@Florida, Hawaii & Australia fan - Strawman argument. The example given in the Good Samaritan was action vs inaction. None of the 3 that passed the road committed the crime inflicted on the victim. The first 2 didn't help, the samaritan did. The virtuous person is the Samaritan obviously because he voluntarily helped. The people who did the bad things (the actual crime), they'd be punished if they were caught because crime is not within the boundaries of freedom for obvious reasons. The problem with your thinking that you think the government has a right to force people to do "good things". It doesn't, and government intervening always leads to more harm. For instance, the example given by the kid that there's a person walking by the beach alone and notices someone drowning from a far. Should the government then have power to force that passer-by to rescue the drowning person? What if the passer by doesn't know how to swim and is unable to rescue that drowning person? Let's take an actual scenario where the government uses tax money to subsidise single moms. The rationale behind that law is that we as a society must be kind to those single moms to help them provide for their kids and allow them to have a better future. Unfortunately, that actual law incentivised women not to marry their boyfriends so they could claim single-mom subsidies. The result: more children ended up in a single-mom households with their fathers philandering with other women because they didn't marry their girlfriends to begin with. Rather than solve a problem, the law actually boomed single-parent households which then also increased poverty rates. Simply put, forced virtue doesn't work.
@@BeachNature Correct. Did you even watch the video? One must be free to sin so one can be free to do good. If you force people to do good or stop them from sin, you make it a norm, it is no longer good, you essentially destroy philantrophy. I said sin, but not all of us are religious are we now? So who is to decide what is a sin? What is good and what is bad? No one can be sure, that's why no one should impose their belief upon others using force. Because if we all, or an isolated group of people, agreed upon what is and isn't evil, we/they wouldn't need force to impose it. It is selfish to think YOU KNOW what is good and bad. It is even more selfish to impose such beliefs using force upon others. No one knows, no one ever will. To know that is to know the meaning of life and reality itself. Of course we are talking about innaction vs action. Not if you inflict violence upon another, in such case I see it as merely giving the agrressor taste of their own medicine, meaning stealing from a thief is okay, so is killing a murderer. It's the topic of positive and negative rights. Plus it's a question of punishment, while of course someone who doesn't help a drowning person should be judged (be it in a positive or a negative light) but they definitely shouldn't be punished or even praised in any other way, meaning they shouldn't be put in prison, fined or even paid for their deeds (unless of course it's a voluntary donation).
Can anyone imagine college students of today being able to engage in such articulate and intelligent discourse? I'm a university student and I can tell you that in the college of today my fellow students (and many of the faculty) would be either sexting, sending tweets on their phones or screaming and yelling obscenities in an attempt to censor the speaker. It's amazing how far academia has fallen in just a few short years.
WOW!!! one of us needs to transcribe his videos into a book and make that book available to all places of Higher Learning in this country. and compile the videos for everyone. this man is amazing.
camuhi Kind of a gross assumption. In videos like this you can see too many watchers ribbing when they think a student asks a question that would trip up Milton or goes against his claims. Some are there just for the show.
This kind of exchange between Milton and a the educated/well spoken student is a rare occurrence these days. factually is often quick to submit to the lofty demands of these student activist groups on campus and ban speakers from attending events if they hold differing political ideologies.
You have the right to be stupid and you can't put on others the responsibility for your stupidity. If you don't want to sink first inform yourself wether it's safe or not to swim
Jack Mcslay Yeah. Even if it wasn't stupidity, say a riptide. How does two people dying make it better? Real easy to say it's the thought that counts when it's not your risking your neck. That's why some people want it. They want someone to risk their ass to save them one day.
I just realized what the part is that we are so fundamentally missing in Germany. We have no distinction between the societal rules and the law, or rather we try our butts off to put all of what we regard as ideal societal rules into a framework of law. This is a cultural thing, of course, because we Germans don't do things because they are good or bad but because those are the rules. It's always been this way. In the same breath I realized how hard that will be to change. Fuck me.
No! We're adult enough to decide for ouselves. Business have the right to require it obviously. I don't even like sanitiser but because I like shopping in the big malls I put it on almost every store when required.
the answer to the Mortal question is no, mr. Freeman. you can't force someone to risk their own life. that's immoral. what if the person seeing the person drown can't swim? does anyone have the right to make the judgement for that person on whether or not they should risk their own life? the answer is no. The judgement is on the person alone on whether or not the persons life who's drowning is more important than theirs.
