"I take it you have no idea what redistribution of wealth means"

I suppose you're right - I'm fifteen, and don't know a lot about politics. I just thought I'd throw in my thoughts.

Freedom does not exist. Collectivism does not exist. Do weak atomic forces exist in absence of strong atomic force. Gravity without magnetism. These are absolute pure abstractions or principles - properties if you will. Each of these abstractions can not be understood without the other. You could say its a yin/yang thang. Fact is they do exist in a harmony - a dynamic equilibrium. This allows atoms, molecules, planets life to exist. Same thing for all these social concepts. They all exist in some balance or imbalance.

All this from a quote from "Wrath of Khan"?

It's all good, you learn something new every day.

@ maintgallant Sent: 04:19 PM

I pretty much agree with you here. I have a few nitpicks that are somewhat relevant to the concept of freedom:

‘gay/lesbian individuals […] 26 states have decided that these individuals cannot have a part in Holy matrimony’
They've decided that they can't have a part in CIVIL matrimony. They already can have a part in HOLY matrimony (in very few churches, but these will perform the ceremony in any state). Of course, state recognition of marriage is important in a state-regulated society, so same-sex couples do have less freedom, and consequently I support their right (which is potentially my right too) to civil marriage. But it's not a religious issue (which I wish the other side would acknowledge more).

‘a really cool hydrogen powered car […] the ice-caps melt.’
I agree with you that climate change is a threat to freedom. But I've never seen an explanation as to how hydrogen-powered cars would help with that. Sure, they'll cut down on smog, but the pollution just moves to the fuel-cell factories or the plants that produce electricity for those factories. It's efficiency that matters; the ‘hybrid’ cars that we have now are entirely gasoline-powered, but they get better mileage because they can capture (and later use) energy from braking, which makes them more efficient.

‘This economic shackel would indeed increase my Freedom.’
You never specified an economic restraint, you just said that you wished that people would do one thing rather than another and that there should be an ‘economic push’ against the status quo. If now you wish that the government would FORCE people to do that (which you never said), then I'm not very likely to agree with you, because I don't trust the government. On the other hand, if the government (which right now supports the oil industry) simply redirected its efforts in less harmful ways, then I would agree with that (although that's not where I would spend most of my political effort), but I don't see that as creating an economic shackle.

‘So I am agreeing with what you have said in your above paragraph, though maybe in a different bent... maybe not.’
While we may have some specific disagreements, you seem to be interpreting ‘freedom’ more or less as I would.

‘Is tricking another person an expression of Freedom, or a condmenation of it?’
A condemnation, I'd say. Yes, an expression too, to some extent; if I want to trick you and I can trick you, then I'm free in that respect. But like the murder example, tricking someone else is much more an assault on that person's own freedom to choose. (Although if you're tricking them to prevent them from interfering with someone else … real-life situations can be complicated.)

@Onar:

‘diplomacy is a model for checks-and-balances in a free society’
Diplomacy is a game that we all choose to play; I would never behave like this in real life. In particular, real life is not a race to gather the most resources, and its goals are usually better served by honest cooperation than by backstabbing.

"You suck"

thank you invictus

I would say the root of all 'evil' is simply limited resources and the conflict of competing self interests.

We each have much to gain by co-operating with each other, but it means at least partly suspending some of our interests in the view of creating a more stable co-operative relationship whereby both parties may benefit. Societies benefit from such mass co-operation but must always deal with exploitative behaviour and individuals have to respect certain laws with the expectation that they will have certain rights respected as well as the promise of mutual gain and the bountiful harvest of such co-operation, elevating them far beyond the life of a hermit.

If I had to define freedom, I wouldn't ask for freedom from such external forces as the weather, or disease. I would say that freedom is classically freedom from the oppressive wills or forces of other people. As long as we are co-operating with other people I would say we cannot be completely free, but we are, for the most part, happy to give up some small amount of freedom in exchange for the higher living standard offered by participating in society.

Ethics and morality I would really say comes from being social creatures. If I lived completely alone I'd say I would have no such thing. They really come into the picture when I have to deal with other people.

As a freedom-lover, I have no objection to voluntary cooperation. In fact, I'm all for it, as I think it's very effective. Yes, we have to compromise, but if I choose to compromise, then that doesn't diminish my freedom. (I do object to coercive cooperation; well, actually, I just object to the coercion.)

There have been a couple shot at Obamanomics and how it is socialism and that what Americans really want is equal oppurtunity.

But lots of poor kids drop out of school because they need to work. If their families had more money they might go to university. How do you solve that problem?

Basically as far redistribution is concerned. I don't think everyone should make the same amount. But if you make a million a year, you can lose some of it to give to the more needy. The poor gain more from the same amount of money. In economics, that is called Marginal Utility.

As far as the "needs of the many" are concerned. Does this mean you would kill an innocent person to save two people? I wouldn't.

how would killing an innocent person save to people?

Its one of those hypothetical things that you do in philosophy. A common example is the runaway train.

The train is loose and is going to hit a stalled van full of people and kill them. You are at the controls and can switch the rails so the train changes directions and hits just one person. Do you do it?

It gets altered by descriptions of relative worth of the people etc.

