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."
Juan:Well, you said "It sounds like the people who agree with natural law just can't seem to tolerate people who question natural law, " Oh such horrible intolerance. But it actually seems that it's zefreak who has a problem with natural law and can't 'tolerate' people who advocate it.
Juan:IMO, you got it wrong. But never mind, everything is subjective.
Juan: I don't think that's the point zefreak was making.
"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
Well then I was wrong. Perhaps zefreak could clarify?
Juan:Well then I was wrong. Perhaps zefreak could clarify? I think he already did here http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/8536/228346.aspx#228346 But maybe I got part of the conversation wrong (and this time I'm not being sarcastic).
I do think the categorical imperative is wrongheaded, I think the fact-value dichotomy stands, and I think ethical apriorism is sophistry in the colloquial sense (requires clever wordplay IE switching between ontological and ethical forms of self-ownership). Honestly though, can't we have a dispassionate discussion about ethics? I don't want to make enemies on this board. I don't think sarcasm does anything but raise the level of emotion in the thread.
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
Pablo: 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: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.
Pablo see this post. It says it best.
You go on using you're judgement and thus moralized that Nitroadict was right. You made an objective statement. You're contradictions continue. For once you expressed your "own subjective viewpoint" - guess what - you make it objective. So go on believing murder is ok with illogical tantrums.
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.
entity zefreak:That is specifically what I have been arguing against this whole time.
Yeap those that profess subjectivism, as Pablo's recent comment that "Nitroadict is right", yet, goes on about how he's being subjective are all grouped into what you posted here. Juan this is an excellent summary of their position. Very good post!
Juan:Well, you said "It sounds like the people who agree with natural law just can't seem to tolerate people who question natural law, " Oh such horrible intolerance. But it actually seems that it's zefreak who has a problem with natural law and can't 'tolerate' people who advocate it. IMO, you got it wrong. But never mind, everything is subjective.
Agreed. Juan you are spot on.
You previously denied that you use the words "subjectivism" and "objectivism". Yet you used these two words in two posts.
Life is filled with misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and prodigal folklore.
zefreak: Honestly though, can't we have a dispassionate discussion about ethics? I don't want to make enemies on this board. I don't think sarcasm does anything but raise the level of emotion in the thread.
Honestly though, can't we have a dispassionate discussion about ethics? I don't want to make enemies on this board. I don't think sarcasm does anything but raise the level of emotion in the thread.
I saw no sarcasm. Zefreak you run into boundaries and complain. But of course it's all subjective to you anyways so why argue against it... (not a question).
Anarcho-Mercantilist: You previously denied that you use the words "subjectivism" and "objectivism". Yet you used these two words in two posts.
Cause I'm throwing their own terminology back at them.
Anarcho- get off it, you don't know what you're talking about.
wilderness: Anarcho-Mercantilist: You previously denied that you use the words "subjectivism" and "objectivism". Yet you used these two words in two posts. Cause I'm throwing their own terminology back at them. Anarcho- get off it, you don't know what you're talking about.
wilderness: Anarcho-Mercantilist: wilderness: I think you have Juan and I confused. I don't like to discuss subjectivism and objectivism on the grounds of the confusion such concepts lead to. I've been that way since I've entered this forum, trust me. You use the words "subjective" and "objective" all the time without any quotes. So I assumed that you do not know that it leads to confusion. Could you explain why you use such words without any quotes? No I don't. Why are you stuck on this? I use this word, I don't use this word... I've said repeatedly way before you brought it up, even in this thread, that subjective and objective lead to confusion. Ask Juan I discussed with him around the time I first joined this forum. So drop it. It's a dead issue.
Anarcho-Mercantilist: wilderness: I think you have Juan and I confused. I don't like to discuss subjectivism and objectivism on the grounds of the confusion such concepts lead to. I've been that way since I've entered this forum, trust me. You use the words "subjective" and "objective" all the time without any quotes. So I assumed that you do not know that it leads to confusion. Could you explain why you use such words without any quotes?
wilderness: I think you have Juan and I confused. I don't like to discuss subjectivism and objectivism on the grounds of the confusion such concepts lead to. I've been that way since I've entered this forum, trust me.
I think you have Juan and I confused. I don't like to discuss subjectivism and objectivism on the grounds of the confusion such concepts lead to. I've been that way since I've entered this forum, trust me.
You use the words "subjective" and "objective" all the time without any quotes. So I assumed that you do not know that it leads to confusion. Could you explain why you use such words without any quotes?
