Chick-Fil-A President: Men shouldn't eat other men's chicken

[Weezer]

You cited the current laws. What are your on views on the subject? Should the be able to refuse service if they so desired?

I think it's wrong to refuse someone service based on their sexual orientation. I think it's as equally wrong as refusing service based on race, gender, or religion. Just how involved the govt should be is certainly open for debate, but compelling business owners not to discriminate in the past has helped to integrate society. If business owners weren't compelled to serve blacks, "White Only" establishments might still exist today.

 

[PKT_VOL]

The gov't replaces the man. The gov't is the one that feeds the women and puts a roof over their heads.

So a man is suppose to feed a woman and put a roof over her head?

What incentive does a woman have to stay with a man if she can get the same benefits by getting on the welfare system?

If her only incentive is money, on the most basic level, then nothing.

If her only incentive is money, on the biggest level possible, the government will never provide that.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I'm not trying to be contradictory; I agree that from a personal freedom standpoint, a business owner should have the right to do whatever they want in terms of customers. While I agree with personal freedoms, I also realize that they can become oppressive.

This is an oxymoron.

Maybe I didn't do a good job in clarifying this point. Just because it makes sense as a personal freedom doesn't mean that it should be a norm or a socially acceptable practice in our society. It's a freedom in our society to hate anyone you choose, but that doesn't make it right or acceptable - it only makes it acceptable by your (impersonal) standards.

Whether something is moral or immoral is irrelevant. Morality is a personal judgement. Everyone has different morals. One, or a majority, should not have the right to enforce their morals upon another or the minority.

And I understand the Nazi example is one of government regulation, but that's not to say that a society comprised of individuals who take it upon themselves to hold out against certain groups is inconceivable. I don't know for certain, but I would imagine this was the case in Serbia (during the 1990s) as well as other European societies throughout the last few decades (Russian and Soviet pograms come to mind). Whether or not the governments actually required this is irrelevant; given the social movements in these countries at the time, such discrimination would be "warranted" without government sponsorship.

What is wrong with that? It is a social movement that changed the culture of that region. Your sentiment reminds me of a quote from one of my favorite philosophers:

Every person takes the limits of their own field of vision for the limits of the world ~ Arthur Schopenhauer

You are using your own restrictions to paint a view of how everyone else ought to operate. To me, this is fundamentally wrong and it feeds American elitism/exceptionalism. What makes the world beautiful is the difference of culture around the world. Everyone having their own beliefs and customs. Instead of artificially trying to create a morally superior society (in our eyes), we ought to be trying to create a society which is as free as humanly possible and open to/cherishes beliefs of others even if the majority believes those views to be hateful or spiteful at heart.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I think it's wrong to refuse someone service based on their sexual orientation. I think it's as equally wrong as refusing service based on race, gender, or religion. Just how involved the govt should be is certainly open for debate, but compelling business owners not to discriminate in the past has helped to integrate society.

This is the moral angle. Not a legal angle. Legally, where do you stand?

If business owners weren't compelled to serve blacks, "White Only" establishments might still exist today.

They shouldn't have been compelled to serve blacks, and "white only" establishments ought to be legal.

 

[Weezer]

This is the moral angle. Not a legal angle. Legally, where do you stand?



They shouldn't have been compelled to serve blacks, and "white only" establishments ought to be legal.

There is a large grey area here. I believe in personal freedoms, but I also believe there are cases where societal needs trump personal needs. Sometimes, we sacrifice of ourselves for the betterment of the whole. If "White Only" establishments still existed on a massive scale, the racial tension in this country would probably already have exploded.

Legally, you cannot walk into a crowded place and yell "fire". To do so would be to incite a panic in which people could be hurt. So legally in that instance, your right to free speech has been trumped for the safety of others. Expanding that out, civil rights laws exist to help protect the public. Denying the store owners the right of refusal based on certain criteria may limit their freedoms, but it betters society. For this country to exist as it was intended, we have to learn to live together. The store owners are still entitled to their beliefs and are entitled to espouse them, they just cannot refuse service based upon them. To do so would be to harm the general public as it would promote bigotry and intolerance. We have to coexist.

