wilderness: zefreak: I understand consistency and reason are not categorical imperitives that "must" be followed, but I value them and hence advocate them. So you don't follow them, but you advocate them. More of that A is not-A crap.
zefreak: I understand consistency and reason are not categorical imperitives that "must" be followed, but I value them and hence advocate them.
I understand consistency and reason are not categorical imperitives that "must" be followed, but I value them and hence advocate them.
So you don't follow them, but you advocate them. More of that A is not-A crap.
More misunderstanding on your part. I value them, hence I both follow and advocate them. They are not binding on anyone who rejects them as principles, however.
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
zefreak: wilderness: zefreak: I understand consistency and reason are not categorical imperitives that "must" be followed, but I value them and hence advocate them. So you don't follow them, but you advocate them. More of that A is not-A crap. More misunderstanding on your part. I value them, hence I both follow and advocate them. They are not binding on anyone who rejects them as principles, however.
Wouldn't it be easier to simply state: liberty.
You go on and on and complicate all of this. I say one word, one word, and for how long it took you to finally come clean on this and all those sentences and this post here with three sentences and I say one word that sums up what you are saying: liberty.
zefreak: Juan:I am advocating for a reasonable, epistemically viable foundation of ethics. Okay, so 1) What foundation is that ? 2) What sort of ethics have you built based on that foundation ? The axioms I base my ethics on are universability, consistency and self-ownership (property). These are first principles, not derived from fact. Because of this, I have no real persuasive ability if such principles are rejected. This cannot be avoided.
Juan:I am advocating for a reasonable, epistemically viable foundation of ethics. Okay, so 1) What foundation is that ? 2) What sort of ethics have you built based on that foundation ?
I am advocating for a reasonable, epistemically viable foundation of ethics.
The axioms I base my ethics on are universability, consistency and self-ownership (property). These are first principles, not derived from fact. Because of this, I have no real persuasive ability if such principles are rejected. This cannot be avoided.
Now what you can do is study the free market and learn more about why private property is better than communism. It's a three step program. You (1) understand private property - (2) learn about the free market - and (3) discover that protecting private property in higher order good societies (increasing scarcity of economic goods) is the best way to go.
wilderness: zefreak: Juan:I am advocating for a reasonable, epistemically viable foundation of ethics. Okay, so 1) What foundation is that ? 2) What sort of ethics have you built based on that foundation ? The axioms I base my ethics on are universability, consistency and self-ownership (property). These are first principles, not derived from fact. Because of this, I have no real persuasive ability if such principles are rejected. This cannot be avoided. Now what you can do is study the free market and learn more about why private property is better than communism. It's a three step program. You (1) understand private property - (2) learn about the free market - and (3) discover that protecting private property in higher order good societies (increasing scarcity of economic goods) is the best way to go.
I don't need to hear that from you. How much economics have you studied? Just because most of my posts in this forum have been on epistemology and ethics doesn't mean I am ignorant of Economic theory. It is my primary interest, I just can't abide sloppy epistemology, hence why I am still posting in this abomination of a thread.
zefreak: I don't need to hear that from you. How much economics have you studied? Just because most of my posts in this forum have been on epistemology and ethics doesn't mean I am ignorant of Economic theory. It is my primary interest, I just can't abide sloppy epistemology, hence why I am still posting in this abomination of a thread.
You said this here:
"I don't reject natural law, but reject that natural rights can be derived from them. Also, natural rights are prescriptive, not descriptive. Right is a normative concept, and even if a certain action is "natural", it does not logically follow that it is "right"."
Thus liberty, life, and property is not right according to you. Since the specific focus is on property at the moment, since you avoid my posts addressed to you about liberty like it's the plague, then I therefore conclude somebody, according to you, having private property is not right. So you tell me why you don't like the free market and think about this post Harry had with a quote of Mises.
