Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

LukeFromPhilly t1_izwo9gr wrote

Reply to comment by contractualist in Why You Should Be Moral (answering Prichard's dilemma) by contractualist

Ah ok. I think my argument still works if you substitute valuing the same for valuing at all but at least I understand you better now.

1

contractualist OP t1_izwoj1b wrote

Then I still wouldn’t say there is a justification for valuing’s someone freedom at 0, given the status of freedom as an agency creating asset, rather than dependent on personal agency. So any claim that “X is valuable because it’s mine” isn’t justifiable since X’s value doesn’t rely on that persons personal agency.

1

LukeFromPhilly t1_izwq091 wrote

I think saying X's value here is confusing. If I say that I value my neighbors Tesla then the implication is that I want it for myself. If I say that I value my neighbors freedom the implication is that I want my neighbor to have freedom which is actually contrary to the first example.

1

contractualist OP t1_izwscg1 wrote

Well your neighbor in that case already has freedom. Now it’s just about recognition and valuing of freedom. But I wouldn’t argue that people would necessarily want others to have freedom (say non-conscious animals). All I argue is that freedom is equal in one dimension and because it’s not agent relative, must have a universal value in itself.

1

LukeFromPhilly t1_izxfaz7 wrote

Well in that case my critique of what you're saying is entirely based on me misunderstanding you.

However, if all you're saying is that we acknowledge that freedom as value regardless of whose freedom it is, how does that belief lead to any constraints on our own behavior? If we're acknowledging that I may have a reasonable reason not to want other people to have freedom then it would seem my actions aren't necessarily constrained in any way and therefore I don't have to be moral.

1

contractualist OP t1_izxsfa0 wrote

Yep, that’s the next step. Once the value of people’s freedom is recognized, they’ll act according to that value by obeying the term of the social contract, the expression of individuals’ freedom.

1

LukeFromPhilly t1_izxweg4 wrote

But that would seem to imply that I want other people to have freedom which I thought we agreed doesn't follow.

1