Message from @Existence is identity
Discord ID: 510579634891522048
: expressing or teaching a conception of right behaviora moral poem
conforming to a standard of right behavior took a moral position on the issue though it cost him the nomination
: sanctioned by or operativeon one's conscience or ethical judgmenta moral obligation
: capable of right and wrong action
@SantaSoc altruisms morals is determined by the group
Basically conforming to a standard of right or wrong, which is the societal level of morality.
yeah that should be switched to a individual level predicated on objectivism
My gosh, it's been ages since I've heard someone defend an objective standard of morality.
Music to my ears.
What
@Bookworm lol
@Bookworm do you read any philosophers?
My philosophical background is largely Thomist Aristotelean with some Stoicism.
Marcus Aurelius and the Enchiridion, mostly.
Incoming philosophy class with the nerd
@Bookworm Thomist? as in Thomas Aquinas?
Yes.
The figurative dwarf on the giant's shoulder.
@Bookworm oh ive read a bit of Aristotle a bit of Plato and mostly Ayn Rand
Ayn Rand and Aristotle was the only one gave a objective morality
from what I believe
also Aquinas tied reason to Christianity which is good and is why we they arent like the muslims
I have some more Rand and Aristotle on my reading list and book that sums up greek philosophers points
@Bookworm so you havent read Rand?
No, but I'm vaguely familiar with her philosophical work.
It's not bad, or critically flawed, but if I went over it I'd probably have nitpicks.
you should Ill send you a 120 page book that gives you the basics
you should also read the fountainhead and atlas shrugged but those books are both over 500 pages
What is His flesh?
His Flesh is the Word;
His Blood is the Breath;
Whoever welcomes the Word and the Breath,
They truly received a food, a drink, and a garment.
I pity those who say there is no resurrection.
The flesh does not resurrect,
But what is it that can resurrect,
So that we may revere it?
The Breath animates the flesh;
There is also a light in the flesh: the Logos.
What you say, you say through a body;
You can say nothing outside this body.
You must awaken while in this body,
For existence is done through it:
Resurrect in this life.
-Gospel of Philip
So, as we move away from identity politics and the courts examine what rights come with religious liberty, it begs the question. When is faith-based prejudice permissable? If we permit people the liberty to be themselves but also say we won't protect it, we essentially say it's okay for private individuals to discriminate. How does a country look when we permit restaurants to deny black people service? For hotels to deny two guys to reserve a honeymoon suite? For private hospitals to deny service to a transwoman? For a gym to deny service to a Muslim hijabi?
Do we permit discrimination for non-essential services only? Or can the hospital deny service that conflicts with thier faith based (ie Catholic) charter?
What about government officials? Can they discriminate based thier faith?
How about a small town with one grocer. Can she discriminate and deny service to the known Jew, denying her food? Or can they only discriminate with creative things like cakes but not "off the shelf" things?
I don't see the courts reversing previous precedent directly. What I see them doing is greatly expanding the right of religious freedoms and the right of states to regulate things that are nominally protected by precedent.
For example, marriage equality in the eyes of the Federal govt will remain a thing. But the rights of individuals to deny supporting a gay couple will be greatly expanded. That will open the Pandora's Box of religious exceptions to all antidiscrimination legislation.
Likewise Roe will remain intact but the rights of states under the 10th to regulate the practice of medicine will be emphasized. For example requiring so many support services be available that abortion in a state becomes impractical.
Abortion remains nominally legal in WV, for example, but the regulatory burden on it is such that in practice it's not possible.
>begs the question
>not a circular argument
Pls
Also how many businesses do you think would survive discriminating in a free association system?
Depends on where it is
We've had cases of restaurants denying service to blacks
Yes but how long ago was that?