The contradiction of liberty and its relation to degeneracy. What should be the right method to teach people about ethics?

submitted by HibikiBlackCaudillo from self.conspiracy

Liberty sounds fine to a lot of people but how can you allow absolute freedom without allowing people to also embrace and become slaves to their own destructive impulses? The Post-Modern nihilistic condition we are all in is a good example of it. Despite the ruling oligarchy commiting the worst crimes people can even think of, there's very few people out there willing to do something about it and become a legit opposition...

I don't think even (sane) anarchists promote absolute freedom for everyone. There needs to be a group of laws and education needs to be part of the policies of a healthy anarchist state. Even if these institutions and people technically have no political power.

So in the end freedom can't be the solution to everything and people's drives need to be repressed somehow. I suppose authoritarians simply take a more straightforward approach to it.

My own view of things is that having people to rely upon shouldn't be seen as some kind of disgrace. I think It's something that is part of our nature and that's why people who seek wisdom in order to help others like scholars and philosophers should be recognized by their efforts. I would say this view of authorities is one of the sacred ethics that are part of the philosophy that I'm developing.

all 3 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]GayGoebbels 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

You can see it in how sexual degeneracy and bizarre fetishes are not allowed to be shamed or criticized, and if you openly condemn it you are seen as a bigot.

Or how so many women are comfortable with putting hardcore pornography of themselves on the internet, with zero thought of future consequences. Like finding a decent, normal man who is willing to marry a whore, or that her future children will face almost certain humiliation because their peers can all see her getting plowed online.

We have traded self-respect and privacy for what? A curated, censored, and sterilized internet? We have traded religion and moral doctrine for what? Record high divorces, suicides, political division, and a nationwide addiction and mental health crisis?

The collapse is already here. We've been in it for more than a decade.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

You can't and shouldn't allow absolute freedom. There are societal rules people need to obey so we can work and live together.

[–]BISH 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Freedom was buttressed by responsibly.

And individual owes they're duties (responsibilities and obligations), to the party who grants their rights.

The legal formula for this relationships is: R + D = R

Rights + Duties = Remedies

If you're rights are taken, then you deserve legal remedy.

If you fail to fulfill your duties, then you pay a penalty.

Historically, the remedies part increases proportionally to the status increase, as a person climbs the status scale.

The increase in rights and duties follows.

Serf to peasant, to villain, to Franklin, etc.. Knight, Lord, Lord of a manor, sheriff, count, baron, duke, king, emperor.

I'm sure I messed up the order, but you get my point.

Raise children with responsibilities and privileges and balance with defined expectations as remedy.

Deliver, or exceed expectations, and benefit. The converse also applies.

This is how the courts historically applied justice, up the status chain.

This doesn't apply to today's culture. In practice, the govt owns the citizens, but they have a long leash.

"Rights" are functionally privileges. The duties are obedience.

Social credit scores will edify this.

If you're an American, then an earnest solution can be found here: https://www.bitchute.com/video/BZqAOzRVerTl/