Anarcho-Mercantilist: Nice point. Ethics is beyond cause and effect. Therefore, we cannot apply Occam's razor to simplify ethics. Ethics is not a science in which we can detect an "internal essence" or "underlying phenomenon." Ethics is expandable, and cannot be plausibly simplified for the sake of "logical consistency." The over-simplification of underlying ethical principles is a very serious problem that libertarians rarely address.
Nice point. Ethics is beyond cause and effect. Therefore, we cannot apply Occam's razor to simplify ethics. Ethics is not a science in which we can detect an "internal essence" or "underlying phenomenon." Ethics is expandable, and cannot be plausibly simplified for the sake of "logical consistency." The over-simplification of underlying ethical principles is a very serious problem that libertarians rarely address.
Ethics is beyond cause and effect? Please clarify. Ethics is a logical system, and therefore presupposes cause and effect. If action A, then consequence B. Only in ethics we are not dealing with observable consequences.
Why is Occam's Razor inapplicable to ethics? Occam's Razor does not rely on observable phenomena.
If you really have something to add, please try and clarify your position. It seems like you make vague assertions like "ethics is expandable" and draw conclusions of dubious quality, like "and cannot be plausibly simplified for the sake of logical consistency". It is impossible to follow your reasoning. I have done a great deal of study in philosophy, and I find your posts impossible to decipher.
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
zefreak: Anarcho-Mercantilist: Nice point. Ethics is beyond cause and effect. Therefore, we cannot apply Occam's razor to simplify ethics. Ethics is not a science in which we can detect an "internal essence" or "underlying phenomenon." Ethics is expandable, and cannot be plausibly simplified for the sake of "logical consistency." The over-simplification of underlying ethical principles is a very serious problem that libertarians rarely address. Ethics is beyond cause and effect? Please clarify. Ethics is a logical system, and therefore presupposes cause and effect. If action A, then consequence B. Only in ethics we are not dealing with observable consequences.
If a family member is murdered, the consequences of such an action are observable. The family, for one, may cry. If the murderer was stopped, then that is good for whomever was to be murdered (and consent to murder is not murder that would be suicide). It is an observable event. What do you mean?
Juan:You cannot conclusively prove that A has moral authority over B, just as you cannot prove that A has moral authority over A. Okay, I see you can only babble nonsense. Sphairon at least realized that and didn't reply...
You cannot conclusively prove that A has moral authority over B, just as you cannot prove that A has moral authority over A.
Whatever. You think that being unable to prove an assertion proves the contrary. Ignorance of the fact-value dichotomy is the least of your problems.
zefreak: Juan:You cannot conclusively prove that A has moral authority over B, just as you cannot prove that A has moral authority over A. Okay, I see you can only babble nonsense. Sphairon at least realized that and didn't reply... Whatever. You think that being unable to prove an assertion proves the contrary. Ignorance of the fact-value dichotomy is the least of your problems.
Ah, now I see what you are saying. Fact-value dichotomy doesn't mean these two don't relate.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
wilderness: If a family member is murdered, the consequences of such an action are observable. The family, for one, may cry. If the murderer was stopped, then that is good for whomever was to be murdered (and consent to murder is not murder that would be suicide). It is an observable event. What do you mean?
My point is that ethics as a system of philosophy presupposes cause and effect. For example, you consider coercion to be immoral because it violates the fundamental principle of individual sovereignty. Coercion and individual sovereignty are mutually exclusive, therefore one or the other must be rejected. If coercion is rejected, it is because the individual precedes it in importance. It is in this way that cause and effect is relevant in ethics.
Juan:Uh oh. You think A has authority over B ? Prove it. You can't ? Well, if you can't I'm going to assume that A has no authority over B. But do let me know when you prove it eh ? Thanks. But then, do you realize that your nonsensical retort "A has no authority over A" is...well...nonsensical ? I'd say that talking nonsense without apparently realizing that you're talking nonsense is not the least of your problems.
You are using authority in the ethical sense, yes? In which case, there is no contradiction in denying both the authority of A over B and A over A. You must simply reject the concept of an objective moral authority in the first place.
Your position is truly ironic given your distaste of anything that smacks of scientism. Your objective secular humanism is scientism pure and unadulturated.
natural law ethics would not require A to have authority over A. it simply requires that no one other than A has authority over A. so the absence of positive proofs for relationships of authority obtaining is not a stroke against natural law....
