Considering the following irrefutable conditions we live in
In what way would you prefer to see these 3 problems dealt with, with the likelihood that the maximum amount of people would benefit and get along without conflict?
Jackson LaRose: filc:And what if my decisions are purely based on economics, not on ethics. What if the formation of property was an economic attribute, not an ethical one. That people chose to acknowledge property not becuase it was the right thing to do, but because it made the most economic sense to them personally. This becomes exacerbated across all capital owners. To state otherwise is a conflation of economics with ethics simply because it is an economic viewpoint that many can agree apon. The same could be said for the market, many agree on the market but by your definition does that make it an ethical system? As economics can tell us what is the right, or wrong they to do, assuming we want personal prosperity. Let me put out a scenario to show you how I am interpreting this passage. filc (a natural rights believer) and Jack (a natural rights non-believer) are in a room. filc is sitting in a chair, loading a gun. Jack is standing, gazing longingly at the comfy looking chair, in which filc rests. After loading up, filc gets up out of the chair, places a placard reading, "WARNING! PROPERTY OF FILC. NO TRESPASSING UNDER PENALTY OF DEATH" on the seat of the chair, and stands next to it, casting a "dirty Harry"-esque glance at Jack. Jack, whose feet are really starting to ache, is presented with a choice. Ignore filc's (is Jack's mind, non-existent) claim of "ownership" over the "property" (chair) in question, and possibly get shot and killed in the process, or remain standing, even though he'd really like to have a seat. He decides he values standing with the known discomfort,more than sitting with the risk of being put six feet under. Does he hold any regard for this claim of "ownership of property"? No, he does not take that into consideration at all. He just is afraid of what filc might do if he felt "violated". If that's what you meant, than I would totally agree with you.
filc:And what if my decisions are purely based on economics, not on ethics. What if the formation of property was an economic attribute, not an ethical one. That people chose to acknowledge property not becuase it was the right thing to do, but because it made the most economic sense to them personally. This becomes exacerbated across all capital owners. To state otherwise is a conflation of economics with ethics simply because it is an economic viewpoint that many can agree apon. The same could be said for the market, many agree on the market but by your definition does that make it an ethical system? As economics can tell us what is the right, or wrong they to do, assuming we want personal prosperity.
Let me put out a scenario to show you how I am interpreting this passage.
filc (a natural rights believer) and Jack (a natural rights non-believer) are in a room. filc is sitting in a chair, loading a gun. Jack is standing, gazing longingly at the comfy looking chair, in which filc rests. After loading up, filc gets up out of the chair, places a placard reading,
"WARNING! PROPERTY OF FILC. NO TRESPASSING UNDER PENALTY OF DEATH"
on the seat of the chair, and stands next to it, casting a "dirty Harry"-esque glance at Jack. Jack, whose feet are really starting to ache, is presented with a choice.
Ignore filc's (is Jack's mind, non-existent) claim of "ownership" over the "property" (chair) in question, and possibly get shot and killed in the process, or remain standing, even though he'd really like to have a seat.
He decides he values standing with the known discomfort,more than sitting with the risk of being put six feet under. Does he hold any regard for this claim of "ownership of property"? No, he does not take that into consideration at all. He just is afraid of what filc might do if he felt "violated".
If that's what you meant, than I would totally agree with you.
Yes thats what I mean. You made an economic decision that it would be more cost beneficial for you to stand then get shot. Ethics aside, and it doesn't matter what the other party's zealous beliefs are. You made an economic decision, not an ethical one.
Jackson LaRose:I believe X is morally good. I want to execute action Y. How does action Y relate to belief X? This would be a question you would apply ethics to.
X = Eating when hungry
Y = Eating
I believe Eating when Hungry is morally good. I want to execute the action eating this potato, and I am hungry. How does action Y relate to belief X? This would be a question you would apply ethics to.
So in other words every possible decision you make prior to action is an ethical one based on one premise or another. So how can you stand here and tell me you do not beleive in ethics?
Earlier you said you made a decision, your decision was to remain alive as opposed to resting your feet.
X = Staying Alive is morally good
Y = Sitting Filc's Chair.
You made an ethical decision to remain standing, since your premise was to stay alive.
filc:Yes thats what I mean.
I knew we could be friends
filc:So in other words every possible decision you make prior to action is an ethical one based on one premise or another.
LOL, from which one of your crevices are you pulling this out of? How in the hell does that follow? Ready to see me remove the question of morality (and therefore, ethics) from the equation?
Ready, ABRACADABRA!!!
Jackson LaRose:I
want to execute action Y.
Ta Da!
Also you never say
I beleive X is morally good.
Morals are not decided arbitrarily, they stem from a certain premise. There is always an ultimate end.
I beleive X is good, because:
Choose your premise but there is always a because. Morals are not there just for their own sake, they are there to guide human action to help achieve a specific end. There is no such thing as.
Rape is bad.
It is
Rape is bad because reasons XY and Z.
Now where did I loose you specifically? Everything follows from the definitions you provided.
You have conveniently decided not to specifically point out where my reasoning failed? Care to do that now? Your last post was simply an assertion. Also this is why people call you a troll. You attack people, but when your point is being scrutinized you never engage the discussion, you recoil and get petty, as you have above.
Either point out where my reasoning fails or don't bother responding. Don't start being Petty again.
filc:Morals are not decided arbitrarily, they stem from a certain premise. There is always an ultimate end.
OK, well the premise is arbitrary, then. If you dig down to the kernel upon which morality sprouts, you will find a statement of faith.
filc:Choose your premise but there is always a because. Morals are not there just for their own sake, they are there to guide human action to help achieve a specific end.
Then the because is arbitrary. You can pick any justification for action you want, and call it moral. Presto, a new ideology is born!
filc:Rape is bad because reasons XY and Z.
As if X Y and Z were absolute.
filc:Either point out where my reasoning fails or don't bother responding.
You seem to assume a sense of morality is necessary to act. I don't understand why.
Jackson LaRose:OK, well the premise is arbitrary, then. If you dig down to the kernel upon which morality sprouts, you will find a statement of faith.
How or why is the premise arbitrary? Is it arbitrary that I think it is good to eat when hungry? If it is arbitrary then all ends are arbitrary. Felt desire is arbitrary. Are you prepared to contend that praxeology is arbitrary? That human action is arbitrary?
If man eats when hungry is that arbitrary? If man starves himself when hungry is that arbitrary? Each code of conduct has it's own premise. The man chooses how to act by his own merit, he sets his own moralities, his own codes of conduct.
Jackson LaRose:As if X Y and Z were absolute.
Ofcoarse they are not. Often times they are mystic, or even blatantly fictional. Sometimes X and Z may conflict, usually by opposing groups. That's irrelevant though. It's not true that in all cases the premise is arbitrary. As is the case of the morality of eating for example.
I personally do believe eating IS the right thing to do when hungry, if my end is to satisfy hunger. According to you this is an ethical decision that is judged by my own standards. But this is nothing more then a rewrite of human action.
Jackson LaRose:You seem to assume a sense of morality is necessary to act. I don't understand why.