And, like some here, you think this is about brute force and I assume due to lack of good understanding, you believe a lot of posts are hostile when in fact they either are mirrors of what you say according to other people and/or these posts are intellectual exercises. I was not trying to compete with you on who has read more economics than the other. But your lack of confidence in the natural role of private property in higher order good societies can easily be concluded that you don't understand the free market and it's opposite devastating evil twin communism.
It's not how much you know, I know, for I've posted here when I'm wrong and when I need to learn more and how I'm trying to learn more about economics - but you along with some tiny number of others have an aversion to admitting when you can't account for something and thus when you either might be wrong or might need to learn more. Take it as you will, but I'm not in a pissing contest with you.
wilderness: zefreak: I don't need to hear that from you. How much economics have you studied? Just because most of my posts in this forum have been on epistemology and ethics doesn't mean I am ignorant of Economic theory. It is my primary interest, I just can't abide sloppy epistemology, hence why I am still posting in this abomination of a thread. You said this here: "I don't reject natural law, but reject that natural rights can be derived from them. Also, natural rights are prescriptive, not descriptive. Right is a normative concept, and even if a certain action is "natural", it does not logically follow that it is "right"." Thus liberty, life, and property is not right according to you. Since the specific focus is on property at the moment, since you avoid my posts addressed to you about liberty like it's the plague, then I therefore conclude somebody, according to you, having private property is not right. So you tell me why you don't like the free market and think about this post Harry had with a quote of Mises. And, like some here, you think this is about brute force and I assume due to lack of good understanding, you believe a lot of posts are hostile when in fact they either are mirrors of what you say according to other people and/or these posts are intellectual exercises. I was not trying to compete with you on who has read more economics than the other. But your lack of confidence in the natural role of private property in higher order good societies can easily be concluded that you don't understand the free market and it's opposite devastating evil twin communism. It's not how much you know, I know, for I've posted here when I'm wrong and when I need to learn more and how I'm trying to learn more about economics - but you along with some tiny number of others have an aversion to admitting when you can't account for something and thus when you either might be wrong or might need to learn more. Take it as you will, but I'm not in a pissing contest with you.
My advice is to read more concerning epistemology, because I do not think you know what I mean when I say something is not epistemically justified.
I think life, liberty and property are right. They certainly are right given the principles that I derive my ethic from. These first principles are, however, not justified. An attempt to justify first principles within a system of ethics results in an infinite regress. I hold to them on a basis of intuition, consider them Humean impulses if you want.
zefreak: My advice is to read more concerning epistemology, because I do not think you know what I mean when I say something is not epistemically justified. I think life, liberty and property are right. They certainly are right given the principles that I derive my ethic from. These first principles are, however, not justified. An attempt to justify first principles within a system of ethics results in an infinite regress. I hold to them on a basis of intuition, consider them Humean impulses if you want.
They are impulses of the pursuit of happiness. I understand what it means concerning epistemology. Do you understand that with liberty experiments and further understandings on facts that may someday, if it came to something better, would be discovered? I don't think you've thought it through on what liberty means. It means you can go on your epistemological journey. It means everybody can go on all their journeys and with justice, the virtue in human action to protect each and everybody's journey of discovery can continue. Liberty, person, and property infinitely regress cause it's the end - they are ends in themselves in accordance with Natural Law and the overall encompassing telos happiness.
You go on and on about how individuals have values and nothing is set in stone like it's something new and surprising. That's old news and you're not saying anything exciting because of that. And it is because individuals value differently that the role of liberty in everybody's life is validated, but you going on how well we can't prove it or it's not material enough, etc, etc, is the big hole in your approach on protecting the very thing you go on and on about - individuals are diverse.
Let me know when you say something that even my four year old niece doesn't already know (that each person can think and be different) and since you value natural rights then act like it cause you are a walking self-contradiction. But then again you might still think A is not-A...