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
zefreak: wilderness: If a family member is murdered, the consequences of such an action are observable. The family, for one, may cry. If the murderer was stopped, then that is good for whomever was to be murdered (and consent to murder is not murder that would be suicide). It is an observable event. What do you mean? My point is that ethics as a system of philosophy presupposes cause and effect. For example, you consider coercion to be immoral because it violates the fundamental principle of individual sovereignty. Coercion and individual sovereignty are mutually exclusive, therefore one or the other must be rejected. If coercion is rejected, it is because the individual precedes it in importance. It is in this way that cause and effect is relevant in ethics.
Ok and this does not oppose my value system.
Your position is truly ironic given your distaste of anything that smacks of scientism.
Your objective secular humanism is scientism pure and unadulturated.
nirgrahamUK: natural law ethics would not require A to have authority over A. it simply requires that no one other than A has authority over A. so the absence of positive proofs for relationships of authority obtaining is not a stroke against natural law....
You do see that "no one other than A has authority over A" includes the identifier "A has authority over A", which contradicts your proposition that "natural law ethics would not require A to have authority over A."
The implication of nobody having moral authority over A is that neither A or B would have exclusive use of A. A working for A's benefit would be no more moral or immoral than B using A for B's benefit.
So yes, natural law ethics does require A to have exclusive moral use, or authority, over A.
my bad, i rather wrote some junk. i am willing to admit when i miss-step in a forum debate.
zefreak:You do see that "no one other than A has authority over A" includes the identifier "A has authority over A", which contradicts your proposition that "natural law ethics would not require A to have authority over A."
Nir:my bad, i rather wrote some junk. i am willing to admit when i miss-step in a forum debate.
Juan:You are using authority in the ethical sense, yes? In which case, there is no contradiction in denying both the authority of A over B and A over A. You must simply reject the concept of an objective moral authority in the first place. Sorry I don't know what you mean. I think you're confused.
You are using authority in the ethical sense, meaning legitimate exclusive use? Denying exclusive use of A to both A and B is not contradictory.
Juan:Your position is truly ironic given your distaste of anything that smacks of scientism. Even more confusion. How does my position resemble or have anything to do with scientism ?
Scientism is about misplaced concreteness. The positivism of Henri de Saint-Simon is incorrect not because there is no logical to social formations but because he perceives concreteness where there isn't. In other words, he is unaware of the assumptions necessary to derive the conclusions that he does, and sees the result as derived from objective truths. Likewise, you do not see that your attempt to prove an ethical system as objective, as unique in its constancy, as unassailable and self-evident, is due to your misunderstanding of the nature of value, your uncritical application or subjective value theory, and other assumptions you hold. For example, life and survival is an objective value and therefore food is an objective value.
Juan:Your objective secular humanism is scientism pure and unadulturated. Yet another sentence that makes no sense....But, Can I infer from your allusion to 'secular humanism' that you're some sort of theist ?
No you cannot. Secular humanism by itself is simply an ethical system, just like any other. However, the attempt to make it an objective, self evident ethic is scientism. I know he gets a bad rap around here, but I recommend reading Max Stirner's work on the subject.
I know he gets a bad rap around here, but I recommend reading Max Stirner's work on the subject.
zefreak: objective
objective
Personally I think objective or subjective lack sufficient insight and conceptual ability. These terms cause too much talking past one another and rely upon long descriptive definitions to patch up what these terms mean.
I think the family crying and the murder example I gave is objective. I don't see objective or facts being universal, though, laws would. Facts are particulars and often need context for validation. I have long discarded these concepts (subjective and objective) and don't value them anymore. I understand some people do, but I see them used differently quite often and therefore I can't even pin down a standard definition of them anymore. But that's me.
Juan: Authority is supposed to be an interpersonal concept which some people deem valid. So, they should prove the validity of the idea of authority - interpersonal authority. I don't need to prove I have authority over myself. Indeed the concept of 'authority' over SELF is NONSENSE since authority is something supposed to exist between DIFFERENT PERSONS, or selfs.
I clarified my definition in the previous post. I am using authority as an ethical concept of legitimate right to exclusive use, not in the colloquial legal sense. If you don't like the word, propose another one. The analysis remains the same.