And you can't divorce human action from morality, so your argument is self defeating. You debunk yourself. All men act within guidelines they set themselves. Whether their ethical code of conduct is limited to a narrow premise they define, or shared amongst thousands of men makes no difference.
filc:Is it arbitrary that I think it is good to eat when hungry?
Well, from a moral standpoint, yes. Why is it "good" or "right" to do?
filc:Are you prepared to contend that praxeology is arbitrary? That human action is arbitrary?
I think you are confused. Just because Praxeology contends that humans act to alleviate discomfort, that doesn't automatically assume that this "ultimate end" is morally "good". It is simply a statement, not a moral assertion.
filc:It's not true that in all cases the premise is arbitrary. As is the case of the morality of eating for example.
How is it not totally random to declare that "one should eat when hungry" as a moral assertion? If that is your moral assertion, are people evil when they fast, have anorexia, or are on a diet?
filc:I personally do believe eating IS the right thing to do when hungry, if my end is to satisfy hunger.
You are completely conflating deductive reasoning and morality. In a moral statement, the ultimate end is always "to be good" (measured by whatever standards you abide by) other resulting ends are just secondary, collateral consequences. Compare,
"If I am hungry, then I should eat"
to,
If I want to be a good person, then I should eat when hungry"
filc:And you can't divorce human action from morality, so your argument is self defeating. You debunk yourself.
Why?
filc:All men act within guidelines they set themselves.
Why do they have to have any guidelines?
Jackson LaRose:I think you are confused. Just because Praxeology contends that humans act to alleviate discomfort, that doesn't automatically assume that this "ultimate end" is morally "good". It is simply a statement, not a moral assertion.
Well then you should probably better re-define morals and ethics. Or at least define it more clearly.
Your telling me that a system of morals or ethics is nothing more than series of guidelines to achieve a specific end. Whether the end is derived arbitrary or not is irrelevant.
Jackson LaRose: filc:Is it arbitrary that I think it is good to eat when hungry? Well, from a moral standpoint, yes. Why is it "good" or "right" to do?
Because the premise is that I should satisfy my hunger when hungry.
Jackson LaRose:How is it not totally random to declare that "one should eat when hungry" as a moral assertion? If that is your moral assertion, are people evil when they fast, have anorexia, or are on a diet?
Well then you need to re-explain to me what arbitrary criteria you set to isolate normal Premis's/ends/ and actions from ethical ones. But by your definition I see no way of separating the two.
You said.
I beleive Eating food is morally good when hungry, because I beleive it is good to satisfy one's hunger when hungry.
You are telling me that is an ethical statement. This is your definition, not mine. I knew you would be re-defining ethics, but go ahead and do it any ways.
Lets pretend I know nothing of ethics(almost true). Since your the ethical nihilist you need to be the expert ont he matter. You need to explain to me where I am going wrong. Not scream, pout, call me illogical or stupid. I am simply re-wording your instructions back to you on how I understand them. Correct me so we can move on. Don't be belligerent.
Jackson LaRose: filc:All men act within guidelines they set themselves. Why do they have to have any guidelines?
What kind of question is this? Man operates in guidelines. He knows that if he is hungry he eats. He doesn't go swimming when he is hungry. His guidelines tell him he should eat when hungry, not swim.
Are you going to tell me we should abandon all guidelines as well? That man's actions should not be guided by any criteria? That we should just be arbitrary? When I need to pee I should go stand on my head?
The guidelines tell me what I should do to increase my odds of satisfying an end.
filc:Your telling me that a system of morals or ethics is nothing more than series of guidelines to achieve a specific end.
Please quote me.
filc:I beleive Eating food is morally good when hungry, because I beleive it is good to satisfy one's hunger when hungry.
Well, bully for you. I don't see how this proves that I think all action is ethical.
filc:You are telling me that is an ethical statement.
It is.
filc:I knew you would be re-defining ethics, but go ahead and do it any ways.
Why would this cause me to re-define ethics?
filc:Since your the ethical nihilist you need to be the expert ont he matter.
Why are being so petulant? I would just type "LOL" at your growing wildness, but I wouldn't want to be considered a troll again.
filc:I am simply re-wording your instructions back to you on how I understand them.
What instructions? Yeah, if you follow an moral ideology that "eating when hungry is good" then of course you will take that into consideration when deciding if you should eat or not when hungry. If you don't prescribe to that ideology, then why is it necessary that moral considerations have to enter into it. I know that you think you've got me "pinned down", or something like that, but your "trap" is nonsensical.
filc:Don't be belligerent.
Don't boss me, you hypocrite
filc:His guidelines tell him he should eat when hungry, not swim.
That's learned behavior, or it's instinctual impulse. I don't see where conscious guidelines are absolutely necessary.
filc:Are you going to tell me we should abandon all guidelines as well? That man's actions should not be guided by any criteria? That we should just be arbitrary? When I need to pee I should go stand on my head?
I'm not telling you should do anything.
filc:The guidelines tell me what I should do to increase my odds of satisfying an end.
Yes, they do.
Jackson LaRose: I don't see where conscious guidelines are absolutely necessary.
Jackson LaRose:Please quote me.
Then I'll ask you to re-define the word ethics, and if you must use Morality also define morality. And please do not copy and paste wiki. I need it in your own words. Your last definition seems to be incompatible with your argument.
Jackson LaRose:Well, bully for you. I don't see how this proves that I think all action is ethical.
Then as I have tireless asked again and again, explain to me what is ethical and what is not ethical. Explain to me why somethings are arbitrarily ethical, and others are not. Or drop your beef with property, as property isn't any more ethical or non-ethical than anything else. Property is simply a means to an end. It is an economic phenomena.
Jackson LaRose:It is.
What makes it ethical? What is the substance that makes somethinge thical or moral.
If ethics and morals are guidelines the ends of of a certain premise, what kinds of guidelines are there that are ends for premis's that are not ethical?
Jackson LaRose:What instructions?
I am attempting to grab at what little you have provided. The question like "What instructions?" and taking me literally is an example of being belligerent. There is no need to do so. According to you, you have nothing to fear. Do not be upset.
Jackson LaRose:Yeah, if you follow an moral ideology that "eating when hungry is good" then of course you will take that into consideration when deciding if you should eat or not when hungry.
Why does it become a moral ideology? What if it's something I simply believe? For example, I simply believe that after eating I will no longer feel hungry. I simply believe that property and it's concept are necessary consequences to the 3 problems I started with on this thread. I simply believe that without respect for property entrepreneurs and capitalists will have to consider extremely heavy risks before making any type of business activity. So much that they may choose not to. And I also simply believe that entrepreneurial and capitalistic activity is necessary for my own personal economic wellbeing and that of others.
That I believe eating is the RIGHT thing to do when hungry, as opposed to the WRONG thign to do. What makes it an ethical statement? Is it arbitrary taxonomy? Assigning some codes of ethics as morals and others as not? Or is placing "Ideology of eating" in front of "eating" that makes it moral?
Jackson LaRose:If you don't prescribe to that ideology, then why is it necessary that moral considerations have to enter into it.