So now you are arguing for liberty from a consequentialist basis. You are smuggling in value norms (the virtue of human action). You are rejecting my position as archaic without offering a positive refutation of it. You still do not understand how someone can consistently value liberty while rejecting it as a categorical imperetive. Your confusion is palpable.
wilderness: Let me know when you say something that even my four year old niece doesn't already know (that each person can think and be different)
Let me know when you say something that even my four year old niece doesn't already know (that each person can think and be different)
Is that what you have gotten from my posts? This discussion is worthless.
zefreak: So now you are arguing for liberty from a consequentialist basis.
So now you are arguing for liberty from a consequentialist basis.
Point out what has not ever been about natural law and natural rights.
zefreak: You are smuggling in value norms (the virtue of human action). You are rejecting my position as archaic without offering a positive refutation of it.
You are smuggling in value norms (the virtue of human action). You are rejecting my position as archaic without offering a positive refutation of it.
Why would I refute human diversity. It's you that doesn't understand that liberty is unbiased and why diversity is here cause in liberty the uniqueness of each individual due to human nature can be just that - unique. Thereby, you, arguing against the very thing, liberty, that promotes unbiasness. The virtue of human action is not a value norm it is descriptive of free-thinkers and acting in way that is good.
zefreak: You still do not understand how someone can consistently value liberty while rejecting it as a categorical imperetive. Your confusion is palpable.
You still do not understand how someone can consistently value liberty while rejecting it as a categorical imperetive. Your confusion is palpable.
No, your A is not-A is the walking self-contradiction. And thus you consistently are illogical.
zefreak: wilderness: Let me know when you say something that even my four year old niece doesn't already know (that each person can think and be different) Is that what you have gotten from my posts? This discussion is worthless.
That's all you go on about. People are different, they think differently. duh... that's why free-will is a natural law of human nature children pick up on that.
wilderness: zefreak: wilderness: Let me know when you say something that even my four year old niece doesn't already know (that each person can think and be different) Is that what you have gotten from my posts? This discussion is worthless. That's all you go on about. People are different, they think differently. duh... that's why free-will is a natural law of human nature children pick up on that.
You and Anarcho- are similar cause he went on and on about how Rothbard doesn't discuss happiness as an end and Rothbard is only about reason as the end. Yet I quote Rothbard discussing happiness as an end. I think you need to find something wrong in your life and argue about it when it's really a ghost in your own head.
I am advocating for a reasonable, epistemically viable foundation of ethics, which unfortunately cannot be derived from facts. I think a much more formidable strategy than equivocating ethical and ontological uses of ownership is to expose inconsistencies within contrary ethical systems.
Actually I am coming to a similar approach. I am not convinced of the fact-value dichotomy in the least, but I think epistemologically rooted arguments (i.e. seeing whether various ethical theories are logically tenable or not) have better chances of succeeding and are more easily comprehended than more traditional ethical ones.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
zefreak: wilderness: zefreak: wilderness: Let me know when you say something that even my four year old niece doesn't already know (that each person can think and be different) Is that what you have gotten from my posts? This discussion is worthless. That's all you go on about. People are different, they think differently. duh... that's why free-will is a natural law of human nature children pick up on that. People are different, think different, that is an ontological statement, not an ethical one. It is also not the statement I have made. You can't distinguish between the two, and I can't have a discussion with someone who doesn't understand the basics of what is being discussed.
Did I say we are discussing ethics or ontology? Did I describe that somewhere in one of my recent posts? No. So again, another ghost in your head. You're saying I'm talking about one or the other, when I never brought up either of those concepts as the strict basis of what I'm exclusively describing. So what was the point of that?
And when did you understand the basics of what I'm saying? It goes both ways if anything. Did you notice how many people are talking past each other in the last I don't know how many pages in this thread? Did you notice some people understand each other and others don't? And thus is human nature to be diverse and therefore our journey can continue as long as my natural rights are not impeded upon to the extent that typing on a computer discussing this is no longer tenable.
zefreak:I just can't abide sloppy epistemology, hence why I am still posting in this abomination of a thread.
