Prof Steinbock, what's important to consider is this implied premise that persons have the "liberty" to "harm" themselves i.e. to commit suicide or murder themselves. We must first consider the metaethical aspects of what liberty and harm entail, then come to your conclusion (37:59) that the alleged "religious/moral objections" of some should not limit the liberty of others. Also, what qualifies as "religious" objections? Does a worldview that requires comprehensive metaphysical doctrine qualify as one eg secularism or humanism? Most religions object to murder, so should we limit the liberty of others to murder? Please do not beg the question, Prof, with all due respect.
These lectures are excellent and very well done!😊
BRILLIANT!!!!!! Thank you for posting. I don't even know how to verbalize how much I enjoyed this lecture.
Prof Steinbock, what's important to consider is this implied premise that persons have the "liberty" to "harm" themselves i.e. to commit suicide or murder themselves. We must first consider the metaethical aspects of what liberty and harm entail, then come to your conclusion (37:59) that the alleged "religious/moral objections" of some should not limit the liberty of others. Also, what qualifies as "religious" objections? Does a worldview that requires comprehensive metaphysical doctrine qualify as one eg secularism or humanism? Most religions object to murder, so should we limit the liberty of others to murder? Please do not beg the question, Prof, with all due respect.