So if you don't beleive that eating when hungry is the RIGHT thing to do thats fine. But who are you to judge those who do beleive that? And should you argue with them and tell them that eating is not necessarily the RIGHT thing to do when hungry?
Likewise, if capitalists believe respecting property is the RIGHT thing to do to foster their own personal prosperity, who are you to judge whether they are right are wrong? What do ethics have to do with their attempt at increasing their economic welfare.
Jackson LaRose:I know that you think you've got me "pinned down", or something like that, but your "trap" is nonsensical.
I actually don't think you know what I am getting at. I am not attempting to disprove your ethical nihilism, the belief in and of itself is self defeating.
Jackson LaRose:Don't boss me, you hypocrite
?
Jackson LaRose:That's learned behavior, or it's instinctual impulse.
The same could be said for property, and not everyone eats when hungry. People's codes of conduct change drastically from person to person. Some people only eat vegetarian things, others eat meat heavily. Some eat healthy, others don't. They all fabricate their own personal codes of conduct. You can attempt to influence them, but ultimately they create a code of conduct. If their behavior starts to undermine their personal code of conduct they will likely rebuild that code, or adjust that system.
So you don't make a conscious decision to go eat? It's instinctive like breathing? You just sit there and eat? What do you eat? Do you decide what to eat? Do you decide how much? ect....
Jackson LaRose:Why do they have to have any guidelines?
Jackson LaRose:Yes, they do.
So you agree that guidelines are necessary?
For example, I have a guideline that tells me I should not eat poison, if my goal is to live. I am sure you follow some type of guideline which tells you what to eat when you are hungry. Avoid things you are allergic to ect....
honestly you have some kind of guideline, otherwise you;d be sitting like a vegetable in a room somewhere. Why do you bother posting on this forum if not by some set of personal guidelines you follow? Again praxeology 101....
I missed this earlier,
Jackson LaRose: "If I am hungry, then I should eat" to, If I want to be a good person, then I should eat when hungry" In earlier posts you said that you disliked paying taxes as it makes you work more. But aren't you just subscribing to an ideology, a code of ethics, that states you want to do whats in your best interest? I would contend that you are very utilitarian if anything. Morals are not about whether or not you are a "Good Person" or "Bad person". Christian's arn't christian's because they want to be good people, they have specific goals in mind. The good Samaritan is not the good Samaritan for it's own sake. People do so for various reasons. Some reasons are scientific, some economic, some religious, some ideological. But there is no such thing as, I do this because I am a good person. That could be said for anything and is an arbitrary explanation that holds no weight. For example, I kill people because I am a good person. I like monkeys because I am a good person. I like hot chicks because I am a good person. I XYZ because I am a good person. People use the statement but it is superficial. But still, even if we conceded the point that people do XYZ to be a good person than your attack on property is fruitless. People don't defend the concept of property to be "good" or "holy", or righteous. They do so because it within their economic interests to do so. filc:Since your the ethical nihilist you need to be the expert ont he matter. Jackson LaRose:Why are being so petulant? I would just type "LOL" at your growing wildness, but I wouldn't want to be considered a troll again. Don't badger other people than if you cannot even explain your own position. You frequently derail other topics on this forum. Now I am bringing some questioning and asking you to backup the premise from which you argue with. If you can't be bothered to explain yourself why bother posting at all? This is why I previously thought your intentions were only to argue, and I am beginning to think that is the case again. Revisit your example of FILC, Jackson, and the chair. Why do you assume FILC is protecting his chair by way of force due to ethical reasons? Why wouldn't you just assume he has economic motive to do so? He doesn't want other people on the chair. He is attempting to retain possession of an object currently in his possession, he desires to further possessing it. You actually went out of your way to add that FILC had an ideology agenda, but unless you can read his mind you do not know this. What if his ideological agenda is economic welfare? How is him wanting other people off the chair any different then you wanting less taxes? Why is this so hard for you to grasp? And finally Jackson LaRose:Why are being so petulant? Please Jackson LaRose:I would just type "LOL" at your growing wildness stop Jackson LaRose: but I wouldn't want to be considered a troll again. doing Jackson LaRose:I'm not telling you should do anything. this It makes your posts hard to read and makes you seem hasty. It also shows you are reading things one sentence at a time, rather then one paragraph at a time. And that has lead to you missing the point in the past. If you must respond to each sentence | Post Points: 20
In earlier posts you said that you disliked paying taxes as it makes you work more. But aren't you just subscribing to an ideology, a code of ethics, that states you want to do whats in your best interest? I would contend that you are very utilitarian if anything.
Jackson LaRose:Why are being so petulant? I would just type "LOL" at your growing wildness, but I wouldn't want to be considered a troll again.
Don't badger other people than if you cannot even explain your own position. You frequently derail other topics on this forum. Now I am bringing some questioning and asking you to backup the premise from which you argue with. If you can't be bothered to explain yourself why bother posting at all?
This is why I previously thought your intentions were only to argue, and I am beginning to think that is the case again.
Revisit your example of FILC, Jackson, and the chair.
Why do you assume FILC is protecting his chair by way of force due to ethical reasons? Why wouldn't you just assume he has economic motive to do so? He doesn't want other people on the chair. He is attempting to retain possession of an object currently in his possession, he desires to further possessing it.
You actually went out of your way to add that FILC had an ideology agenda, but unless you can read his mind you do not know this. What if his ideological agenda is economic welfare? How is him wanting other people off the chair any different then you wanting less taxes?
Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
And finally
Jackson LaRose:Why are being so petulant?
Please
Jackson LaRose:I would just type "LOL" at your growing wildness
stop
Jackson LaRose: but I wouldn't want to be considered a troll again.
doing
Jackson LaRose:I'm not telling you should do anything.
this
It makes your posts hard to read and makes you seem hasty. It also shows you are reading things one sentence at a time, rather then one paragraph at a time. And that has lead to you missing the point in the past. If you must respond to each sentence
Sorry Jackson, I had to go back and edit several times. I should be done now. I have faith you will re-read it and re-consider my points.
filc:Your last definition seems to be incompatible with your argument.
"Ethics is a method of determining the morality of actions".
What is incompatible about that?
filc:Then as I have tireless asked again and again, explain to me what is ethical and what is not ethical.
What is ethical and not ethical depends on your personal moral beliefs. I'm not trying to be evasive here, is just that I don't really understand what this question is driving at. What do you really want to ask me?
filc:Explain to me why somethings are arbitrarily ethical, and others are not.
What do you mean arbitrary? Is there an arbitrary distinction between astronomy and astrology? Ethics is concerned with achieving moral ends. Nothing more, nothing less.
filc:Or drop your beef with property, as property isn't any more ethical or non-ethical than anything else.
I disagree, because by my preferred definition of the word "property", it is a rights based concept.
filc:What is the substance that makes somethinge thical or moral.
Whether or not the ultimate end of the action is abiding by some rigid moral code of conduct.
filc:If ethics and morals are guidelines the ends of of a certain premise, what kinds of guidelines are there that are ends for premis's that are not ethical?