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: I think you need to find something wrong in your life and argue about it when it's really a ghost in your own head.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Nitroadict: wilderness: I think you need to find something wrong in your life and argue about it when it's really a ghost in your own head. It sounds like the people who agree with natural law just can't seem to tolerate people who question natural law, regardless if they've read everything on natural law or not.
Its obvious that whoever does not agree with natual law, or even dares to question it is a statist enemy of liberty who does not want to bring about the libertarian society that will herald the end of history...
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
It's an experiment. It is a journey. Zefreak said he was against rights, but now he says he's not against rights. I think zefreak thought about it.
Nitroadict:It sounds like the people who agree with natural law just can't seem to tolerate people who question natural law, regardless if they've read everything on natural law or not.
wilderness: Alright. Maybe we can try this again. This is a serious question: Does a person's biological brain perform judgements and understandings? If so, then you've defined the human brains biological side, thus, inherent/innate of moralizing. It's what judgements and understandings exclusively do i.e. moralize. The degree of moral insight (philosophical wisdom) in such moral actions (practical wisdom) varies according to a number of events e.g. age, experience, environment, what a person has learned, etc... The moral impact of these mental faculties when demonstrated varies according to context. Aristotle: "...and of judging soundly; for 'well' and 'soundly' are the same thing. And from this has come the use of the name 'understanding' in virtue of which men are said to be 'of good understanding', viz. from the application of the word to the grasping of scientific truth; for we often call such grasping understanding."
Alright. Maybe we can try this again.
This is a serious question: Does a person's biological brain perform judgements and understandings?
If so, then you've defined the human brains biological side, thus, inherent/innate of moralizing. It's what judgements and understandings exclusively do i.e. moralize. The degree of moral insight (philosophical wisdom) in such moral actions (practical wisdom) varies according to a number of events e.g. age, experience, environment, what a person has learned, etc... The moral impact of these mental faculties when demonstrated varies according to context.
Aristotle:
"...and of judging soundly; for 'well' and 'soundly' are the same thing. And from this has come the use of the name 'understanding' in virtue of which men are said to be 'of good understanding', viz. from the application of the word to the grasping of scientific truth; for we often call such grasping understanding."
First, on inherent. True, you could say that almost all human beings have their own subjective set of morals. I'm fine with this statement. I certainly have mine as you certainly have yours, however, I don't see why a human being could not possibly be absent of morality. A true sadist, for example. Now, I'm willing to weigh that even the seeming absence of morals could itself be morality and I think my position that morality isn't inherent is then a very soft one.
Seceond, for objectiveness, I don't see at all an objective morality based on the idea of natural law. Of course, this might be the morality followed by yourself and many others, but it is a personal thing for you and not seemingly enforceable on anyone else who doesn't share the opinion.
existence is elsewhere
No one should prove any ethical principle from the argument by performative contradiction. Instead, one should analyze the benefits and costs of each ethical principle, and then choose one which attains the maximum well-being or prosperity of the general population.
The argument by performative contradiction cannot prove an ethical principle that guarantees the maximum well-being or prosperity of the general population. We can only derive the best ethical system by analyzing the advantages and limitations of human biology, and only then creating an ethical principle that suits them best.
Human biology impacts which ethical principle suits humans best. If humans have a psychology which desires to give as much as they produce to strangers, then communism in the sense of a gift economy may suit humans best. If humans have a hardwired emotion which desire to destruct any extra wealth beyond the necessary needs for survival, then anarcho-primitivism may suit them best. If humans have a low time-preference and a desire for frugality, then market anarchism may suit them best. As Austrian economists, we know that the third option--market anarchism--suits humans best because it fits into human biology the best--humans have low time-preference and frugality. Therefore, one should optimize ethical principles to best suit human biology.
Hans-Hermann Hoppe has failed to analyze human biology in his derivation of ethical principles. For example, he derived his "self-ownership principle" and Lockean property rights from the argument by performative contradiction. However, Hoppe has failed to synthesize human biology into Lockean property rights. If humans have a high time-preference and low frugility, then Lockean property rights may not benefit humans the best.