No I don't. Why are you stuck on this? I use this word, I don't use this word... I've said repeatedly way before you brought it up, even in this thread, that subjective and objective lead to confusion. Ask Juan I discussed with him around the time I first joined this forum. So drop it. It's a dead issue.
Well Pablo and zefreak used the word, so, I'm throwing it back at them. Confusing isn't it.
Unless you have something productive to say, be gone.
wilderness: Well Pablo and zefreak used the word, so, I'm throwing it back at them. Confusing isn't it. Unless you have something productive to say, be gone.
You understand the confusion of the words "subjectivism" and "objectivism". Pablo and zefreak used the word "subjectivism" in a different sense than what you and Juan used. Please stop strawmanning them.
Anarcho-Mercantilist: wilderness: Well Pablo and zefreak used the word, so, I'm throwing it back at them. Confusing isn't it. Unless you have something productive to say, be gone. You understand the confusion of the words "subjectivism" and "objectivism". Pablo and zefreak used the word "subjectivism" in a different sense than what you and Juan used. Please stop strawmanning them.
No Anarcho-... Do you even know Pablo? He's the guy that would be ok with somebody shooting and killing a lad that stole bubblegum. He thinks nobody should quarrel with the shooter since the act happened on his property. And yet when he was repeatedly asked to justify the actions for pages on end he could not provide one rational thought - not one. It's the same tired slippery slope that "subjectivists" slip on.
Zefreak argued against liberty, as Juan pointed out. I'm not going to rehash your misunderstanding and effort to try to make nicey-nice. It's honorable of you to seek friendships, people upon more common grounds of understanding, but let zefreak explain himself. This doesn't mean don't interject, but I have yet to see zefreak pick up on your effort either.
wilderness: zefreak: Honestly though, can't we have a dispassionate discussion about ethics? I don't want to make enemies on this board. I don't think sarcasm does anything but raise the level of emotion in the thread. I saw no sarcasm. Zefreak you run into boundaries and complain. But of course it's all subjective to you anyways so why argue against it... (not a question).
You are conflating two different types of subjectivism.. but whatever.
zefreak: wilderness: zefreak: Honestly though, can't we have a dispassionate discussion about ethics? I don't want to make enemies on this board. I don't think sarcasm does anything but raise the level of emotion in the thread. I saw no sarcasm. Zefreak you run into boundaries and complain. But of course it's all subjective to you anyways so why argue against it... (not a question). You are conflating two different types of subjectivism.. but whatever.
Yes go on and contradict yourself in action.
wilderness: Anarcho-Mercantilist: wilderness: Well Pablo and zefreak used the word, so, I'm throwing it back at them. Confusing isn't it. Unless you have something productive to say, be gone. You understand the confusion of the words "subjectivism" and "objectivism". Pablo and zefreak used the word "subjectivism" in a different sense than what you and Juan used. Please stop strawmanning them. No Anarcho-... Do you even know Pablo? He's the guy that would be ok with somebody shooting and killing a lad that stole bubblegum. He thinks nobody should quarrel with the shooter since the act happened on his property. And yet when he was repeatedly asked to justify the actions for pages on end he could not provide one rational thought - not one. It's the same tired slippery slope that "subjectivists" slip on. Zefreak argued against liberty, as Juan pointed out. I'm not going to rehash your misunderstanding and effort to try to make nicey-nice. It's honorable of you to seek friendships, people upon more common grounds of understanding, but let zefreak explain himself. This doesn't mean don't interject, but I have yet to see zefreak pick up on your effort either.
I've explained myself countless times but it consistently goes over your head. I appreciate AM's interjections because he understands the conflict which is mostly caused by semantics and unclear terms. I think it is very helpful when he tries to clarify this.
By the way wilderness, Juan.. Once again I am not arguing against liberty. I am arguing against ethical apriorism or the categorical imperative. Just because the implications of such a rejection are distasteful to you (you wouldn't be able to "prove" an ethical stance anymore) doesn't mean you should reject it out of hand.
wilderness: zefreak: wilderness: zefreak: Honestly though, can't we have a dispassionate discussion about ethics? I don't want to make enemies on this board. I don't think sarcasm does anything but raise the level of emotion in the thread. I saw no sarcasm. Zefreak you run into boundaries and complain. But of course it's all subjective to you anyways so why argue against it... (not a question). You are conflating two different types of subjectivism.. but whatever. Yes go on and contradict yourself in action.
