A free and rooted society ought to consist of a web of moral obligations. We have the right to ignore them, but we ought to be actually obliged not to let other people starve or to let them lapse into destitution.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Without a moral framework, there is nothing left but immediate self-indulgence by some and the path of least resistance by others. Neither can sustain a free society.
One might rationally argue that individual human beings should be free choose what moral behavior they approve of, and which they don't, subject to the constraints of the law.
If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion.
The balance of private good and general welfare is at the bottom of civilized morals; but the morals of the Heroic Age are founded on individuality, and on nothing else.
Forcing people to be generous isn't humanitarian, effective, compassionate or moral. Only acts that are truly voluntary for all concerned can be truly compassionate.
I have to live for others and not for myself: that's middle-class morality.
There is no system that is inherently moral if the participants themselves are not.
The moral disapprobation of society has an impact on behavior in societies.
We shall have to practise to lead our life on the basis of our needs, not under the influence of our greed.
The only way of living in a free society is to feel that you have the right to say and do stuff.