Don Chong The best way to answer any question in this kind of setting is in a manner that appeals, engages and finds crux of the issue the people are most interested in. Not to slam and call people who might think the answer is yes flat out immoral. As the man said, knowing the answer is one thing convincing another.
If you have to use force to get others to act the way you think they should. It's a safe bet you need to look a lot closer at what it is you're trying to force them to do and why. While it is true that you effectively force your children to act in specific ways. Usually ways that are considered socially acceptable. The alternative would be to watch them as they act in ways that are not socially acceptable.
I get that people think students were smarter back then, but I attend a lot seminars at my college and students aren't going to bash a speaker like the comments seem to suggest. Where the hell do you guys go to college? Our students do listen and ask good questions and NO, we don't argue back with the speaker.
I might embarrass myself for asking, but is he basically stating that the allowance of evil gives more credit to the virtue? It just seems that by this logic we should stop forcing all government laws to empathise the virtues of those who still act by them. If anyone has a contradiction or notices I've missed the point please tell me so.
Very eloquent. Yet I disagree with his sentence: "We can never know if we are right". This is simply not true. It is also a self-negating statement. The correct response to this liberal, agnostic idea is "are you SURE about that?" If the answer is "yes", the statement has been proved false. If the answer is "no", then why should we bother listening to what he has to say?
"we can never know if we are right" is not an absolute statement, but an expression of doubt of the senses, and hence exempt from itself. you can have doubt in a wide variety of things while still being able to verify the existence of doubt. the question should not be "are you SURE about that?", but rather "how come?". the answer would be "because the senses are fallible" i would even go as far as to say that doubt is an axiom that cannot be proven.
Christopher Fleming Actually the situation used as an example is a prime showcase. If the man was drowning because of fatigue or unable to swim it would be right to force someone to help. If it was a riptide then it would be wrong, as it would probably get both. The law can't know the circumstances so it would apply to situations that WILL cause the death of the Good Samaritan. And hence be immoral and wrong. Therefore the statement stands true.
"We can never know if we are right" is a fact of chaos and a statement of reality that we live in a world that is not understood absolutely and each mind is not fully capable of digesting reality in its entirety. "We think we know" and "we think we are right" are based on a limited life with a limited human mind. What Dr. Friedman is saying is humility goes a long way. If you think you are right you should plead and argue your case but to say "you know" as to justify violence in order to compel is objectively a mistake based on known limitations of the human condition.
I don't agree with everything that he said i his various talks. But, I did a lot of it. He often promoted freedom. Which is something that we desperately need at this present day.
It actually would be, I think, nearly impossible to "force' someone to save a drowning man. If you are walking on the beach and see a man flailing, the government may punish you for not saving that man by fine or imprisonment, but unless an agent of the state was right there with you and put a gun to your head, one cannot be made to be a good Samaritan. And then one may take his chances with the gun wielding bureaucrat rather than take the risk of drowning himself. Essentially the state is a great shadow on our selves that has taken on the role of God, in that we fear it BEFORE there is any hint of force or threat thereof. The state does not have the right to play God, but we have capitulated, and given up much of our personal sovereignty in our dread of its awesome arrogation of power.
Try not paying a speeding ticket and ignoring the government at every turn. 1. A traffic camera takes a picture of your car and determines you were speeding. 2. You get a ticket in the mail, decide to ignore it. 3. You get a court summons, decide to ignore it. 4. You get a notice that your license is suspended, decide to ignore it. 5. You get pulled over for driving with a suspended license several months later, decide to ignore the officer. 6. The officer insists you pull over, you continue ignoring the officer. 7. Several more officers join in a slow speed chase trying to pull you over. 8. You make it to your destination, decide to ignore the 5 officers around you with guns drawn. 9. You are tackled to the ground, by an officer with a gun. 10. At this point, you are unhappy about being tackled and decide to fight back, further ignoring the officer's authority. 11. The officer loses his cool after having his grip and nose broken, shoots you. When Friedman refers to "force" he's talking about the ultimate consequence of not submitting to the government's authority. Even if you're only referring to a single penny fine, if the ultimate consequence of not doing something is a bullet, then it's still clearly a continuum of force.
