Is the answer to these questions the same or different? Why?
1. Suppose there is a collection of cells making up a human being. Some of these cells are behaving abnormally: they are resisting apoptosis (self-destruction), consuming too many resources, generating toxins, etc., forming a tumor. The human decides that these cells must be destroyed through chemo or surgery, for his well-being. Is the human being is morally justified in doing this?
2. Suppose there is a collection of human beings making up a society. Some of these human beings are behaving abnormally: they are refusing compulsory military service, taking drugs and not producing, or preaching religious memes that are perceived as harmful etc. The society decides that these human beings must be executed for its well-being. Is the society is morally justified in doing this?
Basically, are people priviledged in deserving freedom over cells or societies? My attempt to answer these questions is to say, at a basic level, that there are no objective morals and everything acts freely according to its preferences. At a higher level, I strongly suspect that spreading the meme of human liberty would be better for satisfying both my (and society's) wants in the long run. So I believe in natural law but the belief is at a "fake" (memetic / outer) level and is only partially justified (I have say 90% confidence in the benefits of it).
baxter:Some of these human beings are behaving abnormally: they are refusing compulsory military service, taking drugs and not producing, or preaching religious memes that are perceived as harmful etc.
If that is abnormal then we are all in some way abormal. Therefore abnormality is the norm.
baxter:Basically, are people priviledged in deserving freedom over cells or societies? My attempt to answer these questions is to say, at a basic level, that there are no objective morals and everything acts freeely according to its preferences.
The cells are attacking your body thus violating the NAP. If I want to smoke dope, say no to selective service and say 'the end is now!' then whose rights am I violating?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
this is an object lesson in what goes wrong when you philosophize without considering *rationality* (and ignore/dont apply methodological individualism)
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
>this is an object lesson in what goes wrong when you philosophize without considering *rationality* (and ignore/dont apply methodological individualism)
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Could you please help? Should I study methodological individualism to understand things more clearly?
most definitely.
good news: it wont even take long to do!