If you are trying to be objective, you do need to prove why you have the legitimate right to exclusive use of your body. Referring to the ontological fact of your control would be an equivocation.
and now........argumentation ethics !
wilderness: I think the family crying and the murder example I gave is objective. I don't see objective or facts being universal, though, laws would. Facts are particulars and often need context for validation. I have long discarded these concepts (subjective and objective) and don't value them anymore. I understand some people do, but I see them used differently quite often and therefore I can't even pin down a standard definition of them anymore. But that's me.
The family crying from a murder is an objective fact. It is an "is" statement. You can not logically derive the conclusion that "therefore the murderer should be punished", or that "the murder shouldn't have happened" from the facts of the case. You must introduce an element of value into the equation before any sort of ethical analysis can be made.That is all I am saying. You know what my personal values are, Wilderness. But I am cognizant enough to accept that those values are subjective, and cannot be derived from observation.
Juan:I know he gets a bad rap around here, but I recommend reading Max Stirner's work on the subject. Yeah poor Max. I did browse his sacred work - the ego - and found it to be so badly written (typical 'intellectual' misuse of the german language) as to be impossible to read. As to the followers of the stirner cult, you being one, I imagine - yes, I don't take them seriously.
Ad Hominem is an Ad Hominem
Juan:No ad-hominem in sight. Stirner is trash.
Stirner is not trash, and I am no more part of a Stirner cult as I am part of a Mises or Rothbard cult.
edit: Enough of this. We have had three threads recently on what is essentially the validity of the fact-value dichotomy. Everything that could be said, has been.
zefreak: wilderness: I think the family crying and the murder example I gave is objective. I don't see objective or facts being universal, though, laws would. Facts are particulars and often need context for validation. I have long discarded these concepts (subjective and objective) and don't value them anymore. I understand some people do, but I see them used differently quite often and therefore I can't even pin down a standard definition of them anymore. But that's me. The family crying from a murder is an objective fact. It is an "is" statement. You can not logically derive the conclusion that "therefore the murderer should be punished", or that "the murder shouldn't have happened" from the facts of the case. You must introduce an element of value into the equation before any sort of ethical analysis can be made.That is all I am saying. You know what my personal values are, Wilderness. But I am cognizant enough to accept that those values are subjective, and cannot be derived from observation.
Aside from your personal values I'm not going to get into that...
I'm all for demonstrating civility.
When I see justice that is - an "is". Demonstrating what should and ought can happen and thus a fact. Values can become fact. A fact can be a value in accord with this demonstrative logic.
wilderness: Demonstrating what should and ought can happen and thus a fact. Values can become fact. A fact can be a value in accord with this demonstrative logic.
Demonstrating what should and ought can happen and thus a fact. Values can become fact. A fact can be a value in accord with this demonstrative logic.
How can you demonstrate what should and ought happen? Can they be derived solely through observation, such that an amoral being could actively obtain those values?
I didn't think it was trash or poorly written. I don't agree with all of it logically, but I thought it was a decent work by a man who had some thoughts that he expressed fairly well. Like most works.
existence is elsewhere
zefreak:Stirner is not trash,
Wilmot of Rochester:I didn't think it was trash or poorly written.
zefreak: wilderness: Demonstrating what should and ought can happen and thus a fact. Values can become fact. A fact can be a value in accord with this demonstrative logic. How can you demonstrate what should and ought happen?
How can you demonstrate what should and ought happen?
I can verbalize what I should do, and then do it.
zefreak: Can they be derived solely through observation, such that an amoral being could actively obtain those values?
Can they be derived solely through observation, such that an amoral being could actively obtain those values?
Listening is scientific too. That's a form of observation. So is taste when it comes to tasting rocks in geology, salty or not, etc... helps identify what kind of rock it is.
I don't know what "amoral being" you are talking about.
Juan: zefreak:Stirner is not trash, LOL. What ? Are you saying that's fact ? Or is just your subjective hallucination ?
Open another thread if you want to discuss it. I didn't go into details because it isn't really relevant to the particular discussion. Just didn't want you to get the last word on Stirner, especially a criticism as intellectually empty as the one you gave.
