| </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,)
I thought it interesting that everyone agreed that fairness is subjective, even if there was not unanimity in whether it was good or not. I tend to think that this yet another example of the trend in society toward relativeness, where truth, right, wrong, the very concept of rights, etc. become negotiable.
Once things become negotiable, you need someone to decide which version of fairness rules. Ultimately, even if not immediately, under the force of arms.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
right, wrong and 'rights' ARE relative, denying this is to deny reality
truth, is both absolute and relative: two objects moving at the same velocity in space parallel to each other view each other as standing still, yet they are both moving, relative to an outside observer. Death is a truth, yet life springs from dead things, composed of the same bits of matter...
Now, for humans to exist with each other, we need a set of 'rules' - an agreement of sorts on the definitions of right, wrong and 'rights' and truth. Our agreements does not 'overrule' that these are in fact, abstractions of reality - but we require such agreements in order for our minds to deal effectively with each other.
My own view of these things are simple:
(1) It is wrong to initiate force upon another human
(2) It is wrong to commit a fraud upon another human
These two basic concepts form the fundation of thought known as libertarianism, which happens to exactly follow the most efficient method of social interaction: the free market
does anyone disagree with these premises (1 & 2)?
describe a situation in which it would be 'right' to violate the above two (2) premises?
Take on the responsibility to be free |