CDZ Anarchy: Moral Imperative or Inherently Immoral?

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Brian Blackwell, Mar 19, 2018.

  1. Brian Blackwell
    Offline

    Brian Blackwell Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2018
    Messages:
    452
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    33
    Ratings:
    +195
    This thread follows the conclusion of a conversation between myself and Xelor on the following thread:

    CDZ - The Government of No Authority, Part 1: Law and Morality


    The transitional comment is provided here for easy reference:

    "I have claimed that any moral person must conclude that governmental law is of no authority and therefore to support it would be both illogical and immoral. Illogical because it asserts a non-existent authority, and immoral because it demands that a person act immorally where divergences with their moral standard occur, while contributing nothing where they align (subsequently providing only the potential for net immorality).

    This suggests that we must adopt the anarchist position by moral necessity; however, the proposition that anarchy is inherently immoral is antithetical to this conclusion. How do we resolve this contradiction?"
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. OldLady
    Offline

    OldLady Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2015
    Messages:
    29,876
    Thanks Received:
    5,617
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +23,842
    How is it a contradiction again? Don't be all fancy about it, either, Brian, please.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  3. martybegan
    Offline

    martybegan Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Messages:
    39,850
    Thanks Received:
    5,514
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Ratings:
    +19,860
    it all boils down to the difference between something in Theory, and the results you get from a real world application.

    If you go with the notion of any form of government force being immoral, then yes, you can see anarchy as the moral solution to the issue.

    However that theory does not assume the actual application of anarchy in the real world, which would probably devolve into some form of strongman/arms race fight between people of differing views, and thus the situation would end up devolving into the use of force anyway.

    It's the same issue you run into communism in theory, and communism in practical application.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. Dogmaphobe
    Offline

    Dogmaphobe Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2014
    Messages:
    8,300
    Thanks Received:
    2,136
    Trophy Points:
    1,095
    Location:
    Or uh gun
    Ratings:
    +11,483
    There are actually people who think that removing all the impediments to people causing great harm to one another isMORAL?

    That is the very antithesis of morality as anarchy can only result in the most ruthless holding sway.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  5. martybegan
    Offline

    martybegan Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Messages:
    39,850
    Thanks Received:
    5,514
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Ratings:
    +19,860
    Unless you assume the perfect theoretical human who is not only willing to follow the rules when there are minimal rules, but will also not try to impose their own will via agressive action, or the threat of aggressive action.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  6. Xelor
    Offline

    Xelor Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    10,934
    Thanks Received:
    1,606
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +5,764
    Dear, God. The apocalypse must be nigh....
     
  7. Brian Blackwell
    Offline

    Brian Blackwell Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2018
    Messages:
    452
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    33
    Ratings:
    +195
    In the previous post, I argued that a moral person must adopt an anarchist position to remain moral. Xelor suggested that anarchism may be inherently immoral, which would be an obvious contradiction, so we came here to sort it out and figure out if this is so.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. Brian Blackwell
    Offline

    Brian Blackwell Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2018
    Messages:
    452
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    33
    Ratings:
    +195
    It sounds like we’re faced with the old “utilitarian vs categorical” model of morality argument. I believe the former to be unacceptably volatile from the outset, while the latter provides stability. I don’t know that morality can ever yield perfect consequences, but I think a categorical standard limits risk significantly.
     
  9. Brian Blackwell
    Offline

    Brian Blackwell Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2018
    Messages:
    452
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    33
    Ratings:
    +195
    This assumption abounds, but I humbly submit that it’s poorly thought-out. It assumes humanity to be a bestial horde that will devour itself if left in its natural state, then suggests the solution to be clothing a portion of that same flawed herd in immense power. Power, mind you, that far exceeds anything possible in the absence of the proposed institution.

    Unless we’re trucking politicians in from other planets, how could such an institution do anything but magnify the very immorality cited to justify its existence? And that’s precisely what it’s done. Show me how the nigh-unto unfathomable body count racked up by governments throughout history could be matched on an individual level.
     
  10. martybegan
    Offline

    martybegan Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Messages:
    39,850
    Thanks Received:
    5,514
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Ratings:
    +19,860
    I think the discussion of various types of governing (even anarchy is a form of governance, i.e. the lack thereof) can allow one to think the ideal situations of each type can flow into reality. However we all know this is not the case.

    Capitalism involving a republican form of government does the best job of dispersing power enough that true authoritarianism is difficult to achieve. Again it is not perfect, but it does the best to compromise between government power and individual (including business) rights.
     

Share This Page