Common Ground

Post Reply New Topic

I believe a few things which I think get overlooked too often in philosophical and political debates.
Things I think most people will agree with when confronted directly but which they also seem to abandon when in groups or when pressured by threat of social consequence. I call these things values and I believe there are a few we should all be able to find in common. To me people of even radically opposing views must never look upon each other as enemies even if they literally hate each others perspectives...so long as certain basic values are shared. Of course it doesn't mean they need to talk to each other or like each other but they must not look on each other as enemies.

Here are a few of what I believe these values to be (feel free to add to them or debate them or discuss/debate the issue). I present them as freedoms which are I think also values and there are all "freedoms too" I don't address "freedoms from" because this is really a different semantic use of the word "freedom". What I mean is that individual liberty to "Be" and to "live" as each chooses must that I can see come before all other views, because if it doesn't then nobody gets to have anything they want except whoever has power. it might seem at times that things would be just peachy if you were a dictator for example and everyone had to do things your way and only your way ever, or if you happen to be on the happy side of some social movement but things will not stay peachy because lost balance is lost liberty. Who is to say that your children or their children will share your views? what liberty would you rob them of only so you could have your short moment of privilege over others? This is why I speak only of freedoms "too".

Freedom of speech.

I believe (and this is just me) a person should be able to say whatever they want, however they want , wherever they want to whoever they want without fear of legal consequence (which certainly doesn't preclude social consequence which is a price each person should consider before they speak) , and I would even extend it to what is called hate speech not for people who would do that,(because I have less than no respect for it) but because the existence of something like that is to me a pretty small price to pay for the liberty of all others.....and again, just because somebody is free to say what they like...doesn't obligate anybody else to listen to it or agree and that seems pretty fair to me.

Freedom of choice.

it's simple, I think A person who makes any choice for them-self so long as it does not effect anyone else or anyone's ability to make some personal choice which THEY have a right to, this person has a right to this choice. I mean to say that nobody has a right to hold them from it because it is their life, they get just the one as far as we can prove and denying them any part of it or it's consequences good or bad is not really ok that I can see. To me this is a huge part of interpersonal respect. Again I am not saying I think one needs to always respect the choices of another, but I think one should always respect their right TO that choice....as long as it does NOT effect the rights of others.

Freedom of belief.

Everyone is free to believe what they like. that...will not make it true and even if it is a social truth and everyone agrees on it that will not make it a fact; Furthermore, even IF it is considered to BE a fact that will not place that fact in the same standing as a self evident fact and moreover even self evident facts may on rare occasion turn out to be a matter of flawed interpretation, but everyone has a right to believe what they like and they do not have the right to force anyone else to believe what they believe....you are welcome to try and change anyone's mind of course.

Freedom to own one's self.

I consider it self evident that a person owns every last piece of their person, from their name to their words and I would go so far (personally) as to say one's DNA (an interesting note here is that it is not presently illegal to collect the DNA of another and use it however you like, it can be done and it is done all the time. you might be surprised how often), one's thoughts (there is no way to violate this yet but it won't stay that way, and there isn't yet a law against it). An obvious extension of this would be the right to privacy (although this is a bit of a complex topic these days), another obvious extension would be that slavery is illegal since it violates this basic freedom. A person should be free to own themselves there should not be a way to sell an integral part of oneself nor should anyone be able to purchase another person, some part of another person or otherwise coerce another into selling some piece of themselves their freedoms (because those freedoms constitute the dignity of their humanity). There are a lot of other (I think obvious) extensions of this but



it's not meant to be a complete list so it is incomplete for now. But I believe these to be (though incomplete) the most basic of things we must all agree on to find common ground and I also believe that they form the basis for identifying movements and ideologies that are a threat to common ground, civil peace among people and ultimately even the debate that for now we enjoy the right to have. Having such conversations at the grace of another means very little however. if someone CAN take away any of the basic freedoms you enjoy simply because they don't like what you are doing with yours (people will dislike what you do with yours, we are not all the same) then can we even say you have that freedom?
I do not think we can....although that might be another topic for an interesting debate at some other time.

