What are the Common Misunderstandings About 3L?
Misunderstanding 1: “Live and let live” means you don’t care about other people
The Moral Principle explicitly calls on people to voluntarily be excellent humans, including being caring and kind. The “let live” in the phrase limits legalized aggressing, it does not prevent personal moral support for our fellow humans.
On the other side, one may deeply oppose someone’s personal choices while still defending their right to make them, indeed this is the foundation for a free society.
Merely because we recognize that other competent adults ought to be free to live their lives as they see fit does not mean we must be unconcerned about our fellow humans. — Marc J Victor
Misunderstanding 2: Supporting the legality of one’s choices necessarily means endorsing those same choices
Defending the legal right of someone to engage in an act is an entirely separate matter from approving or disapproving of that act.
Advocating for your legal right to eat ice cream is not ‘sending a message’ that I think you should eat ice cream. We need to dispense with this unsophisticated argument immediately. — Marc J Victor
Misunderstanding 3: “Aggression” includes saying harsh words, offending others, or any type of manipulation
It is common for people to refer to “aggressive speech,” or “microaggressions,” when they mean offensive statements. Many people also want the speech they think is “aggressive” to be outlawed.
The Legal Principle defines aggression precisely. It is a term referring to the initiation of denying one’s self-sovereignty, of which Live and Let Live categorizes into eight distinct forms for ease of conceptualization. Hurt feelings or psychological anguish caused by speech do not qualify.
It is the role of the Moral Principle to prevent hurtful words and offensive behavior, not the role of the Legal Principle to outlaw it.
It is never the speaker’s words that cause a person to be offended, but rather the insulted person’s chosen response to the speaker’s words. — Marc J Victor