You put it very well, Peter. You are absolutely correct. So many people try to say "well, it's just a fine"...well, it isn't and you make the case. Bravo!
Joe, My comment is intended to be polite. Your reply is so much as many today. You want to examine all sides to the scenario example. You , (anyone), are taking a simple example and making it way to complicated. Perhaps the young man could have given a different example but maybe that's the only thing that came to mind. Just ask a simple question and accept or reject the response. But, let's not over complicate it. Politeness intended.
With all due respect to Ben Shapiro, please don't insult Milton Friedman. One is a lawyer, the other an economist. Friedman was also not socially conservative, unlike Ben Shapiro.
I just paused it before Milton's answer to come down here and say _What an excellent question!_ Quite thought provoking. Now, let's see if Milton actually answers this one or if he'll put up a strawman to burn, as is often the case. However, I go into it with an open mind! **Unpause**
First of all the one asking the question said "should society impose..." and later said "should the government impose..." so this mean he in some way thought of those things as synonyms, so may i ask you ¿how is this not relevant to the answer? Second sin and virtue are two sides of the same coin, and yes you can say sin is evil and virtue is good but those two are both acts and can only have meaning when you have the freedom to choose.
SoulKing _how is this not relevant to the answer?_ Lol. Well it's vaguely relevant, sure. He can't just start talking about the plight of ostriches, can he? He has to say something vaguely relating to economics and choice. He didn't answer the actual question, I noticed that much. _and can only have meaning when you have the freedom to choose._ Sounds nice but it's not true. Ask a slave if there's no difference between sin and virtue. Ask them if, just because their choice in the matter has been taken away, whether sin/virtue has no meaning. Of course it does. And really, I'm not complaining about his debate style as much as I'm accusing him of avoiding answering the question put to him. It was a good question too and I really wanted to hear his answer. But he declined to.
Harmony Jones Well to be honest i do think he answered the question and i will like to argue and explain why but my English is not good enough and im not that smart myself so lets just leave it there.
Actually the distinction between society and government is totally relevant. Government in its core nature is force. It seeks to impose a certain standard of behavior upon the populace with consequences of increasing severity for disobedience. In other words you do "this" or you will pay a hefty fine, or be locked in prison, or lose your liberty in hundreds of ways. Government even reserves for itself the right to kill you if it finds the offense serious enough. Whatever the result: You will be punished. On the other hand, society seeks to impose standards through coercion. You will do "this" or you will be ostracized by the rest of the population. You won't be thrown into jail but you will be a pariah. Grossly improper behavior that offends society has a name in this context and that's "sin". Let's apply that thinking to a conversation you and I might have on an Internet Chat forum. Let's say I find that you say something offensive to me. A societal response might be that I put you on an "ignore list" and refuse to converse with you any more. Maybe the private owners of the forum ban you because you sinned against the rules of proper decorum. A governmental response, on the other hand, would be to fine you or jail you because THOSE are tools of government for imposing normative behavior. What Friedman is getting at therefore is whether the correct response is to impose government force on the reluctant samaritan (ie you will be FORCED to save that drowning person or suffer the legal consequences) vs. society expecting certain standards of conduct which all good people should follow, but in the end are free not to. Since Friedman consistently comes down in favor of freedom, he comes down here in favor of the freedom to sin. And he notes that without freedom to sin there can be no virtue. After all, if it's sinful to use a racial epithet, it's hardly virtuous to not use a racial epithet only because the government is holding a gun to my head with a finger on the trigger.
Friedman is a better economist than he is a philosopher. so is he arguing that people should have the freedom to commit wrong, or the freedom to commit wrong with impunity. the two are not the same. he seems to be slipping in all sorts of moral relativism, but then seems to contradict himself when he says that people are free to sin. hang on, is there or is there not such a thing as sin?
That's not what he's saying. He saying we have the right to chose to sin or not. if we don't have that right we have no freedom. If we are forced to do something we lose our freedom.
No, what he is saying is that morality is a individual choice and if one wants the society to adopt certain moral values, then it must done through proper education of its virtues and should not be something that a government imposes on the society forcefully. Huge difference.