Juan: Wilmot of Rochester:I didn't think it was trash or poorly written. Your opinion. I don't give a damn about it. Why should I ?
Wow.
Testy.
Open another thread if you want to discuss it.
wilderness: zefreak: wilderness: Demonstrating what should and ought can happen and thus a fact. Values can become fact. A fact can be a value in accord with this demonstrative logic. How can you demonstrate what should and ought happen? I can verbalize what I should do, and then do it. zefreak: Can they be derived solely through observation, such that an amoral being could actively obtain those values? Listening is scientific too. That's a form of observation. So is taste when it comes to tasting rocks in geology, salty or not, etc... helps identify what kind of rock it is. I don't know what "amoral being" you are talking about.
So you are saying that if someone expresses their values, they become factual?
The amoral being I referred to is one whose default is value free. It experiences the world around them through its sensory organs, it is a cognizant being. Yet if you were to try to persuade it to act a certain way, how would you? You cannot appeal to any common value, even expressing your desire will not work because he, being value free, will not recognise that as an obligation requiring him to respond.
Wilmot:Wow. Testy.
zefreak: wilderness: zefreak: wilderness: Demonstrating what should and ought can happen and thus a fact. Values can become fact. A fact can be a value in accord with this demonstrative logic. How can you demonstrate what should and ought happen? I can verbalize what I should do, and then do it. zefreak: Can they be derived solely through observation, such that an amoral being could actively obtain those values? Listening is scientific too. That's a form of observation. So is taste when it comes to tasting rocks in geology, salty or not, etc... helps identify what kind of rock it is. I don't know what "amoral being" you are talking about. So you are saying that if someone expresses their values, they become factual?
If I can put those values I express into action, yes. For example, not only saying I won't murder but demonstrating that my whole life.
zefreak: The amoral being I referred to is one whose default is value free. It experiences the world around them through its sensory organs, it is a cognizant being. Yet if you were to try to persuade it to act a certain way, how would you? You cannot appeal to any common value, even expressing your desire will not work because he, being value free, will not recognise that as an obligation requiring him to respond.
I don't think anybody is value-free. Yet, I know some people profess that, so, yes. But also even if somebody honors value. The choice for anything is made by the individual. Whether they profess value-free or not.
Juan: Wilmot:Wow. Testy. You, just like, zefreak don't get it, eh ? Now, would you mind explaining what 'poorly written' objectively means ?
Don't worry, I get it. You are, cleverly, trying to get me to prove that Stirner is objectively "not trash". I didn't want to bite, but there is a difference between making an statement of opinion or aesthetic and stating that something is illogical, or wrong. I presumed you meant the latter.
So?
zefreak:I didn't want to bite, but there is a difference between making an statement of opinion or aesthetic and stating that something is illogical, or wrong.
This discussion ends with a classic "objectivist"/"subjectivist" controversy. Wilmot and zefreak use a different meaning of these terms than Juan. I fully understand the arguments on both sides. I understand Juan's point against "subjectivism": "The belief that all truth claims can be reduced to mere personal opinion or preference, yet somehow this view isn't a mere opinion in and of itself." Likewise, I understand Wilmot and zebreak's points against "objectivism."