I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
filc:Why does it become a moral ideology?
Because you seem to be making this assertion based upon some sort of metaphysical concept of "right" and "wrong" or "good" and "bad". You seem to be confused about the ability of those words to be used to delineate totally different meanings based upon their context. Angurse and I had a big discussion about this on another thread, in which he cleared up my confusion on the issue. Maybe you could PM him or something, as he could probably explain it a lot better than I could.
filc:I simply believe that after eating I will no longer feel hungry.
That is a non-ethical assertion. If you wanted to make it ethical, you might say,
"I believe that eating when hungry is a good thing to do."
Do you see the distinction?
filc:I simply believe that property and it's concept are necessary consequences to the 3 problems I started with on this thread.
And I don't understand why you think that, because I disagree.
filc:I simply believe that without respect for property entrepreneurs and capitalists will have to consider extremely heavy risks before making any type of business activity.
Like they do now. You and I can both agree that not everyone believes in, or respects the concept of property (rightful ownership of matter), and that the state is only marginally effective at enforcing the concept of property, so how do you suppose markets ever came into existence?
filc:But who are you to judge those who do beleive that?
I'm not judging anyone.
filc:Likewise, if capitalists believe respecting property is the RIGHT thing to do to foster their own personal prosperity, who are you to judge whether they are right are wrong?
I'm simply stating that I disagree, and asking why they think that. It's judgment-free.
filc:What do ethics have to do with their attempt at increasing their economic welfare.
Nothing. Unless they want to justify that action morally, which is what I believe the concept of property is an attempt to do. As we agreed upon, I can leave your claimed "property" alone without respecting your claim of "righteous possession", simply because for some other reason, I believe it benefits me not to (gun, strength, fear of retribution, etc.) attempt to take what you have claimed.
filc:They all fabricate their own personal codes of conduct. You can attempt to influence them, but ultimately they create a code of conduct. If their behavior starts to undermine their personal code of conduct they will likely rebuild that code, or adjust that system.
I would agree that most animals eventually form some sort of habits of interaction with the world throughout their lives. And it seems like most creatures are born with instincts.
filc:So you don't make a conscious decision to go eat? It's instinctive like breathing?
Until our egos get all up in the way, yes.
filc:So you agree that guidelines are necessary?
Without prior experience, all you would have to rely on is instinct. These are hardwired guidelines of conduct. Anything beyond instinct I view as useful, but not absolutely necessary.
filc:honestly you have some kind of guideline, otherwise you;d be sitting like a vegetable in a room somewhere.
Sure, I agree with that, every plant, animal, bacteria, virus, and maybe computers have guidelines.
filc:Why do you bother posting on this forum if not by some set of personal guidelines you follow?
I don't deny that I have them, I'd just like to expose them within myself as illusions.
filc:But aren't you just subscribing to an ideology, a code of ethics, that states you want to do whats in your best interest?
No, as I don't see myself justified, or righteously deserving of that desired end.
filc:Why do you assume FILC is protecting his chair by way of force due to ethical reasons?
Why are you assuming he should be able to claim the chair? It's this claim of "ownership" (rights-based justification of possession) over "property"(matter upon which ownership is claimed) that is ethical
filc:He doesn't want other people on the chair. He is attempting to retain possession of an object currently in his possession, he desires to further possessing it.
If that is the case, then I would say that would be non-ethical. If he makes no presumption of "ownership", and is just prevent Jack from sitting on the chair because he doesn't want him to, and his ability to see his end realized is superior (gun, willing to kill over the chair) to Jack's (no gun, sitting not that important) than he will see his end realized.
filc:You actually went out of your way to add that FILC had an ideology agenda, but unless you can read his mind you do not know this.
That scenario didn't presume anything about ethics. It was to demonstrate how ethics is not necessary for action, how I was interpreting your previous statement, and agreeing with it.
filc:How is him wanting other people off the chair any different then you wanting less taxes?
It might not've been. Of course, he wouldn't presume any sort of "ownership" over the chair, if his action wasn't based on an ethical consideration. His sign might've read,
"KEEP OFF CHAIR, UNDER PENALTY OF DEATH!!!"
or something like that.
filc:Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
It isn't.
filc:It makes your posts hard to read and makes you seem hasty. It also shows you are reading things one sentence at a time, rather then one paragraph at a time. And that has lead to you missing the point in the past.
Sorry, professor.
Jackson LaRose: "Ethics is a method of determining the morality of actions". What is incompatible about that?
filc:if you must use Morality also define morality.
It doesn't explain what morals are, and how they differ from ethics. I asked you to explain your definition of ethics, you said.
I asked you, if you used the word morals, to define morals. Please define morals.
Jackson LaRose:What do you mean arbitrary? Is there an arbitrary distinction between astronomy and astrology? Ethics is concerned with achieving moral ends. Nothing more, nothing less.
There is a very distinct difference between astronomy and astrology. You so far have failed to provide a distinct difference between what a moral code of conduct is and a non-moral code of conduct. All you have provided are semantical changes of sentences that say the exact same thing.
For example you say
I eat because I am hungry
is not an ethical statement but
I eat because it is the right thing to do
is an ethical statement.
But that is never the case. People don't eat because it is the right thign to do, people don't worship Jesus because they perceive it as the right thing to do, period end of story. There is always a BECAUSE as stated earlier. There is always a REASON. People don't arbitrarily do things, and subscribe to ideologies without reason, they do so for a plethora of reasons, like world peace, pollution, or whatever. Example:
ManA: I eat because it is the right thing to do
ManB: WHy? Why is it the right thing to do?
ManA: Because I would starve otherwise
ManB: Ahh so you eat because you are hungry, you seek to satisify your hunger, and to do that eating would be the right thing to do
ManA: Yup.
Jackson LaRose:What is ethical and not ethical depends on your personal moral beliefs. I'm not trying to be evasive here, is just that I don't really understand what this question is driving at. What do you really want to ask me?
Define: moral, and or morals.
Jackson LaRose: filc:Or drop your beef with property, as property isn't any more ethical or non-ethical than anything else. I disagree, because by my preferred definition of the word "property", it is a rights based concept.
Just as my right to eat dinner when I am hungry? There is no distinction between the two. Saying I have a right to eat is silly, just as saying I have a right to property. It is not a ethical statement, but an economic one. You simply let the word get the best of you just because it says "rights".
Jackson LaRose:Whether or not the ultimate end of the action is abiding by some rigid moral code of conduct.
Yea still missing that definition of what is moral. As far as I know ethics and morals are just codes of conduct for determining right and wrong based on ones premise.
Jackson LaRose:I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
What specifically is confusing about my statement?
Jackson LaRose:Because you seem to be making this assertion based upon some sort of metaphysical concept of "right" and "wrong" or "good" and "bad". You seem to be confused about the ability of those words to be used to delineate totally different meanings based upon their context.
No my friend, it is you who is ignoring the context. You assert that because a man is protecting his chair, a chair he spent several works working to obtain he is doing so not out of economic reasoning, but out of ethics. The man simply does not want to work 3 more weeks to acquire another chair, he wants to retain possession over the one he presently has and he will protect his property to achieve that economic goal.
