Are limitations part of a civilized society?

[Kaleredar]

Limitations are part of uncivilized society

Civilized society needs not limitations by definition.

Yes yes, "laws govern the actions of the weak, morals govern the actions of the strong" and all that jazz.

Of course, for that, you need a solid basis for morals, and society is wont for a broad range of moral conflictions. Or even somewhere from which to draw morals in many cases.

So agreed upon, enforced laws are the next best thing, unless you can get everyone to ascribe to the same moral code. Which, given the history of human kind... isn't likely.

[Elim Garak]

Yes yes, "laws govern the actions of the weak, morals govern the actions of the strong" and all that jazz.

Of course, for that, you need a solid basis for morals, and society is wont for a broad range of moral conflictions. Or even somewhere from which to draw morals in many cases.

So agreed upon, enforced laws are the next best thing, unless you can get everyone to ascribe to the same moral code. Which, given the history of human kind... isn't likely.

The only problem with moral codes - there are many societies with their own codes. But within a single society - moral code is one and only. And we are talking about societies. A civilized society would not need any laws, just a moral code. And whatever happens in inter-society affairs is out of the scope of this discussion.

Ultimately though, we would need to (in Dalek voice) EXTERMINIEREN all the people from other societies to achieve world wide civilization.

[Deleted]

When your "freedom" starts affecting other people within your society, then it can no longer considered "freedom", because other people should have "freedom" from your "freedom". For example, if you think you should have the "freedom" to spew bullshit in a public street, then other people should also have the "freedom" not to have to hear your bullshit.

So, of course any civilized society should have rules, laws, restrictions and oversight.

[Elim Garak]

In civilized society you wouldn't be spewing bullshit in a public street to begin with.

[Lothaeryn]

Yin does not exist without Yang, Order cannot exist without Chaos, Freedom cannot exist without Law; for it is law that keeps freedom from taking the monstrous shape of anarchy.

[Deleted]

A great many of the restrictions placed are in the spirit of protecting the general welfare of the people (or the government) from harmful behavior or things. Sometimes these are misguided or based entirely on bullshit but the spirit is the same. Liberty is a great thing only up until it infringes on the Liberty of another citizen and then it should be reigned in.

The problem is, that more and more (groups of) people regard "not be offended by something" as their liberty. And lets face it: even if you sit in the corner of a dark cellar, not doing anything at all, you are still going to offend someone.

[Yvaelle]

True. Pure freedom is just as bad as pure capitalism or communism. Restrictions are vital to ensure liberty in my opinion. How far is too far when it comes to protecting the liberties of some at the cost of freedom to others?

The guiding light of progressive liberalism is The Harm Principle: which is that you should be free to do anything that doesn't make others less free (which is what Endus was getting at).

So, any manner of kink is fine between consenting adults - but rape isn't because it makes someone else less free. Generally - drugs are fine - unless the drug is likely to make the person do things that would endanger others - so Marijuana is harmless, but PCP isn't. Smoking alone, or around other smokers is fine - but smoking in a public place isn't. Drinking is fine, but driving drunk is not.

As you may notice - The Harm Principle is already enacted to define much of modern society - but it would be better if more people were consciously aware of it - so that they could better recognize 'right' from 'wrong' in a society that values the maximization of personal liberty.

[Deleted]

Smoking alone, or around other smokers is fine - but smoking in a public place isn't.

Smoking (tobacco) is actually a funny thing... Because of all the asshole smokers in this apartment building, I can't really even keep my windows (or air vents) open to cool down and air out my flat, because as soon as I do so, my flat smells like a bar. Really nice, when it's +25-30C outside.

But, since smokers absolutely must have their "freedom" to smoke inside their own flats (from where the smoke billows through windows and air ducts into mine), or at their windows, or on their balconies, I have to be subjected to secondhand smoke pretty much every single day.

Aren't "freedoms" just brilliant? Can't wait for the day when tobacco is made illegal.

[Dezerte]

Yes, as touched upon by several posters already - the greatest enemy of (your) freedom is (my) freedom, we need limitations in order to maximize freedom for all.

[Slant]

Yes, as touched upon by several posters already - the greatest enemy of (your) freedom is (my) freedom, we need limitations in order to maximize freedom for all.

