No, it is not. The natural condition has nothing to do with those. That quibble is a tangent. My claim that humans are naturally free was simply a response to your claim that that they are "naturally" subject to political constraints. That question has no bearing on the argument of the OP.
A conclusion is rational if it follows from true premises. An action is rational if it has a plausible chance of accomplishing a desired end; it is moral if it is permitted by a sound moral theory.
I'll take your word for it. It's been a while since I read Strauss.This discussion and another on Burke led me to reread Strauss’s “Natural Right and Man”. Yesterday I found the following statements: . . .
No, that is NOT (and was not) the argument, which I've given in this thread at least twice. Constraints must be justified, not because they are not natural (which is actually quite irrelevant), but because they inhibit the ability of agents to maximize their good, which is contrary to the moral axiom which holds that the aim of moral theory is to generate rules which enable all agents in a moral field to maximize their welfare. To the extent an agent's actions are constrained by other agents, means and opportunities to improve his welfare are denied to him. Since all agents have equal moral status, any means of improving the welfare of a given agent must satisfy the Pareto criterion, i.e., it may not make another agent worse off. Hence the only constraints permitted are those which enforce that criterion (which is equivalent to securing everyone's rights).Er, no. You claim that human beings are born free, that this is the natural condition of all humans, and so any constraints on them must be justified by reason and morality. Reason and morality must take this as the natural starting point from which any "artificial" constraint must be justified.
Can we now set aside this "natural/unnatural" sidetrack?
Well, it sounds like you're suggesting that emotional states and responses should replace moral philosophy as the basis for moral rules. Do you really want to go there? If we're doing moral or political philosphy here, then we will seek rules we can derive from fundamental moral principles together with known features of the human condition, not from volatile, idiosyncratic, and subjective personal feelings. The latter have no more role to play in moral philosophy than they do in physics.The problem is your assumption that our relationships to each other are properly determined by a priori obligations and abstract moral first principles. This is completely out of touch with flesh and blood human relationships, which are guided by such things as care and empathy not a priori obligations or abstract principles.We do not, however, have a priori obligations to assume responsibility for everyone else's welfare. We do not arrive in the world burdened by an infinite set of unassumed obligations. But if you disagree, please supply an argument showing how such obligations are derived from moral first principles.
Yes. Someone who is forced to work for another's benefit is a slave, by definition (unless to compensate an injury previously inflicted by the person forced). It does not cease to be slavery because the slave is force to work only, say, 1 hour per day rather than 12 hours.I need a minute to put on my muck boots to wade through this. In response to the problem of children in your society living in abject poverty unless they are helped by volunteers your concern it that you will be made a slave if you are compelled to help?
There would be more volunteers and less poverty. People need not volunteer when they know Big Brother will handle the problem. They are "humanitarians by proxy," i.e., persons willing to help --- provided someone else can be forced to pay the bill. There would be less poverty because, knowing there are no guaranteed free lunches, people would be less inclined to make the unproductive and destructive lifestyle choices they can now make without consequence.What would be the consequences if the only help to those in need came from volunteer sources?