There is a point where legality and morality intersect. You cannot simply walk up on someone and kill them. Why? It's legally wrong because it's morally wrong. You cannot exercise personal freedom at the expense of someone else. Mind you, this is an extreme example, but hopefully you see where I'm going with it.

I'm sorry I cannot find better words to make my point, but to discriminate against a certain section of the populace is to promote an insurrection. There is no benefit to be had by either side if that happens.

 

[tang]

everyone discriminates

 

[BIGORANGEBUBBA]

Got ya, still leave your bibal at home, separate your business from your moral beliefs.

Why? That is a very real problem with present day people. If he is a biz man and left his morals at home then, I guess he could be a crook and take advantage of his customers.

 

[MG1968]

Got ya, still leave your bibal at home, separate your business from your moral beliefs.

*Babel

 

[PKT_VOL]

There is a large grey area here. I believe in personal freedoms, but I also believe there are cases where societal needs trump personal needs. Sometimes, we sacrifice of ourselves for the betterment of the whole.

Our country was founded on the exact opposite premise.

If "White Only" establishments still existed on a massive scale, the racial tension in this country would probably already have exploded.

Pure speculation.

Legally, you cannot walk into a crowded place and yell "fire". To do so would be to incite a panic in which people could be hurt. So legally in that instance, your right to free speech has been trumped for the safety of others.

That is because your speech is or has to the potential to inflict harm upon another. Refusing to service a person does not such thing.

Expanding that out, civil rights laws exist to help protect the public. Denying the store owners the right of refusal based on certain criteria may limit their freedoms, but it betters society.

For this country to exist as it was intended, we have to learn to live together.

You do realize our founding fathers were a bunch of racist bastards, right? Remember the three-fifths comprise?

Reminds me of Tosh's stand up:

Daniel Tosh on the Founding Fathers and Equality of the Sexes

The store owners are still entitled to their beliefs and are entitled to espouse them, they just cannot refuse service based upon them. To do so would be to harm the general public as it would promote bigotry and intolerance. We have to coexist.

This is were you are inserting your own moral outlook and view of a perfect society unto others.

If Ras had a men's only establishment, would that harm the general public?
If Gibbs opened up his Marxist pringles restaurant (only other pringle lovin' Marxists are welcome), would that harm society?
If GS opened up a tinfoil only lodge, would that harm the public?

There is no harm done to the general public when a private business is allowed to operate as it so desires, so long as it does not violate another's life, liberty, or property.

Living with and allowing others the freedom to practice whatever they believe is the height of coexistence. Artificially enforcing rules upon others, limiting their freedom is hardly what I would call true coexistence.

There is a point where legality and morality intersect.
You cannot simply walk up on someone and kill them. Why? It's legally wrong because it's morally wrong.

Oh man. So laws ought to be based upon morality? Just take a moment and think about the implications of such a notion.

Let's for a moment concede that legality is inextricably tied to morality. It becomes a chicken or the egg argument. Are laws just because they are moral or are morals just because they are law (being the will of the majority)? Such an argument is very similar to the uber famous Euthyphro. In Euthyphro, Socrates asks Euthyphro whether an action is pious because the Gods like it or do the Gods like such an action because it is pious?

Law and morals are not inextricably linked as many would like to believe. This is where the fundamental Christians who claim our legal system is based on Biblical commands/morality go awry. There are countless things a majority of Americans find immoral or taboo that are perfectly legal.

To address your example, it is not against the law to kill a man because it is immoral. It is against the law to kill a man because it violates another man's life, liberty, or property; obviously "life" out of the three. One would not want murder to be legal in any social contract due to their own self-interest to stay alive.

 

[UTRavens]

They shouldn't have been compelled to serve blacks, and "white only" establishments ought to be legal.

Really?

At some point, common sense needs to overtake inflexible principles. There was/is absolutely nothing beneficial regarding racial segregation. It only serves to hurt society, which in turn only serves to hurt many (if not all) individuals and limits the same freedoms you so strongly believe in.

