O.G. Rose | 13. Equality and Its Immoral Limits (Part 2) by O.G. Rose @O.G.Rose.Michelle.and.Daniel | Uploaded December 2023 | Updated October 2024, 1 day ago.
Pick up a copy of "Belonging Again" by O.G. Rose today!
amazon.com/Belonging-Again-Explanation-Part-I-ebook/dp/B0C4M1F9WX?ref_=ast_author_dp
Though perhaps idealistic, the most "antifragile"-way to overcome immorality and injustice isn't through outlawing them but allowing individuals to dynamically and "freely" change their behavior on their own. Where this is not done and law is instead employed, people might not be internally changed, and in fact the legal action could make people more bigoted. Not necessarily, since "law teaches," but law might just teach people that the State is delegitimate - hard to say. However, where law isn't employed, citizens can unambiguously prove to one another that they refuse intolerance and immoral discrimination not because they are afraid of the law, but because they truly believe in justice. In a world where people were free to be unjust and there was no injustice, we'd have strong reason to believe injustice was declining, while in a world where injustice was illegal, we'd be unsure - there would be anxiety. Of course, in a world where injustice was illegal, there would be truly humble and moral people, but the issue is that people would struggle to know with confidence that these individuals were truly against injustice: there would always be the possibility that they only acted as such because of the law. The individuals could only prove themselves if the laws were removed, but who could remove the laws without being seen as supporting immorality and injustice?
For the rest of the piece, please see:
ogrose.substack.com/p/equality-and-its-immoral-limits
Medium:
o-g-rose-writing.medium.com/equality-and-its-immoral-limits-d79a530c286
Pick up a copy of "Belonging Again" by O.G. Rose today!
amazon.com/Belonging-Again-Explanation-Part-I-ebook/dp/B0C4M1F9WX?ref_=ast_author_dp
Though perhaps idealistic, the most "antifragile"-way to overcome immorality and injustice isn't through outlawing them but allowing individuals to dynamically and "freely" change their behavior on their own. Where this is not done and law is instead employed, people might not be internally changed, and in fact the legal action could make people more bigoted. Not necessarily, since "law teaches," but law might just teach people that the State is delegitimate - hard to say. However, where law isn't employed, citizens can unambiguously prove to one another that they refuse intolerance and immoral discrimination not because they are afraid of the law, but because they truly believe in justice. In a world where people were free to be unjust and there was no injustice, we'd have strong reason to believe injustice was declining, while in a world where injustice was illegal, we'd be unsure - there would be anxiety. Of course, in a world where injustice was illegal, there would be truly humble and moral people, but the issue is that people would struggle to know with confidence that these individuals were truly against injustice: there would always be the possibility that they only acted as such because of the law. The individuals could only prove themselves if the laws were removed, but who could remove the laws without being seen as supporting immorality and injustice?
For the rest of the piece, please see:
ogrose.substack.com/p/equality-and-its-immoral-limits
Medium:
o-g-rose-writing.medium.com/equality-and-its-immoral-limits-d79a530c286
