Selfishness

[o_mlly]

Ah, but what about when that 'social contract' fails its moral obligation to the old, the poor, the young, the vulnerable, the neglected, the outcasts, or a myriad other socially disenfranchised and disaffected groups? I would argue that in such situations your venerable social contract gets superseded by the overarching right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 'Community' isn't sacrosanct, but those rights are.

And your point is?

So yes, where your 'social contract' fails, and it often does, then any claim to authority that the community may think it has becomes null and void.

Legally migrate.

Everyone has been given the gift of life, and with that life comes the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and no entity exists that can usurp that right.

Who gave you the right to life?

 

[partinobodycular]

And your point is?

When disenfranchised, people have the right to deviate from your venerable social contract.

Legally migrate.

People are under no obligation to do any such thing.

Who gave you the right to life?

The same entity that gave you yours. If you wish to claim some moral superiority take it up therewith.

 

[o_mlly]

When disenfranchised, people have the right to deviate from your venerable social contract.

? Why do you keep trying to make this exchange personal? Your social contract is the same as mine, and every other citizen of the USA.

Are there any grounds to justify the disfranchisement of human beings who are by nature political animals? Only two: infancy and pathological disablement by amentia or dementia. In addition, criminal behavior justifies a deprivation of political liberty, as well as liberty of action, either for a period of time or for life.

People are under no obligation to do any such thing.

? People have the freedom to emigrate.

The same entity that gave you yours. If you wish to claim some moral superiority take it up therewith.

You can say His name. It's in our Declaration of Independence. Hint: It's not the King of England.

 

[Studyman]

Yes. Such as stealing bread when your family is starving....where have I heard from that before? Hmmm....

What an interesting philosophy. If I have joined myself to God in Faith, and God places me in a circumstance where I and my family are hungry. Is rejecting God's Commandment and "Stealing" my only option? Where in the Bible did God ever place His People in a place where they were forced to reject His Commandment that they might eat? I mean, Shadrack refused to reject God's Word at the price of being thrown into a furnace of fire. There is a lesson in there someplace.

What about humbling oneself and offing their labor for food to feed the family. What about asking someone if they can help. Of course, this would cause humiliation for some. It would be much easier and less humiliating to just sneak around and steal what is not yours. That would save the pride from being hurt. Which is certainly selfish.

God said HE wouldn't place a circumstance on His people that the only way out was to sin against Him.

When all the lipstick is removed, the very foundation of "Theft" is selfishness, in my view.

 

[timothyu]

When all the lipstick is removed, the very foundation of "Theft" is selfishness, in my view.

It's also not trusting in God to provide, that is if it be His will. But as we all know, giving up control does not come easy to mankind.

 

[partinobodycular]

Your social contract is the same as mine, and every other citizen of the USA.

A social contract isn't between me and the state. The state is simply the local authority in charge of the administration thereof. The contract is between you, me, and everybody else. So long as the contract is fairly derived and equitably applied everything is hunky-dory, but in such circumstances where it isn't, the obligation to abide by it is diminished.

Are there any grounds to justify the disfranchisement of human beings who are by nature political animals?

No, there are no grounds under which disenfranchisement (applying the social contract inequitably) is ever acceptable.

In addition, criminal behavior justifies a deprivation of political liberty, as well as liberty of action, either for a period of time or for life.

So long as your 'criminal behavior' doesn't include actions undertaken in defense of one's rights then I have absolutely no objection.

? People have the freedom to emigrate.

And the right not to.

You can say His name. It's in our Declaration of Independence. Hint: It's not the King of England.

Oh, by all means show me where.

 

[o_mlly]

A social contract isn't between me and the state. The state is simply the local authority in charge of the administration thereof. The contract is between you, me, and everybody else. So long as the contract is fairly derived and equitably applied everything is hunky-dory, but in such circumstances where it isn't, the obligation to abide by it is diminished.

Nonsense.

No, there are no grounds under which disenfranchisement (applying the social contract inequitably) is ever acceptable.
So long as your 'criminal behavior' doesn't include actions undertaken in defense of one's rights then I have absolutely no objection.
And the right not to.
Oh, by all means show me where.

More of the same.

 

[Ophiolite]

Nonsense.

More of the same.

Such a well argued, insightful response. The balance of reason and evidence is astounding in its depth and breadth. I am wholly converted to your view. Remarkable and memorable eloquence.

 

[o_mlly]

Such a well argued, insightful response. The balance of reason and evidence is astounding in its depth and breadth. I am wholly converted to your view. Remarkable and memorable eloquence.

You're welcome.

 

[Meowzltov]

Here is a chance for one of those thread games where people list things. Add your comment to the list of what can be described as human selfishness.

How about putting the health of others at risk by not vaccinating.

