Lawyer-Wearing-Yarmulka
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Stupid Comment Of The Day
It has already been decided that the pursuit of happines (sic) is an inalienable right that no court and no vote can take away.
- DovBear
- DovBear
posted by LWY, 9:52 AM
5 Comments:
LOL!! That's awesome.
Quoting it out of context was the stupid part. You left out his entire argument that the definition of happiness is utlitarian in nature. Meaning - you have a right to the pursuit of happiness as long as it doesn't impose on someone else's or create a bruden for society. Damned good argument if you ask me.
Quoting it out of context was the stupid part. You left out his entire argument that the definition of happiness is utlitarian in nature. Meaning - you have a right to the pursuit of happiness as long as it doesn't impose on someone else's or create a bruden for society. Damned good argument if you ask me.
But every activity in a collective will create a burden on another party. SSM imposes a burden on someone who believes that SSM was proscribed by G-d and will cause Him to punish any society that allows gays to marry. Abortion imposes a burden on a questionable life, and on those who are appalled by it. Drugs impose externalities. And on and on. The principle is great in theory, but does not provide any useful guidance in the real world.
The proper utilitarian question, then, is whether an activity will provide greater benefits than costs. That formula creates problems of its own (should rape be acceptable when it provides more benefit to the rapist than costs to the victim?), but it's a more realistic vision of utilitarianism.
But every activity in a collective will create a burden on another party. SSM imposes a burden on someone who believes that SSM was proscribed by G-d and will cause Him to punish any society that allows gays to marry. Abortion imposes a burden on a questionable life, and on those who are appalled by it. Drugs impose externalities. And on and on. The principle is great in theory, but does not provide any useful guidance in the real world.
The proper utilitarian question, then, is whether an activity will provide greater benefits than costs. That formula creates problems of its own (should rape be acceptable when it provides more benefit to the rapist than costs to the victim?), but it's a more realistic vision of utilitarianism.
>SSM imposes a burden on someone who believes that SSM was proscribed by G-d and will cause Him to punish any society that allows gays to marry.
Sorry, but having a 'belief' that others in your society go against does not constitute a burden. If that were the case, you could apply your argument to just about any set of conflicting beliefs, religions, etc. I think something rises to the level of a 'burden' on society when it has a significant negative social and/or economic impact. If you can explain to me how exactly SSMs have a significant negative social and/or economic impact on society, I'll consider your argument. Otherwise, I think DB makes a damn good argument about the 'pursuit of happiness'. While it is true that 'your right to swing your fist ends where the tip of my nose begins' (paraphrasing), I don't believe that SSMs reach anywhere near the tip of society's nose.
Sorry, but having a 'belief' that others in your society go against does not constitute a burden. If that were the case, you could apply your argument to just about any set of conflicting beliefs, religions, etc. I think something rises to the level of a 'burden' on society when it has a significant negative social and/or economic impact. If you can explain to me how exactly SSMs have a significant negative social and/or economic impact on society, I'll consider your argument. Otherwise, I think DB makes a damn good argument about the 'pursuit of happiness'. While it is true that 'your right to swing your fist ends where the tip of my nose begins' (paraphrasing), I don't believe that SSMs reach anywhere near the tip of society's nose.
Sorry, but having a 'belief' that others in your society go against does not constitute a burden. If that were the case, you could apply your argument to just about any set of conflicting beliefs, religions, etc.
Obviously one could make such arguments from an utilitarian perspective.
If you can explain to me how exactly SSMs have a significant negative social and/or economic impact on society, I'll consider your argument.
I didn't make an argument for or against SSM. I just stated that DB's limitation is arbitrary if the goal is to maximize happiness.
Obviously one could make such arguments from an utilitarian perspective.
If you can explain to me how exactly SSMs have a significant negative social and/or economic impact on society, I'll consider your argument.
I didn't make an argument for or against SSM. I just stated that DB's limitation is arbitrary if the goal is to maximize happiness.