You auto-assume that everything has to do with this innate sense of right and wrong people seem to subscribe to. Ignoring the fact that whats right and wrong changes from situation to situation and is generally arbitrary. You don't like the concept of right and wrong so you attempt to divorse yourself from it, but doing so is folly. As you follow a set of right and wrong guidelines in every action you take. From riding on the bus, to walking to work. There is a right, and a wrong way to do it.
Likewise capitalism has a right way of functioning, and it is with property. Whether we choose to acknowledge it's existence or not does not make it any less there. People choose to protect the wealth they have worked to obtain.
You yourself have conceded the point. You would rather not pay taxes, as it causes you to work more. The man with the chair would rather not loose his chair, as doing so would be the equivalent of taxation. So you and the man in the chair are the same. Does that make you a ethical ideologue? Or simply a man who wants to protect the assets he's worked to obtain.
Jackson LaRose: That is a non-ethical assertion. If you wanted to make it ethical, you might say, "I believe that eating when hungry is a good thing to do." Do you see the distinction?
But there is no simply. "I beleive eating when hungry is a good thing to do"
There is always a why, and because.
Why is eating when hungry a good thing to do?
Because I do not want to starve.
So how is your statement ethical in any way? There is no such thing doing things for the sake of doing it. Humans and human action are not arbitrary. We do not all walk around in convulsions at a whim.
Ask any mystic ideologue why he believes what he believes. Assuming he does not have a communication problem you will see him provide all kinds of theology, history, and reasonings behind his faith. He does not have faith just to be a good person, he does so because he beliefs he will benefit from it in one way or another. There is ALWAYS a reason. Human action is NOT arbitrary as you seem to be asserting with ethics.
filc: Objects are scarce Time is scarce The occupation of objects over time is necessary to satisfy desires/needs
Jackson LaRose:And I don't understand why you think that, because I disagree.
You don't understand that the man simply wants to protect the chair that he has labored 3 weeks for? You sure? You possibly cannot fathom why someone who works hard for an object would like to protect it?
Earlier you said
Jackson LaRose:I don't like to pay taxes, because then I have to work.
How are you any different then the man protecting his chair? He would rather not loose the chair he has worked for, as it would set him back and mean more work to obtain another one.
You and him essentially coming to the same economic conclusions. Does that make you an ethical ideologue too than? What gives you any right to your labor, your wealth? What gives you a say in anything you work towards? Perhaps nothing, but irregardless you will work economically to maximize your leisure and minimize your toil. The man with the chair is doing exactly the same thing as you are when you make the statement above. He is making a statement that he would rather not work for another chair, just as you make a statement that you would rather not work extra due to taxatation. In a sense, taking his chair would be a tax against him.
So if you don't understand it why/how can you defend your stance against taxation?
Jackson LaRose:Like they do now. You and I can both agree that not everyone believes in, or respects the concept of property (rightful ownership of matter), and that the state is only marginally effective at enforcing the concept of property, so how do you suppose markets ever came into existence?
My point is those people who argue that property does not exist undermine their own argument when they exhibit signs of maintaining property. Markets are emergent because indnividual human actors work in their own interest, and make efforts at working in an economicaly effecient manner. That includes maintaining possessions one aquires and coming to peaceful exchange with others.
Ethics have nothing to do with it.
Jackson LaRose: filc:But who are you to judge those who do beleive that? I'm not judging anyone.
Then if you have no judgement on the matter why are you offering up your opinion in a confrontational tone. You seem bent on disproving the concept of property, something you yourself have acknowledged that you neither have the tools to prove or disprove.
You judge others who beleive property is an economic phenomena when you make statements like this.
Jackson LaRose:Until our egos get all up in the way, yes.
Breast crawl is not the same as ordering a complex meal of your choice. As an adult you make a conscious decision what to eat, and when to eat, and how to eat it. To argue otherwise is folly.
Jackson LaRose:Without prior experience, all you would have to rely on is instinct. These are hardwired guidelines of conduct. Anything beyond instinct I view as useful, but not absolutely necessary.
It is not instinctive to know that putting your hand in fire would cause it to burn. So you would say that having that foresight isn't always necessary for say like a firefighter? Or would you concede that having this knowledge may increase his chances of success as a firefighter.
Jackson LaRose: filc:But aren't you just subscribing to an ideology, a code of ethics, that states you want to do whats in your best interest? No, as I don't see myself justified, or righteously deserving of that desired end.
But you do, by some code make an effort to acheive that end. Otherwise you wouldn't bother voicing your opinion about taxation.
Likewise you think the guy with the chair is an ideologue, but he only posted that sign to deter you from stealing the chair he worked 3 weeks to obtain. Your all bent out of shape out of the language and words, and fail to recognize that the man is simply attempting to retain possession of things he has worked for. Being justified has nothing to do with it, he simply does not want to work an additional 3 weeks to buy a chair he already has
Jackson LaRose:Why are you assuming he should be able to claim the chair? It's this claim of "ownership" (rights-based justification of possession) over "property"(matter upon which ownership is claimed) that is ethical
I made no such assumption. Why are you assuming yuo should claim ownership over the money you pay with taxes? I am not making any such a claim that this man has a divine right from god which states he owns the chair. I am saying that the man realizes that it took him 3 weeks to purchase the chair, and out of self economic interest he does not have the motivation to work an ADDITIONAL 3 weeks of buying another chair simply because you want his.
The man is operating entirely under an economic premise. He does not want to work more then he has to. Same as you with your tax statement. You and him are the same.
Jackson LaRose:If that is the case, then I would say that would be non-ethical. If he makes no presumption of "ownership", and is just prevent Jack from sitting on the chair because he doesn't want him to, and his ability to see his end realized is superior (gun, willing to kill over the chair) to Jack's (no gun, sitting not that important) than he will see his end realized.
So you concede that this man is practicing property rights, without any concept of ethics. He is doing so entirely from an economic premise.'
Jackson LaRose:That scenario didn't presume anything about ethics. It was to demonstrate how ethics is not necessary for action, how I was interpreting your previous statement, and agreeing with it.
E X A C T L Y. IE Property doesn't necessarily have anything to do with ethics. It is simply an economic phenomena. Simply because some people preach it like an ideology doesn't make it so. Or because many people share its concept does not make it magically any more ethical. Many people share a mutual belief that they would rather peaceful exchange possession of things currently in their ownership, rather then violent confiscation. Just because a broad amount of people share this belief does not make it some ideological ethical system. Many people believe the sky is blue, that doesn't necessarily make it an ethical belief.
So as I was saying, people exhibit the concept of property with or without it's worldly understanding. AND, they do so outside of the realm of ethics.
Jackson LaRose:"KEEP OFF CHAIR, UNDER PENALTY OF DEATH!!!"
But he only posted that sign as a deterrent to keep others away. He does not assume that the chair descended from heaven from god as his divine right. He is doing something many people do to deter thieves, post a warning sign. People put BRINKS SECURITY signs in their window without ever buying the actual security system as simple deterrent from thievery.
