When people say what someone "deserves", there are two common senses in which they might mean it.

The judgement sense: the ideology that good people deserve fortune and bad people deserve misfortune. What someone deserves is determined by how good of a person they are.

The ownership sense: the ideology that people have the right to not interact with others, and thus that if you define "deserve" to mean "it's righteous to make things this way", then people by definition deserve whatever they have unless they took it from someone else who deserved it. This definition of "deserve" isn't about good versus bad so much as it's about rights.

It's interesting to note that the philosophies of Judgement and Ownership here correspond, in some sense, to fascism and libertarianism Although fascism as a term is heavily associated with evils that aren't relevant to this aspect, and that both of them are right.

Protagonism upholds both of these philosophies under the names of Rectitude and Consent. Actually everyone believes both to some degree but for liberals the Ownership aspect is way too weak because they advocate things like gun control and hate speech laws (I hear Canada has them) and reparations for slavery and progressive tax while for libertarians the Judgement aspect is too weak since they (I'm talking about the consistent ones like Backalley Philosophy and Zeroth Position, not the "Libertarian Party") usually advocate no exceptions to the sovereignty of private property rights whatsoever.

I believe both in such a way that private property is usually sovereign, but Judgement can trump it in a sufficiently extreme case such as a person who can save an innocent life at a small cost to his property but refuses (obviously you can steal it from him if you can't save the person yourself) or perhaps a business owner who uses his economic power significantly to reward bad behavior, censor people who speak truths he doesn't like, et cetera. (And obviously strategy can "trump" either of them in the short-term, but that's not really trumping.)

The selling point of my moral system is that any principle can be outweighed by degree. Nothing is absolute. My creed is reasonable in any situation while the absolutist creeds of pure libertarians lead to unreasonable implications in extreme situations. For example Filthy Heretic (one of the Backalley Philosophy members) put out a video on his own channel where he said that if you have a cure for cancer and could give it to an entire planet of people at no cost to yourself, you're not obligated to do anything because Muh Self-Ownership. (To be fair to him he was actually arguing against the Star Trek prime directive and just tacked on the addendum that you aren't required to do anything.)



Comments

You don't need an account or anything to post. Accounts are only for email notifications on replies. Markdown formatting is supported.