Professoranton's ambiguous question

[cubanoafuego]

This is a very complex and interesting discussion. My views on the sex industry are very much tied into (if not based on) these ambiguous issues. I think that you are right, so far as your analysis in this video goes.

[RowanFortuneWood]

Thanks. Professor Anton's question was a very interesting point of departure for such an analysis.

[Lover180backflip]

Ambiguity gives me a headache.

I don't think it's in our nature to remain comfortable with it. We intuitively know that there is truth, and that there is fallacy, and all subsequent value judgments are inevitably categorical disambiguations of this single cosmic ambiguity.

I'll even venture to say that it is our purpose to decipher the ultimate principles that acknowledge this cosmic ambiguity, and help us transcend localized contextual ambiguities.

....I think.

= P

[RowanFortuneWood]

There is something to that, but in our effort to get away from uncomfortable ambiguity it is important not to forget our epistemological limits, id est fallibilism; there is truth, but our knowledge of it is surely unsure.

Thanks for commenting :)

[queenboxi]

nice work, Rowan

thought-provoking as always :)

[RowanFortuneWood]

Thanks :)

[zuiprax]

I don't see providing a voluntary service as abusive, and I don't understand why you see it that way.

If both parties consider themselves to be better off in the interaction, what place does an external source have coming in and forcibly preventing the interaction?

The argument that "it's for your own good" breaks down when you analyze it in deph.

And please let me know if I misinterpreted you.

[RowanFortuneWood]

What appear to be voluntary exchanges can be more ambiguous on closer analysis. To exemplify my point; is an interaction voluntary if one party utilises emotional or social manipulation? Or hides important information about the interaction? Or is implicitly trusted to assure the best interests of the other party but does not? Basically, is there a simple dichotomy between voluntary and involuntary?

I assume that you, like me, care chiefly for individual autonomy, but I see coercion as complex.

[zuiprax]

If I see an alcoholic going in a store to buy more liquor and I know that it's bad for her to continue drinking so much, what I'll do if I wanna help is talk to her and see if she can recognize this as something that she does to herself that is detrimental to her happiness.

If instead I try to forcibly prevent her from buying liquor, or to prevent the liquor store from selling it to her, all I'm going to create is resentment and she won't be addressing her issues, even if I her to stop drinking

[zuiprax]

*get her to stop drinking

[RowanFortuneWood]

My analysis of this specific scenario and what I would choose to do are entirely the same as your own.

[zuiprax]

Oh I see...

That's great.

I totally misunderstood you. Not sure why yet.

[RowanFortuneWood]

Perhaps because I am playing with and speculating about moral ambiguities that are, of course, ambiguous. Thanks for this discussion.

[Spacemonkey2084]

This is one of my favorite videos of yours yet.

It's a topic I've thought about a good deal myself and your distinction between the idea of protecting an individual from themselves and protecting them from exploitation is a strong tool I think.

Paternalism vs Liberty is one of the least objective (in my mind) areas of prescriptive morality and I think you do a good deal to at least begin clarifying my ideas about it here.

[RowanFortuneWood]

Professoranton certainly chose well to illustrate his point about the ambiguity of ethical decisions. And it is made even more powerful a question given that it is as politically pertinent as it is conceptually difficult. I am glad you liked the video. Thanks for commenting.

[ThePointlessPoint]

Good God, man. Don't give watered-down wine to anyone!

Other than that, I pretty much concur.

[RowanFortuneWood]

It is a terrible thing to do to wine.

Thanks for commenting.

[Sherwulff]

what bothers me about a great number of these laws is that the gov profits from those who break the rules in the form of citations and taxes:

not wearing seatbelt = $100 fine; cigarette taxes(beneath the guise of preventing minors from smoking), alcohol sin taxes - the list goes on. as the overall framework reeks with profit-seeking greed, the laws themselves become questionably motivated

truck drivers = sleep apnea = CPAP machine = shitload of money doled out to the medical industry.

[RowanFortuneWood]

That is a good point. It is wrong to assume that laws exists just because they serve a public good; arguments can be made for these rules, but closer analysis can reveal hypocrisy. You mention smoking; it is interesting to me that the British state maintains its restricted legalisation at a great profit, but restricts the use of other mild drugs such as Shrooms (now class A) for which there is no profit. When examining such laws corruption like this is indeed relevant. Thanks for commenting.

[Orygyn]

Excellent question and answer. I think I may respond sometime in the future or just mention this issue.

[RowanFortuneWood]

I would be very interested in watching your response to this question; it raises many interesting issues that can probably only begin to be explored if many people participate. Thanks for commenting.

[GrimJim8000]

Nice responce, difficult to answer since the parameters of whether a person is, in this example, mature enough to consume alcohol responsibly varies from person to person. I do wish laws were more flexible, but I fear flexibility would allow for exploitation of said laws.

[RowanFortuneWood]

You raise another level of ambiguity; perhaps it is an authoritative disambiguation to say that an inflexible law is not some times the most pragmatic way of handling an ambiguous social issue. Overall, I am still more fearful of inflexible blunt solutions than I am of overly flexible solutions, probably because of personal experience. Thanks for the comment.

[cellardoor01]

"Law is not reason, it is force" - Ayn Rand.

This has always been one of my biggest misgivings about legal systems within a statist framework. For me to propose a law which purports to "protect you from yourself" is a very cheap and sufficient rationale when I can externalize the costs of the "service" of you being harassed over your seat belt, onto you, regardless of your consent. I would like to see incentive structures that subject laws to the sort of scrutiny you are showing here.

[RowanFortuneWood]

Interesting quote; as I understand Rand held reason as her absolute, but as a minarchist did not reject law; it is not often I say this, but that suggests to me that I agree with Rand on this issue insofar as I believe that there are circumstances in which force (which is not itself the exercise of reason) can be reasonable. However, as you point out, such force requires serious scrutiny whether it is being exercised by a state or an anarchistic community. Thanks for the comment.

[IGrazor]

I find it odd that as a motorcyclist I am legally obliged to wear a helmet, yet could wear nothing else but a pair of shorts. Are the government protecting me from harm, or simply minimising the burden on the NHS should I have an accident (head injury is more likely to leave me a long term burden on the state)? But I'm being cynically flippant. I generally don't agree with laws that protect people from themselves, but find the boundary between child and adult more problematic to define.

[RowanFortuneWood]

This is a great comment.

I suspect that the boundary is a social construct; there are different degrees of inexperience and there is a period of development in humans, which have real implications. Still, the emphasis should be on protecting the young from the abuse of others and not, in my opinion, restricting autonomy. I believe that in the vast majority the young engage in self-destructive behaviours only because another is abusing power or neglecting responsibility.