 

[dreVol]

Really?

At some point, common sense needs to overtake inflexible principles. There was/is absolutely nothing beneficial regarding racial segregation. It only serves to hurt society, which in turn only serves to hurt many (if not all) individuals and limits the same freedoms you so strongly believe in.

This presupposes that laws should be enacted to benefit society at large rather than protect the rights of the individual.

 

[vol_in_ar]

CFO/Treasurer - dang that's a pretty high level job to lose for doing something so dumb.

there goes 150k a year down the drain
some people are idiots

 

[OrangeYankee]

delete post... wrong quote

 

[OrangeYankee]

Really?

At some point, common sense needs to overtake inflexible principles. There was/is absolutely nothing beneficial regarding racial segregation. It only serves to hurt society, which in turn only serves to hurt many (if not all) individuals and limits the same freedoms you so strongly believe in.

While we are using an extreme example, I still believe the same rules apply, and I am sure the rest of the individuals who have their personal freedom would vote with their wallet and put that business completely under. Morality is up to society at large to enforce not the government, and we as a group of individuals should have the right to pick and choose right and wrong as a whole without wielding the government as a stick.

 

[Weezer]

Our country was founded on the exact opposite premise.



Pure speculation.



That is because your speech is or has to the potential to inflict harm upon another. Refusing to service a person does not such thing.



You do realize our founding fathers were a bunch of racist bastards, right? Remember the three-fifths comprise?

Reminds me of Tosh's stand up:

Daniel Tosh on the Founding Fathers and Equality of the Sexes



This is were you are inserting your own moral outlook and view of a perfect society unto others.

If Ras had a men's only establishment, would that harm the general public?
If Gibbs opened up his Marxist pringles restaurant (only other pringle lovin' Marxists are welcome), would that harm society?
If GS opened up a tinfoil only lodge, would that harm the public?

There is no harm done to the general public when a private business is allowed to operate as it so desires, so long as it does not violate another's life, liberty, or property.

Living with and allowing others the freedom to practice whatever they believe is the height of coexistence. Artificially enforcing rules upon others, limiting their freedom is hardly what I would call true coexistence.



Oh man. So laws ought to be based upon morality? Just take a moment and think about the implications of such a notion.

Let's for a moment concede that legality is inextricably tied to morality. It becomes a chicken or the egg argument. Are laws just because they are moral or are morals just because they are law (being the will of the majority)? Such an argument is very similar to the uber famous Euthyphro. In Euthyphro, Socrates asks Euthyphro whether an action is pious because the Gods like it or do the Gods like such an action because it is pious?

Law and morals are not inextricably linked as many would like to believe. This is where the fundamental Christians who claim our legal system is based on Biblical commands/morality go awry. There are countless things a majority of Americans find immoral or taboo that are perfectly legal.

To address your example, it is not against the law to kill a man because it is immoral. It is against the law to kill a man because it violates another man's life, liberty, or property; obviously "life" out of the three. One would not want murder to be legal in any social contract due to their own self-interest to stay alive.

I don't really feel like going point for point, but the Constitution emphasizes personal rights while allowing for times where the needs of the many will outweigh the needs of the few.

Statistical probablility is that allowing segragation will foster feelings of resentment that lead to confrontations, most likely violent, therefore people would be hurt by the action. The Civil Rights Movement backs up this idea.

I said there is a point where legality and morality intersect. I didn't mean they merge, they momentarily cross the same plane. Perhaps perpendicular would have been a better term. I did not mean to insinuate laws should be based on morality. But, the idea of life, liberty, and property is itself a product of morality. All freedoms are a product of morality. If we set aside morality completely, then it comes down to nature. Cull the weak and let the strong survive. But morality allows us to rise above that.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmP9Shki6_I[/youtube]

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Wow... did I right this? Almost like this guy copied/pasted this from one of my posts on VN.