I leave it to the Autistics (of which I am one) and I look forward to seeing an interesting and I hope a new conversation on it.

ready? set? GO!

no takers?

I agree whole heartedly. The points you have made are, in my opinion, the core of true libertarian democracy. As far as freedom of speech goes, I support the right of people to say anything they want, as long as I am not forced to listen to them.

I think there's a reason these are easier to talk about in light of events and examples but difficult to talk about, or get people motivated to talk about, on their own. In a way they're something like guiding principles that are void of their own content.

What gets tricky is we have to consider human tribalism and people's skepticism in each other's cognitive abilities as well as general disagreement on where subtle lines can be made firm. I think freedom to do what one wants with one's body falls right into the trope from a 1990's anti-drug commercial of the middle aged lady blowing coke, making the claim it's no one's business, and then you see the next day that she's a school bus driver and everyone's sort of supposed to gasp 'Those could be my kids!!'. It'll be interesting to see how it will go culturally if we ever have a major sweep of legalization in the US beyond marijuana and my guess is, culturally speaking, we'd need to have a lot of science behind it and a lot of public guidance before employers were okay with their engineers taking MDMA on the weekend or their corporate controller third plateauing on DXM once in a while.

Maybe a slightly more abstract way of putting the above - we live on a boiler plate of highly technical responsibilities to other people, it's how most of us pay our bills, and I think that will always put a certain damper on what one can do in their free time even if yes, it doesn't harm anyone else.

Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are probably easier cases to be made at least in the US because they're part of what our constitution rests on. At the same time there's some of the same debate here as in Europe as to whether certain speech crosses the line, simply enables people to corral ignorance to malignant purposes, and just as many very sharp people who'd equally suggest that it's very difficult to set limits on speech and once the train heads out in that direction it's both very difficult to recall and it won't simply stop when the other party is in office or when it ceases to benefit your own group.

I don't personally think there can ever be any 'flex' on freedom of speech. The reason I say this is that it isn't simply a liberty, it is a tool, and not just any tool but THE VERY tool that allows people to speak together toward any common end. Once the line is crossed and exceptions are made...for anyone really under any circumstances what goes along with it is all certainty that it is safe to be open, to be human, to be flawed, to share one's perspective, to HAVE a different perspective, and after that nobody not even the people who called for it get to ever know again that it's safe.
Maybe they got what they wanted but the price it came at is knowing that getting it has set a precedent,and they do not get to know that whatever follows will favor them.

Even as it is I think most people feel a sense of dread attached to standing up and speaking out when their peers will not necessarily agree and it's enough that it seems to have superseded the once held sense of duty to do so which an era ago was so precious and which came at the cost of lives. That's ...People, human beings DIED and were WILLING to die just for the chance to live in a world where they and their children could speak freely and without fear of consequence. That is no small thing and it is easy to forget that should any people who have such a precious treasure ever be called upon to fight perhaps to die to preserve their freedom to speak without fear of consequence they must do it. it's a duty.

Does it sound extreme? Maybe it does but why is that? Should that ever sound extreme? is it any more extreme than being willing to sacrifice oneself for any basic ideal of human existence? I don't think it is but we are all VERY distanced from a world WITHOUT the most basic liberties. So maybe what I am saying is not so extreme...maybe it is just that we no longer commonly socially understand how extreme a situation it becomes without this particular freedom.

But, I digress for now.
I'd love to keep the thread about Common ground Because I feel it's been lost. I don't think people are growing to focus more on common ground despite difference of opinion, I think they are increasingly obsessed with special interest. Let me be clear, I am not claiming that they cannot set their interests aside to work together I am saying that they don't and when nobody is around to present the prospect of social consequence they abandon their duties to each other and to the values that bind us all together as people who love to be free and will do anything to hold on to it for ourselves and even for those we don't really like a whole lot.

anyone?

I have found that it is possible to find common ground when talking to people on a personal level. The problem comes when groups with opposing viewpoints "communicate" with each other. The mob mentality comes out and civility and understanding go out the window.