Scott M "If we are forced to do something we lose our freedom." If you are forced not to do evil because you will be punished, this is a good thing. Just laws and effective deterrence is a good thing. I don't want people murdering and raping with impunity. Let's not re-enact the Purge.
"If you are forced not to do evil because you will be punished, this is a good thing. " Not saving someone drowning is not evil. You are not murdering the person. Of course you should try to save the person if you can but not because you'll suffer consequences if you don't. You are conflating two different things.
"Virtue is a meaningless concept unless an individual is free to choose between one act and another..." - Very well said
He probably learnt it from his early years as a Jewish kid, this is the basis of Judaism
No, you're thinking about guilt.
Nah, let's be Canada or UK and imprison people for hate speech or misgendering someone.
@Florida, Hawaii & Australia fan - Strawman argument. The example given in the Good Samaritan was action vs inaction. None of the 3 that passed the road committed the crime inflicted on the victim. The first 2 didn't help, the samaritan did. The virtuous person is the Samaritan obviously because he voluntarily helped. The people who did the bad things (the actual crime), they'd be punished if they were caught because crime is not within the boundaries of freedom for obvious reasons.
The problem with your thinking that you think the government has a right to force people to do "good things". It doesn't, and government intervening always leads to more harm. For instance, the example given by the kid that there's a person walking by the beach alone and notices someone drowning from a far. Should the government then have power to force that passer-by to rescue the drowning person? What if the passer by doesn't know how to swim and is unable to rescue that drowning person?
Let's take an actual scenario where the government uses tax money to subsidise single moms. The rationale behind that law is that we as a society must be kind to those single moms to help them provide for their kids and allow them to have a better future. Unfortunately, that actual law incentivised women not to marry their boyfriends so they could claim single-mom subsidies. The result: more children ended up in a single-mom households with their fathers philandering with other women because they didn't marry their girlfriends to begin with.
Rather than solve a problem, the law actually boomed single-parent households which then also increased poverty rates. Simply put, forced virtue doesn't work.
@@BeachNature Correct. Did you even watch the video? One must be free to sin so one can be free to do good. If you force people to do good or stop them from sin, you make it a norm, it is no longer good, you essentially destroy philantrophy. I said sin, but not all of us are religious are we now? So who is to decide what is a sin? What is good and what is bad? No one can be sure, that's why no one should impose their belief upon others using force. Because if we all, or an isolated group of people, agreed upon what is and isn't evil, we/they wouldn't need force to impose it.
It is selfish to think YOU KNOW what is good and bad. It is even more selfish to impose such beliefs using force upon others.
No one knows, no one ever will. To know that is to know the meaning of life and reality itself.
Of course we are talking about innaction vs action. Not if you inflict violence upon another, in such case I see it as merely giving the agrressor taste of their own medicine, meaning stealing from a thief is okay, so is killing a murderer.
It's the topic of positive and negative rights. Plus it's a question of punishment, while of course someone who doesn't help a drowning person should be judged (be it in a positive or a negative light) but they definitely shouldn't be punished or even praised in any other way, meaning they shouldn't be put in prison, fined or even paid for their deeds (unless of course it's a voluntary donation).
That was a good question. And a wonderful response.
I wish Mr. Friedman were still alive today. The world could use an honorable and intelligent man of his character.
Thankfully we still have Thomas Sowell.
The students are so fortunate to have had the privilege to see, in person, a relatively young and vibrant Milton Friedman.
Can anyone imagine college students of today being able to engage in such articulate and intelligent discourse?
I'm a university student and I can tell you that in the college of today my fellow students (and many of the faculty) would be either sexting, sending tweets on their phones or screaming and yelling obscenities in an attempt to censor the speaker.
It's amazing how far academia has fallen in just a few short years.
Marcus Halberstram That's what happens when leftists run the show.
It's 8 years later but I'm confident that you were many steps ahead of your fellow students just by your comment.
No
WOW!!! one of us needs to transcribe his videos into a book and make that book available to all places of Higher Learning in this country. and compile the videos for everyone. this man is amazing.
Ty
This kid is pretty smart. i wonder where he is at now.
I have always wondered what the kids in the background are doing now and whether or not this lecture informed their decisions as adults.
Nick Conner yeah I see a few taking notes and others just watching. The note takers are the ones who did something with their life I'd reckon.
