i wonder where Rupert Lowe would fit into our debate?
I don’t agree that this is a universal value system or that it is a thick conception. None of these things are a priori good. They derive value from more core principles, but that means that their value can be negated by this more core principle. What I was getting at in my reply wasn’t so much that these is no thick conceptualisation of “the good life”, but that there is no thick concept of what gives things virtue or why we even live at all.
I would disagree. To demonstrate this, let me ask you a question. If the French are mostly similar to the British, would it be morally wrong for Starmer to decide to sell the UK to France for say £5tn, to be shared between all the MPs who voted for the bill? Provided that all British citizens become French citizens, from your perspective, surely this would be morally permissible because “the English and the French are basically the same”. And we don’t have to just do it this way, but we could ask about Germany selling itself to Poland, Switzerland to Austria, Malta to Hungary?
I put it to you that all of these actions would be immoral. Further, even if they shared the money with all of the people, it would still be immoral because their people are different, they have different cultural values, and their brains just conceptualise ideas in fundamentally different ways.
Whilst I will agree that the Europeans are more similar to each other than they are to the Asians or the Africans, the differences are substantial.
Firstly, I disagree with you. Not everyone cherishes free expression or liberty, and even if they did, they are not fundamental ideals to strive for. People move to the West to extract material resources from it, sure. But that is not because of some high-minded liberal ideals, but because they can live among their own people in enclaves in the West and send money back to their families who have not moved.
Secondly, I will tell you that I don’t value prosperity. Let us imagine we had two options: 1) a prosperous society built on child prostitution, or 2) a non-prosperous society where no child is ever abused; I would like to think that we would all pick option 2. If nothing else, this further demonstrates that this is not a core value, but actually it shows us that prosperity for its own sake is a negative.
1 Like
Hello. have you decided to join Advance UK?
I do not wish to be rude, but I believe this sentiment encapsulates the naivety of Libertarinism.
Not all peoples value prosperity and liberty, to believe so shows a fundamental lack of experience with other cultures. Not all people are the same, many have values totally antithetical to what you believe.
It’s not because of lack of awareness or education, it’s not because you haven’t rescued them yet…
It’s because they are different to you.
Libertarians seem incapable of escaping the blank slate perception of humanity.
1 Like
