself an individualist but I'm not really with you here.

If you have good parents, for instance, who raise you right are you not duty-bound to them? If your parents provided you with a great upbringing and did everything for you are you really going to tell me that you have no moral duty to them unless you voluntarily choose it?

I call myself an individualist because I fundamentally prefer to deal with individuals rather than groups or ideologies. I believe that the individual is the fundamental unit, and that each individual contains multitudes and near infinite complexity. The individual is not to be fundamentally reduced to a member of a class or a race or religion. That's my individualism - it's not the view that everyone is atomistic and has this bird's eye view over society that allows them to pick and choose their moral duties.

If you have good parents, for instance, who raise you right are you not duty-bound to them? If your parents provided you with a great upbringing and did everything for you are you really going to tell me that you have no moral duty to them unless you voluntarily choose it? — BitconnectCarlos

One cannot force conditions on someone and then tell them what they expect in return.

On the other hand, one would assume that sometime during one's lifetime one's interactions with one's parents become conscious and voluntary, and perhaps on that basis a moral duty can develop.

What would you say about a single parent who was mid-way through feeding their infant and then decided to "opt out" of this arrangement? Are people free to opt in and out of all social relations as they see fit?

Assuming the decision to have a child was conscious and voluntary, then a moral duty is accepted.

But can't you opt out of it? What if I voluntarily choose to abandon that because I want to do something else right now? It's my free choice after all.

This is metaphysical rubbish in the worst sense of the term. It's a 'philosophy' designed for no one who exists on this Earth. Philosophical LARPing. — StreetlightX

Stealing this burn. :lol: :up:

NOS, I may have missed it, but did you give some kind of definition? This is interesting but I can't get a firm grip on the concept. What are we discussing? Is individualism a value, attitude, belief, social policy, practice or what?

I'm not sure of the topic, but it seems that individualism is likely contrasted with the morally imperative global-co-operation in order to solve worldwide climate problems, resource management problems, biodiversity threats, etc. Whatever the evils of that co-operation might be, surely they can't be any worse that not so co-operating.

I wish it were just rhetoric. But these people really think life is a video-game where you're parachuted in, fully-formed, and you go around making 'yes-no' choices until you die. And the only metric of 'freedom' then becomes 'dId I VoLuNTaRiLiY ChOsEe?'. It's a metaphysics of and for monkeys.

Even a moment's reflection is going to reveal to anyone with half a brain that its our existential lot to be dependent, in ways almost never of our own choosing, to things, people, environments, and systems around us which enbale (as much as constrain) any exercise of freedom. Yet these morons model freedom on a limit-case scenario that is so abstract that it converges, in last analysis, to non-existence as freedom's ultimate expression (if you don't exist, you're totally free!). These people need to go outside and stop modeling existence on Dungeons and Dragons.

Yes, you would like to make the claim that individuals owe their existence to the societies they are born into, forgetting the fact that man doesn't choose what society he is born into, nor does he choose to exist at all. I see no reason why this situation would forfeit his essential freedom, which can only be a result of voluntary choice, or such is my view. — Tzeentch

The choices we make are largely shaped by the culture and environment we develop in, or at least the way we rationalize our choices. It’s as though you’re claiming that we have the freedom to choose the way we choose.

Is individualism a value, attitude, belief, social policy, practice or what? — bert1

A moral framework that puts personal liberty on a pedestal, rationalizing selfish and in many cases self-defeating choices.

But can't you opt out of it? What if I voluntarily choose to abandon that because I want to do something else right now? It's my free choice after all. — BitconnectCarlos

If one could simply opt out, then there wouldn't be much point to calling something a moral duty.

The choices we make are largely shaped by the culture and environment we develop in, or at least the way we rationalize our choices. It’s as though you’re claiming that we choose the way we choose. — praxis

Our world views are, at least initially, largely based on the beliefs and opinions of others. That is an obstacle to freedom and one's ability to make conscious, voluntary decisions.

It's a metaphysics of and for monkeys. — StreetlightX

I'll take a monkey over a tyrant any day. :kiss:

Our world views are, at least initially, largely based on the beliefs and opinions of others. That is an obstacle to freedom and one's ability to make conscious, voluntary decisions. — Tzeentch

I don’t think that any of us knows what it would be like to somehow erase all our conditioning and achieve a kind of moral blank-slate, if a ‘moral blank-slate’ makes any sense. Would such a way of being value liberty as much as you appear to?

I don’t think that any of us knows what it would be like to somehow erase all our conditioning and achieve a kind of moral blank-slate, if a ‘moral blank-slate’ makes any sense. Would such a way of being value liberty as much as you appear to? — praxis

I don't think the result would necessarily be a moral blank state, as you put it. There are still the self, reason and the laws of nature that can provide a basis for personal morality. And whether one values liberty or not, it would be the product of this process. Intellectual liberty at least, which in the modern world is perhaps the most under pressure.

I'll take a monkey over a tyrant any day. :kiss: — Tzeentch

The tyranny of existence, apparently.

Even a moment's reflection is going to reveal to anyone with half a brain that its our existential lot to be dependent, in ways almost never of our own choosing, to things, people, environments, and systems around us which enbale (as much as constrain) any exercise of freedom. Yet these morons model freedom on a limit-case scenario that is so abstract that it converges, in last analysis, to non-existence as freedom's ultimate expression (if you don't exist, you're totally free!). These people need to go outside and stop modeling existence on Dungeons and Dragons. — StreetlightX

Just curious, and I'm not looking for an argument or a serious discussion here but I am curious: In a capitalist society, is financial independence a morally acceptable goal for an adult in your view? What do you think about an adult striving to go from financial dependence to financial independence?

Your quibbles don't counter my point in response to NOS4A2 in the least: individualistic populist led-countries have performed much worse in response to Covid-19 than collectivistic social welfare led-countries.

↪180 Proof I wish it were just rhetoric. But these people really think life is a video-game where you're parachuted in, fully-formed, and you go around making 'yes-no' choices until you die. And the only metric of 'freedom' then becomes 'dId I VoLuNTaRiLiY ChOsEe?'. It's a metaphysics of and for monkeys.

Even a moment's reflection is going to reveal to anyone with half a brain that its our existential lot to be dependent, in ways almost never of our own choosing, to things, people, environments, and systems around us which en[ab]le (as much as constrain) any exercise of freedom. Yet these morons model freedom on a limit-case scenario that is so abstract that it converges, in last analysis, to non-existence as freedom's ultimate expression (if you don't exist, you're totally free!). These people need to go outside and stop modeling existence on Dungeons and Dragons. — StreetlightX

:clap: :100:

@NOS4A2 :point: roll save vs SLX's beatdown :sweat:

It’s easy to get lost in the exchange, because there is no mention of freedom to do what, or from what. What’s the point of talking about freedom without the context about doing things, how can you talk about what’s desirable? I checked Tzeentch‘s previous posts from page 1 and its repeating the same slogan over and over again about freedom. He’s just obsessed with some arbitrary abstract idea of freedom rather than freedom in the context of worrying about actual problems faced by people.