You have taken it to the extreme opposite direction and advocate communism, a system of no property. That no man should make an effort to protect the assets he has worked on. Whether it's the ethical thing to do or not is irrelevant.
wilderness: Those are not axioms. Those are premises. There is a huge logical difference.
Those are not axioms. Those are premises. There is a huge logical difference.
You are correct, I am sorry. However the same principal still applies to contradicting axioms.
wilderness: The Late Andrew Ryan:By this reasoning morality is utterly subjective in its actual worth and relevance. No. Because then you dismiss the value that you previously discussed yourself above IF you mean by subjective=value.
The Late Andrew Ryan:By this reasoning morality is utterly subjective in its actual worth and relevance.
No. Because then you dismiss the value that you previously discussed yourself above IF you mean by subjective=value.
How so?
wilderness: I base my ethics on economics and stealing is not economically valid. It destroys capital and makes even barter impossible if taken to the extreme.
Then although you and I base our ethics on different things we still seem to come to the same conclusion, you don't pretend that your ethics are inherently "better" than mine, therefore I consider your ethics subjective.
wilderness: The Late Andrew Ryan:depending upon your subjective value preferences you project worth onto a set of ethics or consider one set of behaviors to be "wrong" and another "right" there is nothing objective about ethics, depends, but so far you understanding of subjective doesn't conflict with how I understand objective. Your subjective ethics and another's objective ethics, we are using two different words. I am not sure if I am a subjective or objective ethicists. I never really have made up my mind as I find these terms to quickly become meaningless when we discuss what we actually mean by those terms.
The Late Andrew Ryan:depending upon your subjective value preferences you project worth onto a set of ethics or consider one set of behaviors to be "wrong" and another "right" there is nothing objective about ethics,
depends, but so far you understanding of subjective doesn't conflict with how I understand objective. Your subjective ethics and another's objective ethics, we are using two different words. I am not sure if I am a subjective or objective ethicists. I never really have made up my mind as I find these terms to quickly become meaningless when we discuss what we actually mean by those terms.
I use the term "objective" in this case to mean an ethical system that claims that it in inherently superior to all objective systems as a closer and better model of human behavior and morality, and that it cannot be broken or shifted in any way without the shifter or breaker becoming "immoral"
wilderness: The Late Andrew Ryan:it varies between individuals depending upon their value preferences because there is no such thing as objective value, and over time as the value preferences of these individuals changes. It depends on what you mean by "objective value". You made value objective when you typed it here, in one sense of the word objective. You made it understood to others in order that others can observe these words and preferences of yours.
The Late Andrew Ryan:it varies between individuals depending upon their value preferences because there is no such thing as objective value, and over time as the value preferences of these individuals changes.
It depends on what you mean by "objective value". You made value objective when you typed it here, in one sense of the word objective. You made it understood to others in order that others can observe these words and preferences of yours.
In this case when I use the term "objective value" I mean a thing or substance that has value inherently, which is of course impossible.
wilderness: I don't know of an objective ethics that would disagree with that to be honest.
I don't know of an objective ethics that would disagree with that to be honest.
Which ethics don't disagree with it? They all say, for instance. that "killing is wrong" and that their system in by nature the very best that there is, and that it is then immoral to kill someone, once you say that value is based upon the individual valuation, then the entire idea of objective ethics falls apart
wilderness: OK, but if it's what I or others give it, then it's of our preferences.
OK, but if it's what I or others give it, then it's of our preferences.
True, but that simply means that it is your preference
wilderness: The Late Andrew Ryan:Finally I doubt that your ethical system and my ethical systems have any major differences other than that you hold yours to be somehow objective, I haven't said if mine is "objective". I've argued that I don't hold either position due to semantics, but I might hold one of those positions in the way I act. I haven't been able to accurately label the adjective of my ethics for nearly as long as I've been in these forums. I've argued from both sides and only argue against mishaps in a mediator style as I find objectivists and subjectivists talk past each so often and don't realize that they are talking about the same thing. I have yet to find out what you mean by "objective". If you could define that it would be very helpful. Usually some people don't have the patience with me when I get this far with them on what I'm trying to relate as to what my ethics are. Thank you for being forthcoming and patient with me thus far.
The Late Andrew Ryan:Finally I doubt that your ethical system and my ethical systems have any major differences other than that you hold yours to be somehow objective,
I haven't said if mine is "objective". I've argued that I don't hold either position due to semantics, but I might hold one of those positions in the way I act. I haven't been able to accurately label the adjective of my ethics for nearly as long as I've been in these forums. I've argued from both sides and only argue against mishaps in a mediator style as I find objectivists and subjectivists talk past each so often and don't realize that they are talking about the same thing. I have yet to find out what you mean by "objective". If you could define that it would be very helpful. Usually some people don't have the patience with me when I get this far with them on what I'm trying to relate as to what my ethics are. Thank you for being forthcoming and patient with me thus far.
No problem, I define objective above, and also the difference between what I am trying to explain and what an objectivist would be attempting to explain is that the objectivist makes out that one ethical system is "better" or "worse" than another and holds on to the old immoral and moral crap that was given to him as a child.
wilderness: The Late Andrew Ryan:and I understand that objectives are, by their very nature, subjective, you seem to be under the impression I am a consequentialist, I am not, I am an existentialist libertarian I don't know what a "consequentialist" or a "existentialist" libertarian are. I know the former is discussed much on this forum, but I haven't found those topics to be of interest to further pursue as of yet. My interests in learning since I've been here have been first logic with some political/ethical books thrown in. Yet even in the latter books I was very interested in the logic and have studied the terminology as much as possible and have read various books of Aristotle or Aquinas' commentary on Aristotle, etc.... But never in the books that I have read have subjective, objective, nihilist, etc... come up and if they ever have their purpose in explanation wasn't very relevant to the totality of the books goals.
The Late Andrew Ryan:and I understand that objectives are, by their very nature, subjective, you seem to be under the impression I am a consequentialist, I am not, I am an existentialist libertarian
I don't know what a "consequentialist" or a "existentialist" libertarian are. I know the former is discussed much on this forum, but I haven't found those topics to be of interest to further pursue as of yet. My interests in learning since I've been here have been first logic with some political/ethical books thrown in. Yet even in the latter books I was very interested in the logic and have studied the terminology as much as possible and have read various books of Aristotle or Aquinas' commentary on Aristotle, etc.... But never in the books that I have read have subjective, objective, nihilist, etc... come up and if they ever have their purpose in explanation wasn't very relevant to the totality of the books goals.
Consequentialism, or utilitarianism, implies that one's ethics are based upon general utility, for instance I would, from what you have said, consider your ethics rather utilitarian in nature. If someone says that it is morally good for the state to fund roads because it helps people, and therefore it is not just practically but also morally justified for this reason, then they are using morally utilitarian arguments. An example of a consequentailist utilitarian would be Milton Friedman.