Looks JUST like my uncle, who's a successful lawyer... I'm going to show him this video and see if it's him. Age is a match too.
TheLasombra077 Not necessarly it's actualy the opposite the watchers are the 100% fully focused ones
camuhi Kind of a gross assumption. In videos like this you can see too many watchers ribbing when they think a student asks a question that would trip up Milton or goes against his claims. Some are there just for the show.
Wow. So very profound. Love Milton Friedman. Happy birthday!
Legality and morality are more often opposed, than not. Thank you, Milton, for stating that Truth in the last sentence.
I would give all the gold in the world to travel back in time and take a college course with this man as my professor.
What a beautiful mind. RIP sir.
Wow. What an absolutely brilliant answer.
Holy cow, this will get me thinking a loooooong time
This kind of exchange between Milton and a the educated/well spoken student is a rare occurrence these days. factually is often quick to submit to the lofty demands of these student activist groups on campus and ban speakers from attending events if they hold differing political ideologies.
I'm impressed with the Student and his articulate intelligent question
Doesn't seem to be many around today
1:25 That's one hell of an answer, this young man may have a bright future!
Friedman answers ethical philosophy questions way better than answering economic questions. And he has a Nobel Prize in Economics!
"That's a rhetorical question that has an implied answer" - well played, young sir.
For more on this topic read Clockwork Orange (Or watch the movie).
Good question in order to divert into that philosophical question.
College students were way smarter back then. You can tell in the way they way they speak and ask their questions.
It's quite a simple question if you know law in its most basic form.
Wow, where is this kind of discourse today?
Milton is so fucking cool
Wow what a well thought out question Jesus what happened
Government happened.
You have the right to be stupid and you can't put on others the responsibility for your stupidity. If you don't want to sink first inform yourself wether it's safe or not to swim
Jack Mcslay Yeah. Even if it wasn't stupidity, say a riptide. How does two people dying make it better? Real easy to say it's the thought that counts when it's not your risking your neck. That's why some people want it. They want someone to risk their ass to save them one day.
I just realized what the part is that we are so fundamentally missing in Germany. We have no distinction between the societal rules and the law, or rather we try our butts off to put all of what we regard as ideal societal rules into a framework of law. This is a cultural thing, of course, because we Germans don't do things because they are good or bad but because those are the rules. It's always been this way.
In the same breath I realized how hard that will be to change. Fuck me.
Well meaning...taught a lesson
Does government have the right to force people to wear face masks?
No! We're adult enough to decide for ouselves. Business have the right to require it obviously. I don't even like sanitiser but because I like shopping in the big malls I put it on almost every store when required.
How sad you will rarely see a young person today able to articulate in this manner.
I'd like to know what happened to that kid...very bright individual.
morality goes beyond any human law
the answer to the Mortal question is no, mr. Freeman. you can't force someone to risk their own life. that's immoral. what if the person seeing the person drown can't swim? does anyone have the right to make the judgement for that person on whether or not they should risk their own life? the answer is no. The judgement is on the person alone on whether or not the persons life who's drowning is more important than theirs.
Don Chong The best way to answer any question in this kind of setting is in a manner that appeals, engages and finds crux of the issue the people are most interested in.
Not to slam and call people who might think the answer is yes flat out immoral.
As the man said, knowing the answer is one thing convincing another.
If you have to use force to get others to act the way you think they should. It's a safe bet you need to look a lot closer at what it is you're trying to force them to do and why.
While it is true that you effectively force your children to act in specific ways. Usually ways that are considered socially acceptable. The alternative would be to watch them as they act in ways that are not socially acceptable.
I thought that was Onision in the video thumbnail at first.
No.
Good exchange, but: No, the government can't (should never) make it a crime NOT to do something, they can only outlaw the action of doing something.
I get that people think students were smarter back then, but I attend a lot seminars at my college and students aren't going to bash a speaker like the comments seem to suggest. Where the hell do you guys go to college? Our students do listen and ask good questions and NO, we don't argue back with the speaker.
I might embarrass myself for asking, but is he basically stating that the allowance of evil gives more credit to the virtue? It just seems that by this logic we should stop forcing all government laws to empathise the virtues of those who still act by them. If anyone has a contradiction or notices I've missed the point please tell me so.
Jack Webster Do laws enforce virtue??
Milton real is a smart cookie.
