The smallest minority in the world is the individual

From a discussion with a friend.

===================================

Whenever we advocate a political action, we are advocating for the violent imposition of our will upon the people who disagree with us.

For atheism: logic demands that something has to be proved, not the contrary. People say: there is a God. People has to prove it. Because we can see, feel or touch no God. People say there is evidence of God. The evidences shown are not con…sistent nor logic. Agnosticism is just a way of avoiding the discussion altogether.

Individuals are not paramount over groups. They are equal to all individuals, always. If two or more individuals agree i something, they are not more than a third one that disagrees, they continue to be 3 individuals with opinions. Individuals are sovereigns in themselves, and should be respected.

I made a mistake. Not all political actions lead to violence. There are two types of political action: one asking for a given state imposition, and other asking for the abolition of a given state imposition. Ghandi advocated mostly for the abolition of state impositions, thus being non violent. Every demand on state imposition (laws, programs funded by taxes, etc) are the violent imposition of disagreeing opinions.

Like the logical statement of God, state should be proven useful and better than a non state. State is created, it did not exist before. Now almost all people believe that the state is completely necessary but, logically, it remains the responsability to prove that one thing IS than one thing IS NOT. About this read:

<<If I say “Any theory is TRUE until proven FALSE”, when I say that “Any theory is FALSE until proven TRUE” is true, until proven wrong, thus invalidating my own statement. So the correct is “Anything is FALSE until proven TRUE”, like the presumption of inocency.

Similarly for postmodernism which insist that there is no truth, I would say great, that also means there is no truth in the statement that there is no truth. Once again, they are self-invalidating.>>

I already sent you numbers about the time in UK (http://theuklibertarian.com/2010/10/01/top-10-jobs-in-libertarian-paradise-part-1/) when education and health were mostly private in the 1800’s. There are cities in the US where there is no state police. There are several examples of how the private sector is more efficient than the state. I do not advocate right now the complete dissolution of state, but a minimal state. And if people start really wanting that, it would be a transition, not a immediate and traumatic shock.

I am not a strong atheist, but strong atheism is good to show people that atheism is the only logical approach, the other options are irrational. Irrationality is not a crime, nor necessarily a moral flaw, when well directed, as you pointed… out.

But I think the world need more rationality, because it eventually needs to peace and prosperity. It leads to a simple and cooperative morality: i can prosper and live better if I respect the body, mind and property of others.

Regarding the truth statements: philosophy, the basis of ocidental rational knowledge, one of the foundations of scientifical methodology, a pillar to most of the technology available today, is based in that logical rule. It may not serve for theology, for psychology, for love, and so forth, but it is imperative for science.

I think everybody should follow this rule by the book. When wikileaks does one of the few good things publishing data that proves TRUE a bad relationship between government and businessmen in Kenya, when someone discovers a knife filled with DNA from someone and blood of another, etc. this is the application of that rule. The only way rational people can make decisions to live better together is attaining to what is rational and true, what nobody can deny, what is mutual.

The same way to personality. I can be what I want, but I have to treat people with fairness and respect. There are tracts of the character of a person that allows communication. It is proved that all people in the world desires being treated with respect and fairness, it is a common language, it is shared, it open the doors to communication.

Things that are not shared, such as religion, language, cultural aspects, personality, must be put in the background when interacting to people you don’t know. When interacting, people must attach to logic and respect.

John Law, a live english philosopher, says that religion is essential because is essential to billions of people. I say that these people may keep religious, but rationality does not exclude spirituality and mithology. I myself do not exclude the possibility of spirits, but as it is not proven true, inside a communication between rational people, it must be treated as false. You know that the prefeitura of Rio pays for a pai de santo to help prevent rains?

I know not Foucault, but maybe he has not contributed with relevant things, if he has not pursued the truth. For me truth cannot be relative. The very concept of truth is absolut, it allows no relativism.

Ethics? Simple truth: don’t do to ot…hers what you would not want that others did to yourself.

Psychology? Science that studies and analyses the basic behavior. It uses scientifical method, analysis, so, yeah, it seeks the truth in the logical sense. Economy is the same.

Politics is the way you decide to use colective violence, or the way it is decided by others but affects you. Government is the monopoly of violence, in its collective form, and only it can use violence to impose its decisions. It should only be allowed to do what we are allowed to do: defend ourselves from the violence started by others. But instead it is used to start violence against people who has not started violence and to spoliate people (take part of their belongings without their consent).

If ethics is a truth, i.e., universal, it should be applied to politics. If, as you propose, every man can hold infinite and possibly conflicting truths, i.e. relativism, politics can be used in infinite ways, none necessarily governed by ethics.

Another thing, as already said. If you say there is no truth, what you imply is that what you are saying is then… not true. It makes no godam sense.

The whole point is that truth is not personal, it is something shared by all.
You are just choosing to be relativist. For the justice for example, things must be true: people are truly innocent before judged truly guilty. It can have no relativism there, and what people feel about it does not matter. If I jump of a window I will fall and most likely die, because I can’t fly.If I stick a dagger in someone’s belly I will be trying to drive the life out of that person, and I will most likely face the consequences of that act. If I don’t eat for two weeks I will die. If I don’t use the right combination of ciment and sand the house may fall.

Fall off a window is the same thing for me and you.

I can go on listing truths. As I said, if there is no truth, but only relative truths, what you are saying is not true. Debate is needless.

In our personal lives we can live in a certain degree of relativism, it is even impossible to live by rational standards 100%. That’s not the point. The base for ethics and laws cannot be relativistic, because relative is the opposite of universal, and laws can only be laws if universal.
The smallest minority in the world is the individual

Deixe uma resposta

Preencha os seus dados abaixo ou clique em um ícone para log in:

Logotipo do WordPress.com

Você está comentando utilizando sua conta WordPress.com. Sair / Alterar )

Imagem do Twitter

Você está comentando utilizando sua conta Twitter. Sair / Alterar )

Foto do Facebook

Você está comentando utilizando sua conta Facebook. Sair / Alterar )

Foto do Google+

Você está comentando utilizando sua conta Google+. Sair / Alterar )

Conectando a %s