I use the term "existentialist" lightly, I agree with certain aspects of the philosophy in terms of what it says about human nature an happiness (on these fronts I am far more objectivistic in belief) but for me the simple idea that they believe individuals project their values outward to create their own subjective ethics causes me to consider myself one of their number in what I consider the most important way, so for the sake of this conversation I consider an existentialist one who projects their values out wards for their ethics without claiming that their ethics are inherently "better" than anyone else's.
Also just throwing my two cents worth out there but neither of those philosophers were around by the time any of these terms were really constructed which was much more 1800's
filc:I asked you, if you used the word morals, to define morals. Please define morals.
When I hear/read morals, I think, "normative rules of right and wrong".
filc:You so far have failed to provide a distinct difference between what a moral code of conduct is and a non-moral code of conduct.
Sure I have. The ultimate end of behaving ethically, is to steer your action toward being "good", in the moral sense, as it will relieve your discomfort. To behave non-ethically, one does not assume that there is a "morally good" and a "morally bad" way to behave, or that it will affect his ultimate end of relieving discomfort.
filc:But that is never the case. People don't eat because it is the right thign to do, people don't worship Jesus because they perceive it as the right thing to do, period end of story. There is always a BECAUSE as stated earlier. There is always a REASON.
And the reason is that they think it will relieve their discomfort. But why will worshiping Jesus relieve your discomfort? Because they think it is the "morally good" thing to do. They have faith that proscribing themselves to the ethical guidelines delineated in the Bible will relieve their discomfort, much how you have faith that the only way society can function (thereby relieving your discomfort) is by having the ethical concepts of property, ownership, and rights. I am saying I disagree, that my comfort can be relieved without the pretense of property, ownership, or rights.
filc:Just as my right to eat dinner when I am hungry? There is no distinction between the two. Saying I have a right to eat is silly, just as saying I have a right to property.
Hey, we agree! I think assuming you have a right to eat or have a right to property is pretty silly too.
filc:What specifically is confusing about my statement?
I literally cannot understand what the point of the sentence is. The structure is terrible.
filc:You assert that because a man is protecting his chair, a chair he spent several works working to obtain he is doing so not out of economic reasoning, but out of ethics.
What makes it his chair?
filc:People choose to protect the wealth they have worked to obtain.
Yeah, I agree with that. I just don't see how this statement implies they have a right to the wealth they worked to obtain.
filc:What gives you any right to your labor, your wealth? What gives you a say in anything you work towards?
I don't think anything.
filc:Perhaps nothing,
That's all I've been saying this whole time!
filc:but irregardless you will work economically to maximize your leisure and minimize your toil.
Exactly!! So why do we need rights-based concepts for this to occur?
filc:My point is those people who argue that property does not exist undermine their own argument when they exhibit signs of maintaining property.
You and I are working off of different definitions of property. We seem to be describing the same concept, which is "objects you want to keep". If we both think that concepts of "rightfully owning the things you want to keep" is superfluous to people having "objects they want to keep", then we are in complete agreement.
filc: Markets are emergent because indnividual human actors work in their own interest, and make efforts at working in an economicaly effecient manner. That includes maintaining possessions one aquires and coming to peaceful exchange with others. Ethics have nothing to do with it.
Markets are emergent because indnividual human actors work in their own interest, and make efforts at working in an economicaly effecient manner. That includes maintaining possessions one aquires and coming to peaceful exchange with others.
Bravo, couldn't have said it better myself.
filc:As an adult you make a conscious decision what to eat, and when to eat, and how to eat it.
True, but who's to say how much of that is a result of social conditioning.
filc:Or would you concede that having this knowledge may increase his chances of success as a firefighter.
Of course. But people aren't "born to be firefighters" either.
filc:Your all bent out of shape out of the language and words, and fail to recognize that the man is simply attempting to retain possession of things he has worked for. Being justified has nothing to do with it, he simply does not want to work an additional 3 weeks to buy a chair he already has
That's one way of interpreting it, but I don't see how it is any more or less likely that the guy feeling justified in defending his claim.
filc:The man is operating entirely under an economic premise.
That's just an assumption on your part. He may be, he may not be.
filc:So you concede that this man is practicing property rights, without any concept of ethics. He is doing so entirely from an economic premise.'
No, I'm conceding a man is defending a chair with a gun. Whether or not he invokes the concept of property rights to make himself feel his actions are justified, or morally good, is beyond my reckoning.
filc:E X A C T L Y. IE Property doesn't necessarily have anything to do with ethics.
It depends on your definition of property.
filc:You have taken it to the extreme opposite direction and advocate communism, a system of no property. That no man should make an effort to protect the assets he has worked on. Whether it's the ethical thing to do or not is irrelevant.
No I haven't! Not at all! All I'm saying is that I have no opinion whether or not "man should make an effort to protect the assets he has worked on". You betray your ethical bias with the normative statement.
The Late Andrew Ryan: wilderness:Those are not axioms. Those are premises. There is a huge logical difference. You are correct, I am sorry. However the same principal still applies to contradicting axioms.
wilderness:Those are not axioms. Those are premises. There is a huge logical difference.
Axioms can't contradict themselves. Axioms are also called "first principles". They can't be logically proven in any type of formulation (don't confuse "proven" in this context with empirical proof, again very different). The reason axioms can't be logically proven is the axiom has to be used in order to try to affirm or refute it. Thus why the "first principles" because they are considered principles that are first and foremost before any other principles can actually be formulated and proven. These axioms provide the self-evident assumptions to then base other principles (that are not axioms) upon and so forth. Axioms don't contradict each other because they are all used in order to even establish if there is even a contradiction in the first place. And I am talking about human nature, so, all axioms in regard to analyzing human nature can't contradict each other or else they are not axioms to begin with because even to try to establish, as I noted, if an axiom is a contradiction would have somebody have to use that axiom. So it can't be a contradiction as it was used. Human action is an axiom not because it is provable in the logical sense, but that it is self-evident, meaning, in order to try to refute or affirm human action, the person has to act.
The Late Andrew Ryan: wilderness: The Late Andrew Ryan:By this reasoning morality is utterly subjective in its actual worth and relevance. No. Because then you dismiss the value that you previously discussed yourself above IF you mean by subjective=value. How so?
I might have misunderstood you here. Do you mean that what somebody finds moral is based on the individuals own decision? If so, then I agree and it can't be any other way.
The Late Andrew Ryan: wilderness: I base my ethics on economics and stealing is not economically valid. It destroys capital and makes even barter impossible if taken to the extreme. Then although you and I base our ethics on different things we still seem to come to the same conclusion, you don't pretend that your ethics are inherently "better" than mine, therefore I consider your ethics subjective.
The only "better" ethical decision that I find appropriate to advance is in regards to justice based on property rights. Somebody individually prefers to value having capital not confiscated whereas a thief prefers to value confiscation of capital. I being the somebody preferring capital accumulation think my preferences are "better" then the thieves.
If you were a thief and advocated thievery then I would think my ethics are better, but I don't think you do, so, yes yours are not better than mine nor mine better than yours.