We find it interesting that Hoppe derived Lockean property rights without human biology. Why did Hoppe derive the best ethical principle for humans--Lockean property rights--without any consideration of human biology? We blame the argument by performative contradiction.
The argument by performative contradiction presupposes the logical soundess of its premises. For example, in Hoppe's argument for his "self-ownership principle", he presupposed that either no property rights or full Lockean property rights can hold. Hoppe has failed to consider other candidates as his premise, such as Proudhonian property rights, Marxian property rights, a slave who does not own much property, and a person who partially owns his property. Because Hoppe forced two options as the premise--either no property rights or Lockean property rights--he tricks the reader to accept full Lockean property rights on the grounds that the former entails a performative contradiction.
The argument by performative contradiction implies cognitive dissonance. The argument selects its premises arbitrarily, and then presupposes its premises as logically sound. It then, by performative contradiction, forces the reader to accept the other premise by citing a contradiction of one premise--no matter how arbitrary the argument presupposed the other premise.
The argument by performative contradiction has similar characteristics to the reductio ad absurdum and the law of the excluded middle. All of these three arguments and laws presupposes the law of identity as a magical law, free from flaws.
However, the law of identity has grey areas and can create potential problems. General semantics has shown the flaws in the identification of entities. Consequentently, the two laws derived from the law of identity--the law of the excluded middle and the law of non-contradiction--can also create potential problems.
Some would attempt to prove the law of identity by performative contradiction. But, as the argument by performative contradiction has flaws, it cannot "prove" the law of identity. Therefore, we can only assume the law of identity as a given. Deduction alone will not create laws. Only humans create them.
Life is filled with misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and prodigal folklore.
Really?
zefreak:The physical ability to dominate weaker beings. Not all men are created equal. No authority other than that. If that is "natural", and you conflate "natural" with "right", doesn't that amount to "might makes right"?...Otherwise the man with greater capacity to think and act (physical + mental ability) would be "justified" in dominating the weaker, due to his natural faculties....And please, anyone with half a brain can see I am not advocating slavery. I am, and always have been, arguing that your position is epistemically flawed....Wrong. Withholding support is not advocating....I think life, liberty and property are right....You still do not understand how someone can consistently value liberty while rejecting it as a categorical imperetive...
Wilmot of Rochester: First, on inherent. True, you could say that almost all human beings have their own subjective set of morals. I'm fine with this statement. I certainly have mine as you certainly have yours, however, I don't see why a human being could not possibly be absent of morality. A true sadist, for example.
First, on inherent. True, you could say that almost all human beings have their own subjective set of morals. I'm fine with this statement. I certainly have mine as you certainly have yours, however, I don't see why a human being could not possibly be absent of morality. A true sadist, for example.
A sadist judges and understands, thus, moralizes. Badly though for their actions are not conducive of happiness. Their happiness is met, but has minimized the happiness of another. I'm thinking in mathematical terms when I look at that last sentence. Instead of 1+1= 2 happy. It's 1+0=1 happy. A sadist minimizes the potential of happiness therefore.
I can see instances in which judgement and understanding can be impaired to a considerable degree. Mass murder is way off on the telos of happiness. Mass murder and then suicide cause they can't even stand their own life (not due to pain or sadness just a total revulsion of life in general) would be near void morality, but I think to pull the trigger on each of these instances would involve a choice, a judgement was made by the murder-suicide. I would say complete absence of morality would be total absence of choice in somebody's own action. I can't think of any way this is possible. Can you? curious...
Wilmot of Rochester: Now, I'm willing to weigh that even the seeming absence of morals could itself be morality and I think my position that morality isn't inherent is then a very soft one. Seceond, for objectiveness, I don't see at all an objective morality based on the idea of natural law. Of course, this might be the morality followed by yourself and many others, but it is a personal thing for you and not seemingly enforceable on anyone else who doesn't share the opinion.