Expressing a viewpoint is not contrary to subjectivism in the sense of the term I am using. The expression is an objective fact, IE I spoke the words, expressed the feeling, yet the truth value of moral statements remains subjective.
I can say "I think killing is wrong" and remain a descriptive ethical subjectivist.
I hope this clarifies my position somewhat.
zefreak:Ok then, the physical and mental ability to dominate weaker beings. This is "natural", is it not?
So kill or be killed is a natural state for man?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
zefreak: Expressing a viewpoint is not contrary to subjectivism in the sense of the term I am using. The expression is an objective fact, IE I spoke the words, expressed the feeling, yet the truth value of moral statements remains subjective. I can say "I think killing is wrong" and remain a descriptive ethical subjectivist. I hope this clarifies my position somewhat.
And what makes that any different than free-will?
wilderness: zefreak: Expressing a viewpoint is not contrary to subjectivism in the sense of the term I am using. The expression is an objective fact, IE I spoke the words, expressed the feeling, yet the truth value of moral statements remains subjective. I can say "I think killing is wrong" and remain a descriptive ethical subjectivist. I hope this clarifies my position somewhat. And what makes that any different than free-will?
What? Free will is ontological whereas ethical subjectivism is epistemological. Free will only states that people are free to determine their behavior and choose between various means. This is assumed in the topic we are discussing. I really don't see what you are getting at.. I'm not referring to free will at all.
Anarchist Cain: zefreak:Ok then, the physical and mental ability to dominate weaker beings. This is "natural", is it not? So kill or be killed is a natural state for man?
I'll come back to your response zefreak, but I'm waiting for a response to this (what Anarchist Cain asked you).
Survival is a "natural" drive for humans. Some humans have a greater capacity for physical and mental feats than others. Is it not natural for one to dominate the other, in the race for survival?
Before I get strawmanned, I am not advocating "might makes right". I am trying to make the case that "nature" cannot in itself make the case for any given ethic.
zefreak:Survival is a "natural" drive for humans. Some humans have a greater capacity for physical and mental feats than others. Is it not natural for one to dominate the other, in the race for survival?
That presupposes that domination is necessary for survive which I believe is a falsehood. Do you agree with my position or disagree and believe that domination is necessary?
Anarchist Cain: zefreak:Survival is a "natural" drive for humans. Some humans have a greater capacity for physical and mental feats than others. Is it not natural for one to dominate the other, in the race for survival? That presupposes that domination is necessary for survive which I believe is a falsehood. Do you agree with my position or disagree and believe that domination is necessary?
Not as a group, but it is possible to concieve of an individual where domination is necessary for survival. It would then be natural for him to do whatever it took to sustain his life.
zefreak:Not as a group, but it is possible to concieve of an individual where domination is necessary for survival. It would then be natural for him to do whatever it took to sustain his life.
So an individual of strength needs to pray on the weak to sustain himself? Truly if one must do that then are they really that strong? Is it not the strong those who can sustain their own life and perhaps the lives of their kin?
Anarchist Cain: zefreak:Not as a group, but it is possible to concieve of an individual where domination is necessary for survival. It would then be natural for him to do whatever it took to sustain his life. So an individual of strength needs to pray on the weak to sustain himself? Truly if one must do that then are they really that strong? Is it not the strong those who can sustain their own life and perhaps the lives of their kin?
This current back and forth is getting to the heart of what has been supposedly talked past each other. I'm enjoying this. Definitely providing clarity. I wonder what zefreak will say.
This line of thinking will get us nowhere, because although you cannot imagine a case where such is not necessary, you have not given him a reason as to why those means to fulfill his ends are against his nature.
Perhaps it is a "lifeboat situation". Or maybe he has trapped in a cave for a very long time and upon exiting, there is a man with a sack of food who refuses to give it to him. Maybe he is too lazy to hunt for another meal, or maybe he is a cannibal and likes human flesh. There are numerous reasons why a man might resort to violence. Saying that such violence is wrong because it is against his nature seems foolish.
wilderness: Anarchist Cain: zefreak:Not as a group, but it is possible to concieve of an individual where domination is necessary for survival. It would then be natural for him to do whatever it took to sustain his life. So an individual of strength needs to pray on the weak to sustain himself? Truly if one must do that then are they really that strong? Is it not the strong those who can sustain their own life and perhaps the lives of their kin? This current back and forth is getting to the heart of what has been supposedly talked past each other. I'm enjoying this. Definitely providing clarity. I wonder what zefreak will say.