The German constitution phrased it perfect, IMO. It could be paraphrased "You can do whatever the hell you want unless you infringe someone else's right to do whatever the hell he wants."

Of course, people thought that kind of language was not proper for a constitution so now it reads...

"(1) Everyone has the right to freely unfold his personality unless he is infringing liberties of other persons or breaches the constitutional order or moral laws."

The second bit then talks about the liberty to preserve physical integrity that can only be infringed upon by special laws. This is relevant for medical topics, for instance. But now I'm digressing...

Edit: The first draft was actually "Everyone can do what he wants." and that's it. People had to figure out that limitations are important, democracy and human rights were a new thing for Germans in the late 40s.

[Deleted]

The guiding light of progressive liberalism is The Harm Principle: which is that you should be free to do anything that doesn't make others less free (which is what Endus was getting at).

So, any manner of kink is fine between consenting adults - but rape isn't because it makes someone else less free. Generally - drugs are fine - unless the drug is likely to make the person do things that would endanger others - so Marijuana is harmless, but PCP isn't. Smoking alone, or around other smokers is fine - but smoking in a public place isn't. Drinking is fine, but driving drunk is not.

As you may notice - The Harm Principle is already enacted to define much of modern society - but it would be better if more people were consciously aware of it - so that they could better recognize 'right' from 'wrong' in a society that values the maximization of personal liberty.

is dope fine? it may not have as many direct impacts, but in a complex society it does impact on others, through medical care costs, policing costs etc....which costs money which is paid for by other people's taxes.....social responsibility goes further than just "harm".

We collectively endorse a social structure, we may not do it consciously, but we do it by conforming to it. Which means that we have both a responsibility to a system to uphold it, and a benefit of the system that is is upheld for the collective if not always the individuals benefit.



Put another way. In the UK the police are not normally armed, we practice police by consent. The police act fairly and uphold the law, and society as a whole agrees to live by the laws...because if we choose not to, then no police force could possible control a population effectively and you'd have a breakdown of civil order. Which would impact on my liberties such as freedom from being attacked, robbed, etc, and so on.
So I consent to some limitations (in this case laws), in order to protect my greater freedoms.

[Deleted]

is dope fine? it may not have as many direct impacts, but in a complex society it does impact on others, through medical care costs, policing costs etc....which costs money which is paid for by other people's taxes.....social responsibility goes further than just "harm".

There are no "medical care costs" from marijuana use (hell, it's even used as medication), and if you look at Colorado, you'll see that they made around $2 million in tax revenue in the first month after recreational marijuana became legal.

Socially responsible people would make marijuana legal everywhere, and rake in the tax dollars.

[Ghostpanther]

True Freedom is to live without limitations, To live without these limitations would be anarchy and chaos. So yes, limitations are a necessity of a civilized society. Without them there would be nothing to stop me walking into a gun store, buying a gun, shooting the owner, and proclaiming that the store, and all he owns is now mine.

This. Plus there are limitations on when and under what circumstances I can block water ether by pumping on using a dam. Like where I live in Ohio, it is against the law to damn up a stream which is large enough to be considered public domain. And under some circumstances pumping too much water where it impacts the needs of others for that water can be illegal also.

And electric cars do use some oil. They still need some lubrication in their drive systems. And the plants which generate electricity for the chargers for those cars do use some oil. In today's current society it is nearly impossible to avoid all stuff which uses no fossil fuel oil in some way. From the manufacturing of said product to the dispersal of a product.

There is really no such thing as absolute freedom without costs involved.

[NewOrleansTrolley]

Sure, of course. That's what the civil in civilization even means.

That don't mean specific limitations make some place more civilized than the other though. Country with civil law A but doesn't have civil law B where another country has both doesn't mean either is more civilized than any other. That's a dangerous road to travel. This is typical Greek semantic stuff tbh. I have no idea why people are arguing whether this law or that makes a place civilized. Are you guys talking about limitations are signs of a sophisticated / advanced society? That's even more confusing. Are you guys pretending that gun control / gay marriage / stuff you want makes a place civilized? I agree with them but that makes no sense and has a huge moral bias.


If we remove the word "civilized" completely and focus on whether law X is good for us, then that's completely different and much less problematic / condescending argument wise.