SO THIS IS HOW WHITE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN GAINING KNOWLEDGE BEHIND OUR BACK????????? IM SENDING THIS TO MY NIGGAZ IN THE HOOD!!!
Very eloquent. Yet I disagree with his sentence: "We can never know if we are right". This is simply not true. It is also a self-negating statement. The correct response to this liberal, agnostic idea is "are you SURE about that?" If the answer is "yes", the statement has been proved false. If the answer is "no", then why should we bother listening to what he has to say?
"we can never know if we are right" is not an absolute statement, but an expression of doubt of the senses, and hence exempt from itself. you can have doubt in a wide variety of things while still being able to verify the existence of doubt. the question should not be "are you SURE about that?", but rather "how come?". the answer would be "because the senses are fallible" i would even go as far as to say that doubt is an axiom that cannot be proven.
rion aslo great response. I like how you put it together. I learned something. Cheers
Christopher Fleming Actually the situation used as an example is a prime showcase. If the man was drowning because of fatigue or unable to swim it would be right to force someone to help. If it was a riptide then it would be wrong, as it would probably get both.
The law can't know the circumstances so it would apply to situations that WILL cause the death of the Good Samaritan. And hence be immoral and wrong.
Therefore the statement stands true.
"We can never know if we are right" is a fact of chaos and a statement of reality that we live in a world that is not understood absolutely and each mind is not fully capable of digesting reality in its entirety. "We think we know" and "we think we are right" are based on a limited life with a limited human mind. What Dr. Friedman is saying is humility goes a long way. If you think you are right you should plead and argue your case but to say "you know" as to justify violence in order to compel is objectively a mistake based on known limitations of the human condition.
I don't agree with everything that he said i his various talks. But, I did a lot of it. He often promoted freedom. Which is something that we desperately need at this present day.
It actually would be, I think, nearly impossible to "force' someone to save a drowning man. If you are walking on the beach and see a man flailing, the government may punish you for not saving that man by fine or imprisonment, but unless an agent of the state was right there with you and put a gun to your head, one cannot be made to be a good Samaritan. And then one may take his chances with the gun wielding bureaucrat rather than take the risk of drowning himself. Essentially the state is a great shadow on our selves that has taken on the role of God, in that we fear it BEFORE there is any hint of force or threat thereof. The state does not have the right to play God, but we have capitulated, and given up much of our personal sovereignty in our dread of its awesome arrogation of power.
Try not paying a speeding ticket and ignoring the government at every turn.
1. A traffic camera takes a picture of your car and determines you were speeding.
2. You get a ticket in the mail, decide to ignore it.
3. You get a court summons, decide to ignore it.
4. You get a notice that your license is suspended, decide to ignore it.
5. You get pulled over for driving with a suspended license several months later, decide to ignore the officer.
6. The officer insists you pull over, you continue ignoring the officer.
7. Several more officers join in a slow speed chase trying to pull you over.
8. You make it to your destination, decide to ignore the 5 officers around you with guns drawn.
9. You are tackled to the ground, by an officer with a gun.
10. At this point, you are unhappy about being tackled and decide to fight back, further ignoring the officer's authority.
11. The officer loses his cool after having his grip and nose broken, shoots you.
When Friedman refers to "force" he's talking about the ultimate consequence of not submitting to the government's authority. Even if you're only referring to a single penny fine, if the ultimate consequence of not doing something is a bullet, then it's still clearly a continuum of force.
You put it very well, Peter. You are absolutely correct. So many people try to say "well, it's just a fine"...well, it isn't and you make the case. Bravo!
Joe Postove Good response Joe.
Joe, My comment is intended to be polite. Your reply is so much as many today. You want to examine all sides to the scenario example. You , (anyone), are taking a simple example and making it way to complicated. Perhaps the young man could have given a different example but maybe that's the only thing that came to mind. Just ask a simple question and accept or reject the response. But, let's not over complicate it.
Politeness intended.
@@oldblackstock2499 Thank you. I do appreciate your politeness and take you critique seriously! 🙂
Hey miltie!!!!! THERE IS A GOD AND THERE IS A HELL
Milton Friedman was the Ben Shapiro of his day.
With all due respect to Ben Shapiro, please don't insult Milton Friedman. One is a lawyer, the other an economist. Friedman was also not socially conservative, unlike Ben Shapiro.