Wow. A Kantianism vs. Utilitarianism debate AND a Fate vs. Free Will debate all in the same thread. An ethicist's dream. I think I'd like to cover the second point first.
@maintgallant: You seem to be playing with the idea that "Freedom" exists only conceptually and that in reality all we really have is the illusion of freedom. The naturalist position boils down to basically this: we are merely the distinct combination of atoms and molecules and the things we call "thoughts" and "choices" are merely the neurons in our brains firing in response to external stimulus. If this is the case, the point about ethics becomes completely moot. Because, if we cannot choose our actions, then those actions cannot have value placed on them. There are no "good" or "bad" actions without the ability to have acted differently.
On to the second question, presupposing that we CAN and DO choose our actions based on the information available to us, I would like to further explore your understanding of Deontological (or Universal) Ethics and Utilitarian Ethics. While I agree with you that there arise situations where the Kantian and Utilitarian responses to an ethical situation are the same, the two systems are fundamentally different and, at least partially, exclusive from each other. Kantianism relies on the principle of Universalizability for the determination of the "Good", while Utilitarianism relies on "the ends to justify the means". Herein lies the problem, Kantianism denounces the results of the action as having any bearing on morality of the action, while utilitarianism denounces the action as having any bearing on the outcome. Under one, the right thing to do is always X even if the results of X are detrimental to everyone, while under the other the right thing to do might be X or it might be something else, just as long as the results of the action are for the greater good.
No matter which school of thought the moral actor belongs to, he/she must deal with the problem of imperfect information (especially the imperfection of information due to the Problem of Induction), but only one of the ethical decision-making systems is reliant on information of the future, so that one is more directly affected by the lack of information. Action X may cause effect Y, or it may not. So if you are choosing action X because it is the right thing to do regardless of the consequences (Kantianism), then it really doesn't matter if action Y happens, but if you are only doing action X because you believe effect Y to be the moral outcome (Utilitarianism) then it does really matter whether or not effect Y comes about.

@Centurian - There's a better* question, well 2 actually...

Q1. A terrorist is wearing a vest-bomb and has 6 hostages tied to him in the middle of a football field. He need only press a button to detonate the bomb instantly. You have a scope sighted rifle and are an excellent shot. You have his head in your sights. Do you kill one person to save 6?

Q2. There are 6 sick people. One needs a new heart, two need a new lung, 1 needs a new liver and 2 need new kidneys. There is a healthy man who is a tissue match for all 6 people. If you take his organs the 6 others will live. Do you kill one person to save 6?


*better question? YMMV.

but for q2 sometimes its better for the population,hospital care etc if those 6 people did die

@ thymin... great post! I believe we have free will in all of our chioces, but what I've just said is double-speak and has no bearing anyway. Each person always has their choice of action, regardless of the pressures put upon him. (I can run the red light if I choose, but should I? Of course not. The pressure of doing serious harm to myself, others, and the chance of legal retribution stop me. If the appocalypse ever comes and we descend into chaos, I'll rethink my choice.)

I think both Mills and Kant would agree the killing the child in favor of the train is not in the best interest of anybody, and is reprehensible. They both might say this is a simplification of their views, and that the legal system serves as a clarification, a place for public debate of the finer points of conflict. But I have to get back to work, and I'll enjoy hearing your thoughts.

Depends on who the people are, to be honest... here is where I envoke my human tendancy to create exemptions.

‘the moral actor […] must deal with the problem of imperfect information’

This is very important, and I want to sort of bounce it even though I have nothing to say at the moment.

"believe we have free will in all of our chioces, but what I've just said is double-speak and has no bearing anyway. Each person always has their choice of action, regardless of the pressures put upon him. (I can run the red light if I choose, but should I? Of course not. The pressure of doing serious harm to myself, others, and the chance of legal retribution stop me. If the appocalypse ever comes and we descend into chaos, I'll rethink my choice.)"
That's more-or-less what I meant with my diplomacy analogy. You can invade Burgandy first turn, but if you do, you may get jumped by russia immediatley afterwards.

@ Onar... I love Diplomacy!!!

@speaker to aliens
you can make up a hypothetical situation to support any stance, they are thus, useless

"the needs or the many..."
has been used to commit some of the most terrible atrocities in history
consensus is the way to go

Speaker, Q1 - Absolutely. The terrorist signed his own death warrant when he chose to threaten the lives of innocent people.

Q2 - Only if the healthy individual volunteers. The needs of the many may outweigh the needs of the few, but the rights of the individual outweigh all those needs. That is why capitalism can work and still have the needs argument. We are imbude with certain inalienable rights, including the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are in order of precedent, so the healthy man's right to life trumps the needs of the many as he hasn't, unlike the terrorist, committed an attrocity in which he gives up that right. So, barring an action or a statement in which he gives them up, the healthy man's life cannot be forfeit.

Now, if you said a healthy man on death-row about to be put to death, I say take his organs. He committed a crime that put him on death row, so his rights are forfeit as well.

Speaker, I like my question. As Draugnar says in Q1 there is the an element of guilt and in Q2 you assume knowledge and then there is a question of consent.

The train scenairio is just about you.

You can say the train is going to hit a van of orphans but you can push a fat guy in front of it to derail the train, if you prefer.

Sicarius - Normally I would agree with you, but there are problems with concensus, too. Concensus gave you Roe V Wade, and concensus keeps gay persons from legal marriage (even legally living together!) in some states (Homosexual relations is punishable under sodomy laws in Georgia, for instance).

The public is fickle.

All sodomy laws were overturned in Lawrence v. Texas.

Georgia's is still on the books.

Show me, then.

If it is it is in direct defiance of the Supreme Court since the case said sate laws banning sodomy were an invasion of privacy.