Chick-fil-A President Shows Why Traditional Marriage Losing Support

As for gay marriage, it’s a contradiction in terms for many Americans. It never would have gained support if marriage itself hadn’t been hollowed out and cheapened, and gay marriage advocates themselves rarely hesitate to remind us of this. One of the most common arguments in favor of gay marriage is that real marriage is a miserable failure amongst heterosexuals, so why can’t homosexuals join in? After all, it’s a joke anyway…

But Dan Cathy has decided to hold the line on the gays. That’s where the gay marriage opponents screwed up. First, they winked at adultery, then they lionized single mothers by choice. Then, they demanded victimized men pay faithless wives for their transgressions. And here we have Mr. Cathy holding himself and his family up as an example, because “We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives.”

Well, Mr. Cathy, you are a member of a very privileged class. You inherited a thriving business from your father. You live in a mansion. You are rich beyond most Americans’ dreams. And yet you brag about the fact that you are in a traditional marriage. It isn’t much of an accomplishment, Dan, when your wife has such a plush life. Try keeping her when you can barely afford that new house or car she wants. Try keeping her when you answer to other men at work, and so does she. It isn’t so easy, and neither you nor your fellow Baptists make it any easier. Instead of going after the gays, why not the women who leave their husbands?

 

[volprof]

This is an oxymoron.



Whether something is moral or immoral is irrelevant. Morality is a personal judgement. Everyone has different morals. One, or a majority, should not have the right to enforce their morals upon another or the minority.



What is wrong with that? It is a social movement that changed the culture of that region. Your sentiment reminds me of a quote from one of my favorite philosophers:



You are using your own restrictions to paint a view of how everyone else ought to operate. To me, this is fundamentally wrong and it feeds American elitism/exceptionalism. What makes the world beautiful is the difference of culture around the world. Everyone having their own beliefs and customs. Instead of artificially trying to create a morally superior society (in our eyes), we ought to be trying to create a society which is as free as humanly possible and open to/cherishes beliefs of others even if the majority believes those views to be hateful or spiteful at heart.

PKT, I can tell from reading your posts that you are intelligent and well-read, but sometimes I think you would argue with me about whether or not the sky is blue. First of all, you do the exact same thing that you accuse me of with the Schopenhauer quote. Second, the point you make in the last half of your final paragraph is essentially what I've been arguing for on here the entire time, yet you argue with me. Maybe my posts have just not been clear? Third, I don't know exactly how you arrive at the conclusion that I am promoting some form of American elitism or exceptionalism by arguing that a business ought not be able to exclude particular groups from hiring/selling. In fact, I think my argument goes against any such principles, but maybe we have different ideas about what constitutes an elitist society. And that's quite possible given that you seem to have no problem with the social developments of Nazi Germany, Serbia, and Czarist/Soviet Russia. I have to admit I almost fell out of my couch when I read that particular part of your post. Do you honestly believe that, or am I just misreading you? You have no problem with what went on in Serbia in the 1990s yet you argue that the world is made beautiful by our diversity of cultures? Do you know what happened in Serbia in the 1990s, which was everything antithetical to a diversity of cultures? Hopefully I just misread your post.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I don't really feel like going point for point, but the Constitution emphasizes personal rights while allowing for times where the needs of the many will outweigh the needs of the few.

Only in times where the threat to others' life is imminent. Such is not the case with who you can or cannot hire/serve.

Statistical probablility is that allowing segragation will foster feelings of resentment that lead to confrontations, most likely violent, therefore people would be hurt by the action. The Civil Rights Movement backs up this idea.

Such a weak argument. You could make a similar argument about countless things which indirectly hurt society. Bloomberg is making a similar argument with soft drinks and baby formula.

It boggles my mind why one person would want to control another person's actions at gunpoint which do not directly harm them.

I said there is a point where legality and morality intersect. I didn't mean they merge, they momentarily cross the same plane. Perhaps perpendicular would have been a better term. I did not mean to insinuate laws should be based on morality.

My apologies then. I thought you wanted to go down that road.

But, the idea of life, liberty, and property is itself a product of morality. All freedoms are a product of morality. If we set aside morality completely, then it comes down to nature. Cull the weak and let the strong survive. But morality allows us to rise above that.

I couldn't disagree more. It comes from logic and self-interest. No morality involved.

