What is the moral justification for the state? (2 Viewers)

[Iron]

The state cant be justified. It's already dead.
Within 20 years there will be no such thing as an Italian.
Australia will increase its intake of migrants because the last few generations have simply not procreated.
The result will be not only social tensions, but inevitable policies of euthenasia from a state growning under the pressures of social security, as well as an inevitable global order to finally, belatedly, see off the dinasaur that is state sovereignty.

These are all the results of a consistent and ingrained culture of death which prevents and aborts the life that conflicts with the 'individual' (corporate) quest for maximum material profit.

Open your eyes people of bos. This is Nazi Germany and we are the citizens who know of the holocaust being carried out before our very eyes! Will you collaborate or will you have the courage to stand for Life???

 

[Silver Persian]

What? Genocide of the elderly?

 

[Iron]

Genocide of the unborn today,
the elderly tomorrow

This is the reality of a flawed philosophical premise that sees the individual, not society, as paramount. The state today is nothing short of absurd - Alice in Wonderland stuff. A society that doesnt recognise the right to life is a society not worth living in. We have a legal system, not a justice system

 

[HumanDichotomy]

How is abortion genocide? It doesn't focus on embryos of one race. Also, do you truly think that the state focuses more on the individual than society by allowing abortion? This ignores the idea that society is, in fact, made up of individuals and that it is only by valuing the rights (within reason, and yes, I would consider abortion within reason) of the individual that society can function. Think of the Communist regime in Russia...everything was done for 'the good of the people', i.e. society, but did that work? No.

 

[Iron]

The point is that we have a dead system which denies individual responsibility at every point of every moral decision we make. A system cannot be 'morally justified' by its structures and rules; morality is always exclusively excercised by a person who is inherently free to be good or bad

 

[HumanDichotomy]

The point is that we have a dead system which denies individual responsibility at every point of every moral decision we make. A system cannot be 'morally justified' by its structures and rules; morality is always exclusively excercised by a person who is inherently free to be good or bad

This is a complete 360 in your argument. Firstly, you suggested that the state focuses *too much* on individual actions, now you suggest it focuses too little on them.

Also, how does allowing a person to make a choice about having an abortion lead them *not* to take moral responsibility for their actions? It's not like people just go in, demand an abortion and skip away whistling. They have counselling etc. By doing this, the person is making a decision after having considered its morality, not the thoughtless, blasé process that you are suggesting. In fact, it's not even *legal* in Australia to have an abortion unless the mother is deemed to be at risk.

 

[Iron]

Lol they have counselling etc. I said that the philosophical premise of the decadent west is that the individual is free to do utterly anything as long as it doesnt 'harm' another. What is deemed to 'harm' another is consistently compromised because the system doesnt recognise that an individual has any real obligation to society, because society is deemed to not exist.

There is nothing the state can do to condition the morality of its citizens. This is an internal matter which each and every individual must learn anew. But it is also ignored by idiots like you who think that legal positivism is the answer - ie make laws against behaviour and this will solve everything; respect the individuals' right to abortion (to end the life of another) as long as we legislate for 'counselling' so that they dont feel too good or bad about the event. If people are behaving 'legally', then they are also behaving 'morally' according to you.
The reality is that we have a legal system, not a justice system. A society that doesnt respect the right to life is a society not worth living in.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

If people are behaving 'legally', then they are also behaving 'morally' according to you.

Of course I don't think that. For example, not allowing two people who love each other to marry, simply because they are the same gender, is to behave 'legally' under the current system, however, I think this is *wrong* 'morally'.

The reality is that we have a legal system, not a justice system. A society that doesnt respect the right to life is a society not worth living in.

I do agree with you on this point, but I think it's a necessity. There is no universal notion of justice, therefore, we need a common point of reference. Surely, you, as a law student, would have at least thought about the logic of this?

A society that doesnt respect the right to life is a society not worth living in.

No one's forcing you to stay here, you know. You're a big boy. You *can* leave.

 

[Iron]

There certainly is a universal notion of justice. I no longer care to argue with you. You are homosexual and dumb.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

There certainly is a universal notion of justice. I no longer care to argue with you. You are homosexual and dumb.

Or, it's simply because you recognise the undeniable logic of my argument and can no longer come up with reasonable arguments.

 

[kokodamonkey]

Introduce a baby bonus that pays $10,000 for every kid you have after your second kid. i.e. for 3 or more.

 

[Iron]

Or, it's simply because you recognise the undeniable logic of my argument and can no longer come up with reasonable arguments.

Yeah that must be it

 

[kokodamonkey]

Don't give in Iron! homosexuals aren't logical!

 

[Smile_Time351]

Introduce a baby bonus that pays $10,000 for every kid you have after your second kid. i.e. for 3 or more.

Yeah! That's a great idea! Then...get this, we should give out MEDALS for sufficiently "productive" mothers. They should be crosses (for obvious reasons) and there should be bronze (4 kids), silver (6 kids) and gold (8 kids)... brilliant!

In all seriousness, going to lengths such as this to encourage a more widespread virility is never a good idea. We are a particularly fertile species without any societal prodding. Besides, state controls irrevocably go both ways, and before you know it... BAM! You've got inordinately high fines for people who have too many kids, and I know I'm not the only one who thinks that's bad.