Actually, it isn't. Even if we allow that to do violence is against man's nature, the is-ought divide still stands. Why "should" a man do what is "natural" to him? Take a theist who believes in original sin. To him, human nature is something to be struggled with, discarded, so that a "new nature" can be put upon him. The discussion I am interested in having is regarding ethical apriorism not human nature. This is just an interesting detour.
zefreak: The discussion I am interested in having is regarding ethical apriorism not human nature. This is just an interesting detour.
The discussion I am interested in having is regarding ethical apriorism not human nature. This is just an interesting detour.
I thinking about what you're saying. Who's ethical apriorism if not a human's?
wilderness: zefreak: The discussion I am interested in having is regarding ethical apriorism not human nature. This is just an interesting detour. I thinking about what you're saying. Who's ethical apriorism if not a human's?
As in the possibility of ethical apriorism. For anyone/anything.
zefreak: As in the possibility of ethical apriorism. For anyone/anything.
Who's anyone and anything? I mean there is already the nature of a tree or the nature of this mountain or that mountain, but are you suggesting that there is a ethical apriorism that would be fit for a tree, dog, and human all in one package?
Edit: Actually if you are looking for an ethics of anything and you've already denoted this "anything" is different from "anybody", then are you looking for an ethics of a chair, hair comb, carpet, etc... too? Usually if you denote "anything" is different from "anybody", then a thing are those, well, things.
zefreak: This line of thinking will get us nowhere, because although you cannot imagine a case where such is not necessary, you have not given him a reason as to why those means to fulfill his ends are against his nature.
I think it is getting us to the base of your psychic. So far you have conceived that a 'strong' individual in the state of nature has authority to dominate a weaker individual. Now, I will propose several questions to you:
1. How is voluntary cooperation established?
2. You concede that the state of nature establishes the beginnings of a state [one caste of individuals having domain under another] am I to take this as you see the inevitability of the state apparatus and the anarchist community is a utopian dream?
3. Even if you are a ulititarian, you are neglecting that the maximization of social pleasure is the ethic you propose. Obivously the weak outnumber the strong and therefore the maximal social pleasure should be with the weaker who are in greater number. So either you must now agree with me that the state of nature should not simply be the strong dominating the weak OR you have to concede a different system of ethics.
zefreak: Actually, it isn't. Even if we allow that to do violence is against man's nature, the is-ought divide still stands. Why "should" a man do what is "natural" to him? Take a theist who believes in original sin. To him, human nature is something to be struggled with, discarded, so that a "new nature" can be put upon him.
Actually, it isn't. Even if we allow that to do violence is against man's nature, the is-ought divide still stands. Why "should" a man do what is "natural" to him? Take a theist who believes in original sin. To him, human nature is something to be struggled with, discarded, so that a "new nature" can be put upon him.
Take those lifeboat situations and the questioning of whether violence is against human nature or not. You put a person in those dire situations and human nature can be ugly. That's unquestioned. But if a person should or should not act in such ways, if everything is on the verge of chaos, tests good judgement - meaning - that's like asking a bow shooter to take down a deer at 40 yards away in the woods while it's raining out, with a heavy wind, thunder, lightening with so much brush in the way the target (the heart) will only be in a clear path of sight for about 3 seconds meanwhile the deer is running at full speed, Oh and the hunters footing is beginning to slip cause its getting muddy. Will the target be hit? Or will everything implode?
*twiddles thumbs*
ok so a priest and a rabbi walk into a bar...
Anarchist Cain: So an individual of strength needs to pray on the weak to sustain himself?
So an individual of strength needs to pray on the weak to sustain himself?
Well... That's kind of our argument about what the state is, no?
existence is elsewhere
mitzvah?
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
Wilmot of Rochester: Well... That's kind of our argument about what the state is, no?
A state is weak in the sense that it must fabricate acceptance in order to sustain itself. Its existence is validated through this fabrication. That is what Anarchists point out. It is not the state that is strong, it is the individual.
Anarchist Cain: A state is weak in the sense that it must fabricate acceptance in order to sustain itself. Its existence is validated through this fabrication. That is what Anarchists point out. It is not the state that is strong, it is the individual.
I disagree and I think the people of the Shays' Rebellion serve a very stark example of why the state is indeed a strong foe that shouldn't be underestimated.
Look, I'm an Anarchist - maybe just a philosophical one, but an Anarchist nonetheless - and I'm all for death to the state, though it probably won't ever happen, but to think that it will go away if all the people just stop believing in it is wishful at best, in my opinion.