Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

keagor t1_iueqdnk wrote

Valuing freedom above all else can also lead to morally repulsive outcomes such as one’s freedom to explore their love of killing. There are some insightful points made by this author but I think I am left with more confusion about which value trumps the other and am not convinced either way.

25

Hydraxxus t1_iuercq2 wrote

> Valuing freedom above all else can also lead to morally repulsive outcomes such as one’s freedom to explore their love of killing.

The common argument against this is that your freedom to punch the air end where my face begins. A society that would allow such actions, e.g. one to pursue their love of killing, would not truly be a free society at all.

11

octonus t1_iuf4jtx wrote

> your freedom to punch the air end where my face begins

That standard falls apart when you realize that very few actions (certainly none of the ones we care about) have no effect on others. Whether it is talking with someone, playing multiplayer games, or even buying groceries at the store -> all of those can have meaningful effects (positive and negative) on others.

Saying that you are free to do things that have no effect on anything or anyone is irrelevant, since no one cares about those actions. In most cases, freedom refers to the right to do things that might be harmful/objectionable to someone else.

26

contractualist OP t1_iuesga7 wrote

I should have linked this article in the post, but I address it here.

Basically, since freedom is the foundation of morality, and others have freedom, the only way to create a moral system is through a social contract. The contract respects the freedom of others as it would include principles that cannot be reasonably rejected by free people.

So one's freedom to kill isn't moral, not because of the utility consequences, but because it doesn't respect another freedom by failing to abide by the social contract.

8