What the hell is going on here. Why does everyone look like they're back in the olden times.
I just paused it before Milton's answer to come down here and say _What an excellent question!_ Quite thought provoking. Now, let's see if Milton actually answers this one or if he'll put up a strawman to burn, as is often the case. However, I go into it with an open mind! **Unpause**
First of all the one asking the question said "should society impose..." and later said "should the government impose..." so this mean he in some way thought of those things as synonyms, so may i ask you ¿how is this not relevant to the answer?
Second sin and virtue are two sides of the same coin, and yes you can say sin is evil and virtue is good but those two are both acts and can only have meaning when you have the freedom to choose.
SoulKing _how is this not relevant to the answer?_ Lol. Well it's vaguely relevant, sure. He can't just start talking about the plight of ostriches, can he? He has to say something vaguely relating to economics and choice. He didn't answer the actual question, I noticed that much.
_and can only have meaning when you have the freedom to choose._ Sounds nice but it's not true. Ask a slave if there's no difference between sin and virtue. Ask them if, just because their choice in the matter has been taken away, whether sin/virtue has no meaning. Of course it does. And really, I'm not complaining about his debate style as much as I'm accusing him of avoiding answering the question put to him. It was a good question too and I really wanted to hear his answer. But he declined to.
Harmony Jones Well to be honest i do think he answered the question and i will like to argue and explain why but my English is not good enough and im not that smart myself so lets just leave it there.
SoulKing
I can be patient. If you want to try and make your point, please do. I'll read it carefully and ask about anything I'm not clear on :)
Actually the distinction between society and government is totally relevant. Government in its core nature is force. It seeks to impose a certain standard of behavior upon the populace with consequences of increasing severity for disobedience. In other words you do "this" or you will pay a hefty fine, or be locked in prison, or lose your liberty in hundreds of ways. Government even reserves for itself the right to kill you if it finds the offense serious enough. Whatever the result: You will be punished.
On the other hand, society seeks to impose standards through coercion. You will do "this" or you will be ostracized by the rest of the population. You won't be thrown into jail but you will be a pariah. Grossly improper behavior that offends society has a name in this context and that's "sin".
Let's apply that thinking to a conversation you and I might have on an Internet Chat forum. Let's say I find that you say something offensive to me. A societal response might be that I put you on an "ignore list" and refuse to converse with you any more. Maybe the private owners of the forum ban you because you sinned against the rules of proper decorum. A governmental response, on the other hand, would be to fine you or jail you because THOSE are tools of government for imposing normative behavior.
What Friedman is getting at therefore is whether the correct response is to impose government force on the reluctant samaritan (ie you will be FORCED to save that drowning person or suffer the legal consequences) vs. society expecting certain standards of conduct which all good people should follow, but in the end are free not to.
Since Friedman consistently comes down in favor of freedom, he comes down here in favor of the freedom to sin. And he notes that without freedom to sin there can be no virtue. After all, if it's sinful to use a racial epithet, it's hardly virtuous to not use a racial epithet only because the government is holding a gun to my head with a finger on the trigger.
Friedman is a better economist than he is a philosopher.
so is he arguing that people should have the freedom to commit wrong, or the freedom to commit wrong with impunity. the two are not the same.
he seems to be slipping in all sorts of moral relativism, but then seems to contradict himself when he says that people are free to sin. hang on, is there or is there not such a thing as sin?
That's not what he's saying. He saying we have the right to chose to sin or not. if we don't have that right we have no freedom. If we are forced to do something we lose our freedom.
No, what he is saying is that morality is a individual choice and if one wants the society to adopt certain moral values, then it must done through proper education of its virtues and should not be something that a government imposes on the society forcefully. Huge difference.
"proper education of its virtues" can mean many different things
Scott M
"If we are forced to do something we lose our freedom."
If you are forced not to do evil because you will be punished, this is a good thing.
Just laws and effective deterrence is a good thing.
I don't want people murdering and raping with impunity. Let's not re-enact the Purge.
"If you are forced not to do evil because you will be punished, this is a good thing. "
Not saving someone drowning is not evil. You are not murdering the person. Of course you should try to save the person if you can but not because you'll suffer consequences if you don't. You are conflating two different things.