Now, I'm willing to weigh that even the seeming absence of morals could itself be morality and I think my position that morality isn't inherent is then a very soft one. Seceond, for objectiveness, I don't see at all an objective morality based on the idea of natural law. Of course, this might be the morality followed by yourself and many others, but it is a personal thing for you and not seemingly enforceable on anyone else who doesn't share the opinion.
I personally have a hard time discussing objective or even subjective. If you're talking about personal choice, then how I personally describe that action is based on value. I can value something and keep it or I may not value it and throw it away. Whether it's paper or knowledge. I don't know if this is something kin to what you were saying here or not.
Juan: Really ? Actually it seems as if the moral relativists can't stand the idea of objective ethics.
Really ? Actually it seems as if the moral relativists can't stand the idea of objective ethics.
Perhaps.
Juan: But thanks for blaming the victim.
But thanks for blaming the victim.
Let me update my logical fallacies list:
"Disagreeing with a person equals blaming the victim"
Gotcha. I guess disagreeing with someone makes me an enemy of all objective ethics now.
wilderness: Wilmot of Rochester: First, on inherent. True, you could say that almost all human beings have their own subjective set of morals. I'm fine with this statement. I certainly have mine as you certainly have yours, however, I don't see why a human being could not possibly be absent of morality. A true sadist, for example. A sadist judges and understands, thus, moralizes. Badly though for their actions are not conducive of happiness. Their happiness is met, but has minimized the happiness of another. I'm thinking in mathematical terms when I look at that last sentence. Instead of 1+1= 2 happy. It's 1+0=1 happy. A sadist minimizes the potential of happiness therefore. I can see instances in which judgement and understanding can be impaired to a considerable degree. Mass murder is way off on the telos of happiness. Mass murder and then suicide cause they can't even stand their own life (not due to pain or sadness just a total revulsion of life in general) would be near void morality, but I think to pull the trigger on each of these instances would involve a choice, a judgement was made by the murder-suicide. I would say complete absence of morality would be total absence of choice in somebody's own action. I can't think of any way this is possible. Can you? curious... Wilmot of Rochester: Now, I'm willing to weigh that even the seeming absence of morals could itself be morality and I think my position that morality isn't inherent is then a very soft one. Seceond, for objectiveness, I don't see at all an objective morality based on the idea of natural law. Of course, this might be the morality followed by yourself and many others, but it is a personal thing for you and not seemingly enforceable on anyone else who doesn't share the opinion. I personally have a hard time discussing objective or even subjective. If you're talking about personal choice, then how I personally describe that action is based on value. I can value something and keep it or I may not value it and throw it away. Whether it's paper or knowledge. I don't know if this is something kin to what you were saying here or not.
On the first point, no I can't and I think you're right about it.
On the second point, I can understand the difficulty in measuring between objective and subjective. That's fair enough. By the way, thank you for the courtesy.
Nitroadict:All I got from his argument was basically that anyone can bastardize natural law into rationalizing their actions (hence, rationalizing slavery), & in fact this has been done repeatedly by various kings, tyrants, generals, etc to rationalize their rule, actions, or views.
Juan: Nitroadict:All I got from his argument was basically that anyone can bastardize natural law into rationalizing their actions (hence, rationalizing slavery), & in fact this has been done repeatedly by various kings, tyrants, generals, etc to rationalize their rule, actions, or views. Well, I think you misunderstand zefreak. Of course he can speak for himself, but I'll say anyway that zefreak's only point is to 'bury' the idea of objective ethics. Once you're done with objective ethics, terms like slavery and freedom are meaningless. You cannot 'bastardize' natural law cause natural law is just subjective preferences. Slave masters prefer to own slaves : that's natural law (for zefreak).
Does "objective ethics" have anything to do with ethical apriorism or the Kantian categorical imperative? Thanks.
Nitroadict: Really?
Surprising... I don't know.
Nitroadict: It actually sounds like you just got personally offended because he thought your arguments were flawed & disagreed with them.
It actually sounds like you just got personally offended because he thought your arguments were flawed & disagreed with them.
And it sounds like he was personally offended too. Not anything new.