 

[UTRavens]

This presupposes that laws should be enacted to benefit society at large rather than protect the rights of the individual.

This presupposes that one doesn't lead to another. Refusing service to a certain group of people absolutely limits their freedom. When enacted on a large scale like it was for so many decades, it becomes indefensible. Unless you think segregation somehow didn't hinder anyone's individual freedoms, I don't see how you can think individual rights aren't affected by this.

 

[PKT_VOL]

PKT, I can tell from reading your posts that you are intelligent and well-read, but sometimes I think you would argue with me about whether or not the sky is blue.

Thank you for your sentiments in your first clause.

I also share your sentiments about you as a poster.

As to your latter clause, I might be slightly guilty of that. I do like to play devil's advocate on issues to see where people really stand instead of accepting generic responses. I like to make people think about various issues in a different light than they might otherwise. Whether that changes their view is inconsequential to me. Either way, they will have a deeper appreciation and understanding of the issue at hand.

First of all, you do the exact same thing that you accuse me of with the Schopenhauer quote.

I am not sure how. You're going to have to explain that.

My point was that you are using your own field of vision to condemn the attitude of the Nazis and Serbs on a moral basis with respect to society. I am not doing any such thing. I neither condemn nor condone their moral outlook so long as their actions do not violate another's life, liberty, or property. Now, obviously they are guilty of carrying out such actions in the past. However, if a Nazi was to refuse to hire a Jew at his bakery or sale a Jew a piece of bread, I believe he should be free to do so. I believe both the Nazis and the Serbs are equally entitled to their views as you are to your views.

Second, the point you make in the last half of your final paragraph is essentially what I've been arguing for on here the entire time, yet you argue with me. Maybe my posts have just not been clear?

I am not sure. On the legal front, as I stated earlier, businesses ought to have the right to hire and serve whomever they like based upon whatever criteria they choose.

On the social front, I am not arguing that I believe it is morally right. I am just saying that it is not my role to enforce my believes upon another.

Those are my positions. You seem to blur your position between posts. Maybe we agree?

Third, I don't know exactly how you arrive at the conclusion that I am promoting some form of American elitism or exceptionalism by arguing that a business ought not be able to exclude particular groups from hiring/selling. In fact, I think my argument goes against any such principles, but maybe we have different ideas about what constitutes an elitist society. And that's quite possible given that you seem to have no problem with the social developments of Nazi Germany, Serbia, and Czarist/Soviet Russia. I have to admit I almost fell out of my couch when I read that particular part of your post. Do you honestly believe that, or am I just misreading you? You have no problem with what went on in Serbia in the 1990s yet you argue that the world is made beautiful by our diversity of cultures? Do you know what happened in Serbia in the 1990s, which was everything antithetical to a diversity of cultures? Hopefully I just misread your post.

You misread my post. Unbeknownst to me, you were referencing their horrific actions under the cloak of merely their morality. Like I stated before, I am against any actions which violate another's life, liberty, or property. The Nazis and Serbs certainly engaged in such actions. The difference I believe between you and me (or myself and most people) is that I don't condemn them for their actions because they hated Jews (Nazis) or Muslims (Serbs). I do not believe in hate crimes. I could care less what their motivations were. I condemn the action itself. To most, their crimes are especially horrific due to their nature. I do not find this to be the case.

As for my comment about American elitism/exceptionalism, I think I might have done a poor job articulating that point. American elitism/exceptionalism is built upon the premise that America is somehow superior than the rest of the world. Part of what feeds this is the idea that America is somehow morally and culturally superior than it's counterparts around the world. One such American moral/culture aspect is that of equality. Although both you and I might share such a view, it should in no way diminish another culture nor does it mean we are superior. What makes the world beautiful is the difference of culture around the world; whether we understand or agree with it.

 

[PKT_VOL]

This presupposes that one doesn't lead to another. Refusing service to a certain group of people absolutely limits their freedom. When enacted on a large scale like it was for so many decades, it becomes indefensible. Unless you think segregation somehow didn't hinder anyone's individual freedoms, I don't see how you can think individual rights aren't affected by this.

