Maximizing Freedom is the Goal of Morality

Try this goal on for size:Morality's goal should be the survival of the human species.If restricting individual freedom is necessary for our survival as a species, then it must be done. Hypothetically, we could need to restrict individual freedom to ensure our survival, even if those freedoms do not immediately cause pain to or reduce the freedoms of another person.ABE:If protecting individual freedom was going to cause the end of our species (or maybe if it was just going to lower the chance of survival) then it wouldn't be the moral thing to do.There is a higher goal than freedom.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE:

It depends on how you look at it. Is wearing glasses interfering with the function of the retina? What about an operation to repair retinal detachment?

What, you'd just off yourself if you were born a slave?Seeing that slaves survived, it seems that life in servitude was worth at least living. "Must" as in should. Or like: we gotta do what we gotta do. If restricting individual freedom is what we gotta do to survive, then we gotta do it. Or "hafta", or must. You know what I'm saying?Don't you agree that our survival should be the goal of morality more than individual freedom? Impossible? I don't really know, but I'm going to go ahead and say "yeah". The survival of our species is at the top of the list. In that context, moral == good. Sometimes your not acting on just a person and sometimes you don't receive the reaction of the person(s), so while you would be unable to "know" the morality of the action, yourself, that doesn't mean threre is not some objective morality to your action. So, your definition doesn't cover all the bases. So what? We certainly can't be free if we don't exist. Yes and yes.

Well yeah

Sure, perhaps. That's a pretty weak and obvious point. Aren't we discussion our opinions on what the goal of morality should be? Yes, its possible that someone would, but:By "We" I meant us as a species. If an individual would rather be dead than be a slave, we as a species would still have to do what we had to do to survive, as a species, regardless of that individual. Sure, its possible and highly probable but that still doesn't really matter that much to our species as a whole. Okey-dokey. So basically you really didn't say much of anything at all.Do you still think that freedom should be the ultimate goal of morality or do you now realize that it is more important that we survive?

Wow! That's insane.You'd let the entire human species die instead of you doing something you'd be unconfortable doing. That's utterly reprehensable and deserving of no repect whatsoever.I would make almost any sacrifice necessary, including my own life, if it meant the survival of our species. Hell, I'd do it for a relatively low number of people.Shame on you.

No, there's not. I can't believe you need a reason why it's bad to let our species die and/or why its bad that you wouldn't do something insignificant to save our species. I can't think of a line that I'd draw. I only put the "almost" in there because I can't conceive of everything. Anything I can think of I would do to save our species. Some sacrifices would be enough for one person, some would not. Its all relative and hypothetic though.I can't believe someone who types about doing good just because it is the right thing to do would not make a large sacrifice to ensure the survival of our species.The hypocricy is making me sick.

lol, the questions that come up in these forums Out of context, that's a real doosey But, I think I might understand now what Stile was trying to say in that for all of us, there's at least something that we would not do to maintain survival, either of ourselves or our species.He just had a bad example with the child-raping (in more ways than one).WRT my own survival, I can think of many things that I would die for. But for the whole species I cannot. That is, I can't think of anthing worth sacrificing the whole species for.WRT the topic:
I would also say that maximizing freedom would be immoral if the cost was the survival of our species. So, its clear to me that survival is above freedom, but I think Stile might be having trouble admitting it. And from our previous conversations (Stile and mine's), s/he will probably put more effort into maintaining the original position than learning or exploring the other "options". No direspect to Stile, I think its just the naure of the "debate" function of the board, and that.....well forget it, I'm just rambling now.

Damn, who shit on your pancakes?You want some cheese with that whine?Does somebody need a tissue? Someone set up their own trap by making objective statements about freedom and morallity and survival. They were the one who bought up the child raping and lots of people dying. We are not asking the admittedly bullshit questions to try to trap them, they brought the scenario up themselves. I'm sorry, I was under the impression that we could type about whatever the hell we felt like typing about and treat them however we want. I also thought that if you don't like a thread that we aremaking, then you can just shut the hell up and stay out of it.I mean, damn... Must you bitch?
Because you do it a lot...

Although it isn't much of a life, I think we'd find that even in the most dire circumstances, the will to survive would outweight the desire for freedom, for most people.I can see how, ideally, freedom should be as important as survival but, in practicality, survival is more important.So, when discussing how freedom should be the goal of morality, we should keep in mind that survival is technically the ultimate goal. With that as an understood (or given) implication, then I think I can agree with your opinion that maximizing freedom should be at the top of the list for morality.We just can't really put anything above survival, and with that understood we could just not mention it on the list, as it is always on every list. So now what's on the top of the list? I think you're right that it should be maximizing freedom.That's a pretty good ideal.ABE:Upon further thought, I noticed that you have avoided admitting that survival is more important than freedom by equating them.That's interesting. Does it have to do with your liberal nature and and unwillingness to sacrifice freedom?Would you not chain someone down to save their life?Would you continue to liberalize our society if you thought it meant our doom?With survival and freedom being equal, you don't have to choose between them. But what if we are hurting ourselves by becoming too free?Should we not keep our freedom limited for our own protection?I would think that a liberal would not want to limit freedom and would not think that freedom could hurt us. And given the hypothetical situation where freedom is assumed to hurt survival, you have equated them and avoided the conundrum.I think that survival is more important than freedom. I think too much freedom can hurt our survival and that changes in our freedoms should be met with resistance to avoid potential damage. I also think that some of the items in the "libreal agenda" could be harmful to our society. Ultimately, they will probably be acheived but I think we should take our time with them. The resistance is good.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : See ABE:

Well, actually, no. Because now, you're brining this thread off-topic (and me too for replying so lets just drop it). What's that like? Being such a bitch.... No. Yes. I don't know. Rhetorical? Hypothetical? Nonetheless, they're still answerable. Just because you can't see the merit of a question doesn't mean that there isn't one, or that others don't have some. Its unneccessary for you to interupt with your incredulity. Fine, that's fine. I'll continue to ignore you but, damn... you're junking up the board. I've heard that sometimes it helps to take the sand out of your vagina.