Is it primacy of the individual or collective...

[Agit8r]

...that insists that the Seventh Amendment can't be respected, because it makes the costs of goods and services higher for the collective?

...that insists that particulate emissions which kill individuals can't be regulated, because it could result in higher costs for the collective?

...that says we can't protect workers from unsafe conditions, because it makes the product made or mined too expensive for our collective well-being?

...or that unsafe products can't be regulated, because it will make them too expensive for the common good?

yes, this is because PoliticalˈShēk set off the BS-Detector

 

[Daktoria]

(I'll play devil's advocate.)

You're forgetting about context. Stop being a moral absolutist.

 

[Agit8r]

(I'll play devil's advocate.)

You're forgetting about context. Stop being a moral absolutist.

Politics can't be about moral absolutes? What would William Jennings Bryan say?

 

[PaulS1950]

What in the seventh amendment brings you to those conclusions?

Here is what it says:
7th Amendment
"In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall
exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be
preserved; and no fact, tried by a jury, shall be otherwise
re-examined in any court of the United States than according
to the rules of the common law."

 

[Agit8r]

What in the seventh amendment brings you to those conclusions?

Here is what it says:
7th Amendment
"In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall
exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be
preserved; and no fact, tried by a jury, shall be otherwise
re-examined in any court of the United States than according
to the rules of the common law."

4 separate parts of the question. Only the first involves the 7th Amendment and so-called "tort reform"

it is asking whether those ideas are based in the primacy of the individual, or in the primacy of the collective (I even left hints)

 

[Daktoria]

Politics can't be about moral absolutes?

Morals are a matter of opinion. They depend on the interests of the parties at hand.

What would William Jennings Bryan say?

Bryan opposed social Darwinism on the grounds that it was an excessively rigid evaluation of fitness. Society should be flexible to accommodate people from all backgrounds.

 

[Agit8r]

Morals are a matter of opinion. They depend on the interests of the parties at hand.

fair enough. Ethical minimums then?

 

[Daktoria]

Morals are a matter of opinion. They depend on the interests of the parties at hand.

fair enough. Ethical minimums then?

It's not a matter of minimums. It's a matter of situations. Sometimes, the individual matters. Other times, the collective matters.

 

[Agit8r]

Morals are a matter of opinion. They depend on the interests of the parties at hand.

fair enough. Ethical minimums then?

It's not a matter of minimums. It's a matter of situations. Sometimes, the individual matters. Other times, the collective matters.

I would say that individuals themselves, always matter. Now there interests are another matter.

I would say that "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights" and that "These limits can only be determined by law"

 

[Daktoria]

fair enough. Ethical minimums then?

It's not a matter of minimums. It's a matter of situations. Sometimes, the individual matters. Other times, the collective matters.

I would say that individuals themselves, always matter. Now there interests are another matter.

I would say that "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights" and that "These limits can only be determined by law"

(Again, I'm just playing devil's advocate.)

The individual can only be protected in context of the community. That is the law must unite people in common to provide security.

If individuals are unwilling to conform to the norm, they're welcome to go about on their own and survive as outlaws, vulnerable to criminals.

 

[konradv]

...that insists that the Seventh Amendment can't be respected, because it makes the costs of goods and services higher for the collective?

...that insists that particulate emissions which kill individuals can't be regulated, because it could result in higher costs for the collective?

...that says we can't protect workers from unsafe conditions, because it makes the product made or mined too expensive for our collective well-being?

...or that unsafe products can't be regulated, because it will make them too expensive for the common good?

It's not an either/or question. They each have their place.

Logical Fallacies ? the False Choice | The Call of Troythulu