No.

This post reeks of entitlement. How are you entitled to another person's time, effort, energy, money? This argument is eerily similar to the healthcare "is a right" debate.

Segregation and discrimination is indefensible in the public arena. The private arena should be able to operate how they see fit as long as it does not violate another's life, liberty, or property. It is not necessarily a viable economic model, but they should have that right if they so desire.

 

[volprof]

Thank you for your sentiments in your first clause.

I also share your sentiments about you as a poster.

As to your latter clause, I might be slightly guilty of that. I do like to play devil's advocate on issues to see where people really stand instead of accepting generic responses. I like to make people think about various issues in a different light than they might otherwise. Whether that changes their view is inconsequential to me. Either way, they will have a deeper appreciation and understanding of the issue at hand.



I am not sure how. You're going to have to explain that.

My point was that you are using your own field of vision to condemn the attitude of the Nazis and Serbs on a moral basis with respect to society. I am not doing any such thing. I neither condemn nor condone their moral outlook so long as their actions do not violate another's life, liberty, or property. Now, obviously they are guilty of carrying out such actions in the past. However, if a Nazi was to refuse to hire a Jew at his bakery or sale a Jew a piece of bread, I believe he should be free to do so. I believe both the Nazis and the Serbs are equally entitled to their views as you are to your views.



I am not sure. On the legal front, as I stated earlier, businesses ought to have the right to hire and serve whomever they like based upon whatever criteria they choose.

On the social front, I am not arguing that I believe it is morally right. I am just saying that it is not my role to enforce my believes upon another.

Those are my positions. You seem to blur your position between posts. Maybe we agree?



You misread my post. Unbeknownst to me, you were referencing their horrific actions under the cloak of merely their morality. Like I stated before, I am against any actions which violate another's life, liberty, or property. The Nazis and Serbs certainly engaged in such actions. The difference I believe between you and me (or myself and most people) is that I don't condemn them for their actions because they hated Jews (Nazis) or Muslims (Serbs). I do not believe in hate crimes. I could care less what their motivations were. I condemn the action itself. To most, their crimes are especially horrific due to their nature. I do not find this to be the case.

As for my comment about American elitism/exceptionalism, I think I might have done a poor job articulating that point. American elitism/exceptionalism is built upon the premise that America is somehow superior than the rest of the world. Part of what feeds this is the idea that America is somehow morally and culturally superior than it's counterparts around the world. One such American moral/culture aspect is that of equality. Although both you and I might share such a view, it should in no way diminish another culture nor does it mean we are superior. What makes the world beautiful is the difference of culture around the world; whether we understand or agree with it.

Regarding Schopenhauer, we're all confined to our particular worldview and construct the world in light of this particular view each one of us holds. There's no avoiding it. Even your paradigm for a world without moral judgment is just that: a moral paradigm. It's just the nature of perspective and interpretation. For every viewer/thinker, there is a different perspective and interpretation. Like you (or at least how I read you), I don't necessarily believe in any moral absolutes - any universal moral code that should apply to all, yet this still falls prey to constructing a moral paradigm for the world. Schopenhauer's predecessor in Nietzsche took up this matter in his notion of perspectivism, which is also influential upon much postmodern thought. Regardless, whether or not we can guarantee any universal moral standards (guaranteed by a deity, humanitarianism, humanism, fascism, etc.) this doesn't necessarily mean that we can afford, as individuals under social contracts, to live apart from some sort of standard of morality that is central to a social cohesion that includes all a society's individuals under a protective umbrella that ensures the rights of life, liberty, and property of which you speak. Of course that's a moral standard as well, but I personally think the only other alternative is war and violence. Anything otherwise, anything, for instance, like the morality of Nazi Germany and 90s Serbia, is against a cohesive society, for modern society is inherently heterogenous (the myth of the homogenous national society was dispelled quite some time ago).