The Late Andrew Ryan: wilderness: The Late Andrew Ryan:depending upon your subjective value preferences you project worth onto a set of ethics or consider one set of behaviors to be "wrong" and another "right" there is nothing objective about ethics, depends, but so far you understanding of subjective doesn't conflict with how I understand objective. Your subjective ethics and another's objective ethics, we are using two different words. I am not sure if I am a subjective or objective ethicists. I never really have made up my mind as I find these terms to quickly become meaningless when we discuss what we actually mean by those terms. I use the term "objective" in this case to mean an ethical system that claims that it in inherently superior to all objective systems as a closer and better model of human behavior and morality, and that it cannot be broken or shifted in any way without the shifter or breaker becoming "immoral"
That sounds more like somebody who regards their values in a confident way. They are not ashamed of their ethical conclusions and really believe in what they believe very strongly. Usually somebody that would put their life on the line and tries to capture or defend themselves against a criminal would feel very strongly about their rightness to rid the criminals effort. Don't you think? Maybe you mean something else. I think in terms of not only discussing these issues but also that what people think does occur in real-time. We can try to learn and educate ourselves to the best of our abilities. A person can try to find and discover the best theories available, but eventually the person on a daily basis, too, will need to act out what they theorize. And sometimes their theories are mistaken but they only have to go on what knowledge they have at the time.
The Late Andrew Ryan: wilderness: The Late Andrew Ryan:it varies between individuals depending upon their value preferences because there is no such thing as objective value, and over time as the value preferences of these individuals changes. It depends on what you mean by "objective value". You made value objective when you typed it here, in one sense of the word objective. You made it understood to others in order that others can observe these words and preferences of yours. In this case when I use the term "objective value" I mean a thing or substance that has value inherently, which is of course impossible.
I agree with you.
The Late Andrew Ryan: wilderness:I don't know of an objective ethics that would disagree with that to be honest. Which ethics don't disagree with it? They all say, for instance. that "killing is wrong" and that their system in by nature the very best that there is, and that it is then immoral to kill someone, once you say that value is based upon the individual valuation, then the entire idea of objective ethics falls apart
wilderness:I don't know of an objective ethics that would disagree with that to be honest.
An objective ethicists believes, as far as I understand from discussing with them as Justin who is one responded to me asking this very question earlier in this thread, that objective ethics are decided upon by an individual. This is exactly my point to both sides. If "individual valuation" is the only significant difference in which a subjective ethicist regards him or her self as being different from an objective ethicist, then the point becomes mute because objective ethicists know their theorizing is also based on individual valuation because only an individual can valuate. That's why I don't readily see any differences, and therefore need, for objectivist and subjectivist ethicist.
The Late Andrew Ryan: wilderness:OK, but if it's what I or others give it, then it's of our preferences. True, but that simply means that it is your preference
wilderness:OK, but if it's what I or others give it, then it's of our preferences.
right, which an objective ethicists wouldn't disagree with. It's why I think this whole play on words is a divide where no divide actually exists.
The Late Andrew Ryan: wilderness: The Late Andrew Ryan:Finally I doubt that your ethical system and my ethical systems have any major differences other than that you hold yours to be somehow objective, I haven't said if mine is "objective". I've argued that I don't hold either position due to semantics, but I might hold one of those positions in the way I act. I haven't been able to accurately label the adjective of my ethics for nearly as long as I've been in these forums. I've argued from both sides and only argue against mishaps in a mediator style as I find objectivists and subjectivists talk past each so often and don't realize that they are talking about the same thing. I have yet to find out what you mean by "objective". If you could define that it would be very helpful. Usually some people don't have the patience with me when I get this far with them on what I'm trying to relate as to what my ethics are. Thank you for being forthcoming and patient with me thus far. No problem, I define objective above, and also the difference between what I am trying to explain and what an objectivist would be attempting to explain is that the objectivist makes out that one ethical system is "better" or "worse" than another and holds on to the old immoral and moral crap that was given to him as a child.
I think it depends. Of course I would value my preferences on what is ethical higher, maybe, than somebody else's if on logical or factual grounds I find disagreement in what they are saying. Thereby I deem mine "better". Wouldn't you? But I think I asked you this earlier in the thread, so, you don't necessarily need to answer this here.
The Late Andrew Ryan: wilderness: The Late Andrew Ryan:and I understand that objectives are, by their very nature, subjective, you seem to be under the impression I am a consequentialist, I am not, I am an existentialist libertarian I don't know what a "consequentialist" or a "existentialist" libertarian are. I know the former is discussed much on this forum, but I haven't found those topics to be of interest to further pursue as of yet. My interests in learning since I've been here have been first logic with some political/ethical books thrown in. Yet even in the latter books I was very interested in the logic and have studied the terminology as much as possible and have read various books of Aristotle or Aquinas' commentary on Aristotle, etc.... But never in the books that I have read have subjective, objective, nihilist, etc... come up and if they ever have their purpose in explanation wasn't very relevant to the totality of the books goals. Consequentialism, or utilitarianism, implies that one's ethics are based upon general utility, for instance I would, from what you have said, consider your ethics rather utilitarian in nature. If someone says that it is morally good for the state to fund roads because it helps people, and therefore it is not just practically but also morally justified for this reason, then they are using morally utilitarian arguments. An example of a consequentailist utilitarian would be Milton Friedman.
When you say "general utility" do you mean in regards that what is best, is best, because it's the most useful for the most people? If so, I totally disagree with that proposition. I think of my position more along the lines of what I find to be the best theory so far, that is the theory I would try to convince/persuade/argue, etc... others in accepting. Sometimes I find what I tried to profess earlier in my life is what I disagree with currently. But my gap between theorizing and what is, is very small, and what I theorize is the current conclusion of what I think the world is. But since I understand this, I also am very aware that I am still learning, and as long as I am currently educating myself, nearly daily, then my open-mindedness stays more open. It's when I get stuck in a rut and am not trying to think too much about the world and find what is working to be working, even if not efficient in hindsight or flawed, I may try to convince others it's great and grand. And I may even not find myself very open to other ideas at the time, but usually I'm learning daily so my mind is kept flexible and daily reminded that there is more to know as each page or sentence I read while educating myself reminds of this fact. But I still act in real-time so what I currently know can not escape the fact that I am sharing with others and doing things in my life now, whether that is politically, economically, etc... motivated or not. I think each person rubs off on other people so we share what we know, sometimes very deeply, with others and so at times may share something that is deeply flawed or might be deeply true. But it happens and what I know can't be held back from being shared with others even in causal conversation at the grocery store, etc... little tid-bits about my liberty perspective and my stance on justice and economics probably is shared even if it is a very small amount of information.
The Late Andrew Ryan:I use the term "existentialist" lightly, I agree with certain aspects of the philosophy in terms of what it says about human nature an happiness (on these fronts I am far more objectivistic in belief) but for me the simple idea that they believe individuals project their values outward to create their own subjective ethics causes me to consider myself one of their number in what I consider the most important way, so for the sake of this conversation I consider an existentialist one who projects their values out wards for their ethics without claiming that their ethics are inherently "better" than anyone else's. Also just throwing my two cents worth out there but neither of those philosophers were around by the time any of these terms were really constructed which was much more 1800's
Interesting.