 

[jacks]

A social contract isn't between me and the state. The state is simply the local authority in charge of the administration thereof. The contract is between you, me, and everybody else. So long as the contract is fairly derived and equitably applied everything is hunky-dory, but in such circumstances where it isn't, the obligation to abide by it is diminished.

And in essence the "contract" is what are you doing for the "tribe". Are you doing things that benefit the tribe or are you just a drain on it's ability to survive? If you steal bread in a circumstance where there is no viable alternative, the theft may be seen as justified. If you steal bread because it is easier than working for it, then it becomes detrimental to society.

 

[partinobodycular]

How about putting the health of others at risk by not vaccinating.

Point taken, but what if one sincerely believes that vaccinations are harmful to themselves and others? Then it could be argued that they're enduring the ridicule of the majority for the sake of the greater good... which is of course unselfish.

Oftentimes I don't take offense to the stand that a person takes, but rather the tone with which they take it.

 

[partinobodycular]

And in essence the "contract" is what are you doing for the "tribe".

I realize that not everyone interprets the "contract" in the same way, as is their right. But this is how I interpret it 'inasmuch as 'society' is willing to sacrifice their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... for me, I'm willing to sacrifice the same right... for them'.

What this means to me however, is that where the contract is applied inequitably, people have the right to respond in kind. Those whom society disenfranchises have the right, not only to steal the loaf of bread because they're hungry, but to steal it because they're unheard, because disobedience is often the only voice that they have. It's their way of saying, 'I reject society's contract, because society has rejected me.'

The problem with a contract that's based solely upon what we can do for the tribe, is that it often neglects empathy, and if the contract hasn't given society that, then it's given them nothing.

 

[jacks]

'inasmuch as 'society' is willing to sacrifice their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... for me, I'm willing to sacrifice the same right... for them'.

Hmm. Sorry not sure what this means. "Society" isn't a single unit, it is made up of multiple entities, people and institutions. They together form a community. Perhaps you're saying, the community as a whole doesn't value everyone equally and until they do all is fair in righteous retribution? (i.e. stealing.) Though I'm not sure what measure you could use to contribute "willingness". And if one is only willing to sacrifice as much (and no more) than a self perceived equitable standard, how is that a sacrifice at all?
Anyway, not going to argue this point, since I'm not even sure it's the point your are making.

Our society doesn't neglect "empathy", there are numerous safety nets and many institutions (churches for example) and people that contribute greatly and unselfishly to the needs of the disadvantaged. However, the larger laurels and financial compensations go to those who are contributing to our societies betterment. (I admit this can be over done and you have people or companies that are being overly compensated for their contribution.) I'm merely looking at the average working stiff vs those that make no effort to contribute.

 

[timothyu]

How about putting the health of others at risk by not vaccinating.

How about not keeping one's own immune system healthy in the first place?

 

[partinobodycular]

Hmm. Sorry not sure what this means. "Society" isn't a single unit, it is made up of multiple entities, people and institutions. They together form a community.

Which is why I put society in quotation marks. It's this assortment of people and groups that together form the heart of our social contract. In spite of its diversity we collectively agree to certain social guidelines, the aim of which is to provide for the safety and stability of the group as a whole, and the fair and equitable treatment of the people in it.

And if one is only willing to sacrifice as much (and no more) than a self perceived equitable standard, how is that a sacrifice at all?

It's every person's right to judge the equitability with which they're treated. And the true measure of a community isn't how well it serves the foremost of its members, but how well it serves the least of them. People are instinctively social creatures, they seek acceptance. Deny them that and the consequences are as much your fault as theirs. Ignore the disenfranchised at your own peril, but don't think that you can blithely judge those who's shoes you've never walked in.

Our society doesn't neglect "empathy", there are numerous safety nets and many institutions (churches for example) and people that contribute greatly and unselfishly to the needs of the disadvantaged.

The most venomous of the disenfranchised aren't the ones that you recognize, it's the ones that you don't. Blacks, women, gays, illegal immigrants, all have served their time as the disenfranchised. The community isn't judged solely by the good that it does, but also by the good that it doesn't do, and far more so when it fails to do so under the guise of some ethically 'superior' social good.

However, the larger laurels and financial compensations go to those who are contributing to our societies betterment. (I admit this can be over done and you have people or companies that are being overly compensated for their contribution.)

You're free to judge the integrity of the community's actions by whatever standard you see fit, but remember that the other person has the exact same right. Your standing as part of the 'community' has absolutely no bearing on the superiority of your claims over anyone else's. Might doesn't make right.

As for who contributes more to the 'betterment' of our society, wealth may be your chosen standard, but it's far from the most important of mine.

I'm merely looking at the average working stiff vs those that make no effort to contribute.

As I've said, until you've walked a mile in their shoes, what right do you have to judge?