[Voluntary]

Quote by: Morality Games I have read the works of social contract philosophers and remain unimpressed. They were foundation layers, not interpreters, and craftily ignored the 'emptiness' that existed beyond the paramets of their logic.

I am not sure whose works you read and what your criticisms are. You don't believe that people should be free to voluntary enter contracts that benefit themselves? How can this not contribute to individual and societal welfare?

In order to validate genocide, I would have to feel as though genocide was acceptable, which I don't. Real validation must be a genuine emotional affirmation, a resounding, "Yes!", not feigned for logical purposes.

You don't find genocide acceptable because you base it on your emotions?

The origin of rights is an emotion and feeling driven history, with 'reason' suboordinate to desire and impulse. Hence, rights were distributed unevenly for most of human history.

This does not validate unjust rights. Humans can and do use reason to establish a sense of justice.

Except you aren't appealing to anything, and even if you did, why should what you appeal to matter to someone who doesn't care about the your chosen authority? Aka, the Christian can appeal to God's authority as a basis for why people shouldn't have the right to thieve, the Humanist can appeal to his conception of human nature for why you shouldn't take the boat, but these are meaningless gestures to the person determined to have your boat.

I don't understand why you need to appeal to an outside authority. Why not appeal to reason. Can you make an reasoned argument why someone should not be allowed the fruits of their labor? Why should theft and plunder be justified? It is based on emotion

You can wail to the world when they make off with your property, but nature is cold and impartial, and the universe doesn't care about your hurt feelings at all. In fact, most of your own community doesn't care ... the only one who will feel wronged for a substantial period of time is you.

You keep bringing feeling into this debate, not I. Yes, I do know that the universe is impartial, but what it your point?

However, if you think reason precedes sensation, emotion, thought, and feeling, then look at the animal kingdom as evidence to prove you wrong. 'Reason' is a refinement of these psychological processes.

Non-sequiter. Why bring the animal kingdom into this argument? I do think people are rational rather than irrational. People make more rational choices everyday than irrational choices. Most people, overall, choose beneficial actions rather than detrimental actions.

Uh ... individuals do those things all the time. Sometimes they get away with it and live perfectly content lives (their conscience works differently from the collective) and sometimes they don't.

Just because people commit theft, coercion, and violence and get away with it, does not justify those actions.

Doing or not doing those things is actually sort of a gamble, sort of like, "I'm assuming I'm not one of those types who would benefit from behavior the community calls immoral, so I will go along with the community and hopefully benefit from that." Or the opposite.

Really? Act utility and hedonistic calculus are dead ends.