Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Freedom is not necessarily axiomatically good

EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 6:27:55 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
I've come across the idea that freedom is axiomatically good, in that reducing freedom unnecessarily is automatically bad (unless there is compensation).

I'm not convinced that this is a valid idea. Could someone, preferably someone who believes this, explain to me why this is the case?
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
smelisox
Posts: 849
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 8:49:37 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 6:27:55 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
I've come across the idea that freedom is axiomatically good, in that reducing freedom unnecessarily is automatically bad (unless there is compensation).

I'm not convinced that this is a valid idea. Could someone, preferably someone who believes this, explain to me why this is the case?

Dissenting opinion, sorry.

Giving workers too much freedom makes them lazy and greedy.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 9:27:24 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
It entirely depends on what it is you are trying to accomplish and what you would like to avoid in the process.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 9:31:55 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 8:49:37 PM, smelisox wrote:
At 4/30/2016 6:27:55 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
I've come across the idea that freedom is axiomatically good, in that reducing freedom unnecessarily is automatically bad (unless there is compensation).

I'm not convinced that this is a valid idea. Could someone, preferably someone who believes this, explain to me why this is the case?

Dissenting opinion, sorry.

Giving workers too much freedom makes them lazy and greedy.

That's a good reason against it -- yeah.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
smelisox
Posts: 849
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 9:33:38 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 9:31:55 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/30/2016 8:49:37 PM, smelisox wrote:
At 4/30/2016 6:27:55 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
I've come across the idea that freedom is axiomatically good, in that reducing freedom unnecessarily is automatically bad (unless there is compensation).

I'm not convinced that this is a valid idea. Could someone, preferably someone who believes this, explain to me why this is the case?

Dissenting opinion, sorry.

Giving workers too much freedom makes them lazy and greedy.

That's a good reason against it -- yeah.

Western Europe has that rampant problem of entitlement now. If you were to drop a worker's salary by one euro, he'd go on strike for "attacks on his personal well-being, his western freedom, his values and ideals".
smelisox
Posts: 849
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 9:34:40 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
The age of retirement going up by one year caused international riots.

I mean, come on. People who need to work work until they die, people who don't will retire before retirement age anyway.
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 9:36:58 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 9:33:38 PM, smelisox wrote:
At 4/30/2016 9:31:55 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/30/2016 8:49:37 PM, smelisox wrote:
At 4/30/2016 6:27:55 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
I've come across the idea that freedom is axiomatically good, in that reducing freedom unnecessarily is automatically bad (unless there is compensation).

I'm not convinced that this is a valid idea. Could someone, preferably someone who believes this, explain to me why this is the case?

Dissenting opinion, sorry.

Giving workers too much freedom makes them lazy and greedy.

That's a good reason against it -- yeah.

Western Europe has that rampant problem of entitlement now. If you were to drop a worker's salary by one euro, he'd go on strike for "attacks on his personal well-being, his western freedom, his values and ideals".

Perhaps -- seems plausible...
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
smelisox
Posts: 849
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 9:39:57 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 9:36:58 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/30/2016 9:33:38 PM, smelisox wrote:
At 4/30/2016 9:31:55 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/30/2016 8:49:37 PM, smelisox wrote:
At 4/30/2016 6:27:55 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
I've come across the idea that freedom is axiomatically good, in that reducing freedom unnecessarily is automatically bad (unless there is compensation).

I'm not convinced that this is a valid idea. Could someone, preferably someone who believes this, explain to me why this is the case?

Dissenting opinion, sorry.

Giving workers too much freedom makes them lazy and greedy.

That's a good reason against it -- yeah.

Western Europe has that rampant problem of entitlement now. If you were to drop a worker's salary by one euro, he'd go on strike for "attacks on his personal well-being, his western freedom, his values and ideals".

Perhaps -- seems plausible...

Countries that prance about as free are often under-cover 1984 states. Take Germany.

Angela Merkel: "Here in good old Reichsland, you can say whatever you want!"
Comedian: "Screw the Turkish Prime Minister"
Angela Merkel: "You're going to jail for saying that! Some weird terrorist-sympathiser two thousand kilometres away's freedom trumps yours!"
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 9:42:22 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 9:27:24 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
It entirely depends on what it is you are trying to accomplish and what you would like to avoid in the process.

Mmm so you agree with me?
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 9:43:09 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 9:42:22 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/30/2016 9:27:24 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
It entirely depends on what it is you are trying to accomplish and what you would like to avoid in the process.

Mmm so you agree with me?

I think so
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 9:43:33 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 9:29:36 PM, TrumpTriumph wrote:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...

I really wish people would stop posting memes on here. I understand that they are fun, but they are shallow, poor arguments. This site has to structures to facilitate deeper conversation. Meming it up seems degenerate.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 5:33:01 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Firstly, I'll say that I agree with you. I believe there should be few or no restrictions on the extent to which governments may interfere with negative liberty, as long as greater positive liberty is attained in the process. However, I will try to clarify some reasons why one may see (negative) freedom as a good in itself.

In Kant's view, the only intrinsic good is a good will, and good will requires agency. If you restrict someone's liberty, you are denying him of agency, which does not allow him to exercise good will. It would violate the formula of humanity, since you are treating the person whose liberty you restricted as a mere means to the ends you intend, rather than allowing him to realise his own ends - even if your ends involve his moral or prudential interests.

As for Mill's view, it is not that freedom is 'axiomatically ' good, in your words, but since Mill advocated the harm principle, he would also be opposed to any sort of liberty restrictions as long as they do not violate others' rights. Mill's view is that liberty allows people to pursue their values freely and thus can experiment with life to find the best choices, eventually leading to maximum happiness. In particular, freedom of speech allows people to improve through equal and rational discussion.

(I have a feeling you already know these reasons well - probably you're just trying to get someone else to state them so that you can refute them. :P Not saying that in a disapproving manner, I might sometimes do that too.)
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
bhakun
Posts: 231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 2:47:35 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 8:49:37 PM, smelisox wrote:
Giving workers too much freedom makes them lazy and greedy.

Oh dear, you're right! We can't have people doing what they want to do with their lives! We need them to conform to our current system to preserve our authority and wealth--I mean, the American Dream!

No, seriously, you sound like a fascist. Or a capitalist. Not that theres much of a difference.
"We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered." -MLK Jr