The element of "consent" is crucial in identifying moral social interactions. When consent of one party is ignored or overridden, know assuredly that that interaction is immoral. (Ex.- difference between making love and rape is consent)
Wow looks like Republicans and Libertarians (Rofl what??) seem to have no problem imposing their will onto others through force.
Not necessarily. Examples that come to mind are in which one party is already doing something unethical. Think for instance of the drug smuggler who would rather not have any interaction with the cops.
How is the drug smuggler harming anyone? Is he forcing anyone to take drugs? If people d codes they didn't want drugs, he'd be out of a job.
That may be, but all the same but all the same one could hardly argue that the cops are immoral for doing their job and talking to the guy. Or if you like replace drug smuggling with any crime you feel ought to be a crime and the point stands.
That's where you and I disagree. I think cops, along with every socialist solution to any problem, is fundamentally immoral. So a cop "just doing his job" is inherently an immoral agent.
Any time "legality" and "morality" conflict, I will choose morality over legality every damn day. 🙂
That's why I said pick some other crime. Surely you think there ought to be at least one law?
I hesitate to call anything a "crime", as that has certain connotations that I fundamentally reject, but sure, people have the right to defend themselves from Bad Actors in a society, those who violate the Non-Aggression Principle by initiating force against peaceful people. But that's precisely the difference between "legality" and "morality". Some of humanity's most shockingly evil things were perfectly "legal".
(Government-subsidized slavery, Nazi death camps, Jim Crow laws/Segregation, Civil Asset Forfeiture aka legalized wholesale theft from innocent people, the list is endless) 😕
Returning to your original (perceptive) comment, when one party has truly acted "unethically" (not just "illegally") then they have broken the NAP and can then be detained/made to set restitution regardless of their consent, since they first were the violating aggressor. So you have a good point about consent that I didn't initially address in my poll question.
So thanks! 😀
This user is currently being ignored
"Consent is extremely complicated"- actually it's not. It's pretty damn simple. Of course an admitted child molester is going to pretend it is. KYS
I don't give a shit about "legality", I care about "morality". When the two conflict, I choose morality any damn day.
That's why it would be moral, but not legal, to kill you, to save your victims from being molested by you.
So you are an admitted pedophile, who desires to rape children, but have not raped any yet?
Please, share with me more of your wisdom. 😂