US ambassador killed over a film

[Jester]

One tenet of our morality is that we value human life, even when the "owner" does not.

I'm afraid I'm with the unreconstructed Libertarians on this one. Peoples' values are their own, and so are their bodies. I have no right to tell anyone what's better for them, and if I value their life, even when they don't, then so much the worse for me.

This is part and parcel to the morality and ethics imparted by the social coda --

• don't kill
• don't steal
• don't have sex outside of marriage
• don't eat pork
• etcetera

Code /= coda.

A whole laundry list of things I might or might not agree with. Killing and stealing hurt other people. Having sex outside of marriage and eating pork don't.

Perhaps this is where we differ. I don't have a problem with the established social contract (based upon religion) which "steers us toward good decisions" even if they are perceived to placebo.

Perhaps it is. I see no reason to accept existing codes, which are already and always contested, varied and ambiguous in any case. We all need some concept of "good decisions," and if mine is at odds with society's, then so be it. Societies have come up with some pretty wretched codes in the past, and we will in the future. We need some basis for fighting them.

I don't think it works to allow everyone their own rule book. I understand why you'd chaff against the establish social coda, which is layered upon primarily a religious rulebook. As you said, it's working pretty well, but it's not perfect.

Have I suggested anywhere that everyone gets to write their own rulebook? I'm a social libertarian. If I can't point to specific and compelling harms to others caused by certain behaviours, then I don't see what makes them immoral or unethical. Whatever gets you your kicks, as long as you don't kick anyone else.

-Jester