Nitroadict: All I got from his argument was basically that anyone can bastardize natural law into rationalizing their actions (hence, rationalizing slavery), & in fact this has been done repeatedly by various kings, tyrants, generals, etc to rationalize their rule, actions, or views.
All I got from his argument was basically that anyone can bastardize natural law into rationalizing their actions (hence, rationalizing slavery), & in fact this has been done repeatedly by various kings, tyrants, generals, etc to rationalize their rule, actions, or views.
Of course anybody can bastardize natural law - free-will. Human action is free choice.
And if he would have said that, the way you did, then I would have gladly reached out to him with open arms with a big smile on my face a long time ago in this current discussion. But he didn't. He repeatedly not only in this thread, but along with others in other threads have argued for slavery, kings, tyrants, generals, etc... to put it the way you spelled it out here. And since he "rationalized their rule, actions, or views" without disclosing what you might be thinking is an innocent game of playing pretend cops and robbers it has been hopefully misguided by him. For I pray it was all a big game of pretend. But others are a bit straight forward in that they themselves would be like this such as majeska (I apologize if I misspelled) and Bloom to denote recent people that are thinking and saying they are this way and have not stepped forward with honor as zefreak has and let us know he supports natural rights.
In all honesty Nitroadict, I think you're post was good medicine and I appreciate what you said. Thank you.
wilderness: Nitroadict: wilderness: I think you need to find something wrong in your life and argue about it when it's really a ghost in your own head. It sounds like the people who agree with natural law just can't seem to tolerate people who question natural law, regardless if they've read everything on natural law or not.
I think Nitro got it right.
Pablo: wilderness: Nitroadict: wilderness: I think you need to find something wrong in your life and argue about it when it's really a ghost in your own head. It sounds like the people who agree with natural law just can't seem to tolerate people who question natural law, regardless if they've read everything on natural law or not. I think Nitro got it right.
Pablo, have you turned over a new leaf? Cause all of a sudden you're able to express you're judgement more.
Juan:Does "objective ethics" have anything to do with ethical apriorism or the Kantian categorical imperative? Thanks. Yes.
That is specifically what I have been arguing against this whole time.
wilderness:Pablo, have you turned over a new leaf? Cause all of a sudden you're able to express you're judgement more.
I've always expressed my own subjective viewpoint. I simply dont try and pretend it is an objective truth.
wilderness: Nitroadict: wilderness: I think you need to find something wrong in your life and argue about it when it's really a ghost in your own head. It sounds like the people who agree with natural law just can't seem to tolerate people who question natural law, regardless if they've read everything on natural law or not. It's an experiment. It is a journey. Zefreak said he was against rights, but now he says he's not against rights. I think zefreak thought about it.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:Some descriptive ethical nihilists may defend the life, liberty, or property of others through the defensive application of violence. That falls under the definition of a "right". Therefore, the descriptive ethical nihilists support "rights" in this sense.
Quoted from here.
entity zefreak:That is specifically what I have been arguing against this whole time.
Pablo:I think Nitro got it right.
Juan: entity zefreak:That is specifically what I have been arguing against this whole time. Of course you have. And the joke is, on one hand you babble that morals are subjective. On the other hand, you argue against a specific moral position that some persons hold...but why should you bother ?? You know, morals are subjective. I have mine you have yours. If you were consistent, which you clearly are not, you'd regard the advocates of natural law as just another bunch of people who prefer a given moral system. Just like the commies, or the deranged militarists, or the conservatives, or whatever. Now, a second point : what you have been arguing against - natural law - is a consistent defense of freedom. You have been arguing against freedom.
Technically I am not arguing against a moral position, but an epistemological or meta-ethical position that I disagree with. Plus, "descriptive" subjectivism doesn't preclude the possibility of discussion. I am not saying the values you hold are wrong, just that your means of justification are flawed.
Juan: Nitro got it wrong and so did you. Perhaps that illustrates how good the master of epistemology is at making his points. The audience don't get them....