However, each side ends up with straw man arguments caused from the different usages on each side. We will explain this below. (Cross-posted from Polycentric Order)
Anarcho-Mercantilist: Read some writings by some self-identified "subjectivists" or "ethical subjectivists." They use the term to mean something different, even when they strawman the "objectivist" rejection of "subjectivism." And vice versa: Same thing happens with the "objectivists" strawmanning the "subjectivists."However, readers do not often notice that each side use different definitions of "subjective" or "objective." Even if they explicitly define the term "subjective" and "objective," the definitions also look very vague. Each side will interpret the definitions differently.Let us look at a definition of "objectivism" that both the self-described "objectivists" and "subjectivists" all agree on: "reality exists independently of the mind."However, this definition contains many vague terms. The term "reality" and "existence" also have multiple definitions! Also, the "objectivists" and the "subjectivists" will interpret the term "mind-independent" in different ways.So we must define "reality," "existence," and "mind-independent" in order for both sides to understand the same concept. Otherwise, each side will only agree only choose an arbitrary meaning of "reality" or "existence" and will thus straw man each other.[...]To clarify some things up:The self-described "subjectivists" use "objectivism" to refer to naive realism or some variant of indirect realism.But the self-described "objectivists" use "objectivism" to refer to syllogistic or scientifically validated knowledge set in standard, as opposed to unvalidated opinions.The self-described "nihilists" use "morality does not exist" to mean that "morality only exists as abstract concepts in the mind; morality does not exist in the physical world as tangible objects."However, the opponents of "nihilists" use "nihilism" to refer to "solipsism..."I hope that this sums it up.[...]I just want to point out that some ontological terms such as "realism," "objectivism," and "nihilism" have multiple senses, thus produces strawman fallacies. The critique of "moral relativism," for example, strawmanned the self-described "subjectivists." However, if the self-described "subjectivists" read the critique, they would not realize it as a strawman because both the "subjectivists" and "objectivists" will interpret the article's definition of "subjectivism" and "objectivism" differently.Let us see that article's definition of "subjectivism":"all the various versions of subjectivism that represent the truth of moral claims as depending solely on the attitudes of either the person making the claim or the person about whom the claim is being made;"The "objectivists" will interpret that definition as some type of person who does not prioritize certain ethical systems as more effective than others in the normative sense.Conversely, the "subjectivists" will interpret that definition as something like "moral nominalism" in the descriptive sense. If we look at that definition, the "subjectivists" will interpret the phrase "depending solely on the attitudes of either the person making the claim" as "depending solely on one's abstract mental concepts instead of tangible physical properties or a divine entity."
Read some writings by some self-identified "subjectivists" or "ethical subjectivists." They use the term to mean something different, even when they strawman the "objectivist" rejection of "subjectivism." And vice versa: Same thing happens with the "objectivists" strawmanning the "subjectivists."However, readers do not often notice that each side use different definitions of "subjective" or "objective." Even if they explicitly define the term "subjective" and "objective," the definitions also look very vague. Each side will interpret the definitions differently.Let us look at a definition of "objectivism" that both the self-described "objectivists" and "subjectivists" all agree on: "reality exists independently of the mind."However, this definition contains many vague terms. The term "reality" and "existence" also have multiple definitions! Also, the "objectivists" and the "subjectivists" will interpret the term "mind-independent" in different ways.So we must define "reality," "existence," and "mind-independent" in order for both sides to understand the same concept. Otherwise, each side will only agree only choose an arbitrary meaning of "reality" or "existence" and will thus straw man each other.[...]To clarify some things up:The self-described "subjectivists" use "objectivism" to refer to naive realism or some variant of indirect realism.But the self-described "objectivists" use "objectivism" to refer to syllogistic or scientifically validated knowledge set in standard, as opposed to unvalidated opinions.The self-described "nihilists" use "morality does not exist" to mean that "morality only exists as abstract concepts in the mind; morality does not exist in the physical world as tangible objects."However, the opponents of "nihilists" use "nihilism" to refer to "solipsism..."I hope that this sums it up.[...]I just want to point out that some ontological terms such as "realism," "objectivism," and "nihilism" have multiple senses, thus produces strawman fallacies. The critique of "moral relativism," for example, strawmanned the self-described "subjectivists." However, if the self-described "subjectivists" read the critique, they would not realize it as a strawman because both the "subjectivists" and "objectivists" will interpret the article's definition of "subjectivism" and "objectivism" differently.Let us see that article's definition of "subjectivism":"all the various versions of subjectivism that represent the truth of moral claims as depending solely on the attitudes of either the person making the claim or the person about whom the claim is being made;"The "objectivists" will interpret that definition as some type of person who does not prioritize certain ethical systems as more effective than others in the normative sense.Conversely, the "subjectivists" will interpret that definition as something like "moral nominalism" in the descriptive sense. If we look at that definition, the "subjectivists" will interpret the phrase "depending solely on the attitudes of either the person making the claim" as "depending solely on one's abstract mental concepts instead of tangible physical properties or a divine entity."
Life is filled with misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and prodigal folklore.
The debate has been about ethics, so I don't see how Ontology entered into this. I am fairly certain everyone here is an Ontological realist. The whole discussion has been about the validity of the fact-value dichotomy. Juan rejects it, and refuses to formulate an actual proof that values can be derived from and justified by facts. Do you have a position regarding it?