And, since I mentioned it, I believe that if Nazi Germany (or a Nazi-supporting businessman) or Slobodan's government (or Serb businessman) denied anyone bread, then that is against the denied person's right to life and liberty. Of course anybody ought to be able to do with their business and money as they want in an ideal libertarian or anarchist society that trumpets individual freedom (which is why I've said I agree with you in principle but not practice), but we don't live in ideal libertarian or anarchist societies. We live in the real world where people of diverse backgrounds and ways have to get along together and where we depend upon one another, each of us, for the vital role that we serve in society. Otherwise, some of us who fall out of the loop might end up dead.

 

[UTRavens]

No.

This post reeks of entitlement. How are you entitled to another person's time, effort, energy, money? This argument is eerily similar to the healthcare "is a right" debate.

Segregation and discrimination is indefensible in the public arena. The private arena should be able to operate how they see fit as long as it does not violate another's life, liberty, or property. It is not necessarily a viable economic model, but they should have that right if they so desire.

The problem is that these decisions do violate the liberties of others. Refusing service based on blatant racism most certainly interferes that - there's no way it couldn't.

You're looking at this strictly from the perspective of the initial party involved. Why does the right to refuse service need to be protected, but not for consumer freedom? This isn't a situation where both sides maintain those rights. It's either one or the other.

This all becomes exponentially worse when it comes to hiring practices. If there's a widespread culture among the private sector that refuses to hire minorities, does that somehow not violate their individual liberties and the ability to pursue a worthwhile standard of living?

 

[PKT_VOL]

Regarding Schopenhauer, we're all confined to our particular worldview and construct the world in light of this particular view each one of us holds. There's no avoiding it. Even your paradigm for a world without moral judgment is just that: a moral paradigm. It's just the nature of perspective and interpretation. For every viewer/thinker, there is a different perspective and interpretation. Like you (or at least how I read you), I don't necessarily believe in any moral absolutes - any universal moral code that should apply to all, yet this still falls prey to constructing a moral paradigm for the world. Schopenhauer's predecessor in Nietzsche took up this matter in his notion of perspectivism, which is also influential upon much postmodern thought.

If you take his quote with a great deal of classical skepticism (as you have), then I agree. I was referencing it without a lot of classical skepticism.

I also agree that there are no moral absolutes. Everything is relative.

Regardless, whether or not we can guarantee any universal moral standards (guaranteed by a deity, humanitarianism, humanism, fascism, etc.) this doesn't necessarily mean that we can afford, as individuals under social contracts, to live apart from some sort of standard of morality that is central to a social cohesion that includes all a society's individuals under a protective umbrella that ensures the rights of life, liberty, and property of which you speak. Of course that's a moral standard as well, but I personally think the only other alternative is war and violence. Anything otherwise, anything, for instance, like the morality of Nazi Germany and 90s Serbia, is against a cohesive society, for modern society is inherently heterogenous (the myth of the homogenous national society was dispelled quite some time ago).

1) The principals of life, liberty, and property are logically derived from self-interest in respect to social contracts. There is no morality involved.

2) Although I agree in your sentiment that a society ought to have a similar moral fabric if it is to have a certain level of social cohesiveness, I do not believe such a social morality should be enforced by law from the majority upon the minority. Much the same way faith is achieved in a particular religion in the US .

And, since I mentioned it, I believe that if Nazi Germany (or a Nazi-supporting businessman) or Slobodan's government (or Serb businessman) denied anyone bread, then that is against the denied person's right to life and liberty.

How so? It is certainly against the liberty of the private seller.

Of course anybody ought to be able to do with their business and money as they want in an ideal libertarian or anarchist society that trumpets individual freedom (which is why I've said I agree with you in principle but not practice), but we don't live in ideal libertarian or anarchist societies. We live in the real world where people of diverse backgrounds and ways have to get along together and where we depend upon one another, each of us, for the vital role that we serve in society. Otherwise, some of us who fall out of the loop might end up dead.

This makes no sense. Just because a person might be offended by another's lack of morals (perception) then the former person should have his freedom encroached to satisfy the moral standard of the latter? That is crazy.

I mean yes, the world would be a better place if we could all just get along and be happy and respect one another. However, you cannot achieve such a goal by coercion at gun point.