Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sushan]

You have a point there. Yes, Individualism prioritizes personal freedom, autonomy, and self-responsibility, whereas religions often incorporate communal obligations, moral duties, and divine authority. So the two are not the same. But what I am suggesting is taking the core values, either from religions or from libertarianism as a solution for the crimes, to develop the morality of people, which is the core of many problems as I see.

So you will take it upon yourself to decide what is morally-acceptable, and what is not, and you will somehow pass on this wisdom to the "people"? How do you intend to go about doing that? Will they willingly discard their own personal moralities, and take up yours instead? If not, how (and why!) will you persuade them? What if they do not agree with the "core values" you have stripped from libertarianism or religion? What then?

I'm not suggesting imposing my moral code on others. Rather, I'm supporting identifying and emphasizing certain foundational values that tend to appear across different ethical frameworks that have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing harmful behaviors.

Who says that these "values" "have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing harmful behaviors"? Who decided what is "harmful" and what is not?

"What I am suggesting is taking the core values, either from religions or from libertarianism as a solution for the crimes..." and you think that libertarianism or religion are worthwhile sources of moral rightness? Why? What of those who have other ideas? We humans have so many different ideas as to what might be considered moral, that a "consensus" might not even be possible. I suggest that what we need here is tolerance of any and all values that do not break the very few ideas that all can agree with: don't harm people; don't steal from others.

I agree that some disagree with particular core values, and that is to be expected in any pluralistic society. The goal is not a unanimous agreement on every moral question but rather the development of sufficient consensus around fundamental principles that allow us to live together peacefully while addressing the roots of criminal behavior.

Sorry, I already answered this, above.

Well, then as per your argument, when deciding on not to harm others, we still face the dilemma of identifying what 'harm' is? Who will decide what is harmful and what is not? It can very well be subjective as well? If it is subjective, once might tolerate it but another might not. How can we address this dilemma?

[Fanisa Ndhabambi]

Do justifiable crimes exist? My answer is NO, it shall remain a crime as the words state.

[Sushan]

Do justifiable crimes exist? My answer is NO, it shall remain a crime as the words state.

Thank you for the contribution to the chat.

May I ask, what do you think about the crimes happen due to self defense?

[Fanisa Ndhabambi]

As human beings, we have a fight-or-flight reaction, and one of those responses will automatically kick in during the crime. So only the person in that situation would be able to do what's best. Then the law jargon will be deliberated.

[Pattern-chaser]

Who says that these "values" "have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing harmful behaviors"? Who decided what is "harmful" and what is not?

"What I am suggesting is taking the core values, either from religions or from libertarianism as a solution for the crimes..." and you think that libertarianism or religion are worthwhile sources of moral rightness? Why? What of those who have other ideas? We humans have so many different ideas as to what might be considered moral, that a "consensus" might not even be possible. I suggest that what we need here is tolerance of any and all values that do not break the very few ideas that all can agree with: don't harm people; don't steal from others.

Well, then as per your argument, when deciding on not to harm others, we still face the dilemma of identifying what 'harm' is? Who will decide what is harmful and what is not? It can very well be subjective as well? If it is subjective, once might tolerate it but another might not. How can we address this dilemma?

Fair question. The same dilemma still exists, as you say. But if we have reduced our law to its most basic level, to harm and theft, as I suggested, then common-sense will do to begin with, followed by a court appearance. The police would refer a case to the court if they suspect an offence has been committed, and the court would confirm or deny that suspicion. In other words, we "resolve" the dilemma by relying on our law courts. Not ideal, perhaps, but better than what we have (I think)?