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?
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?
Evolutionary biologists assert that males have evolved adaptations to increase their reproductive potential. However, those adaptations have a cost of earlier senescence. Therefore, males are evolved to die earlier so they can have greater reproductive potential.
In addition, men are taller than women merely because they have evolved in conditions in which men fight each other for women. Only the taller men who killed their competitors can have a chance to copulate with females. Hence, males are adapted that trait.
By your logic, reproduction is more "natural" than survival.
But I, myself, think that nothing is "natural".
Life is filled with misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and prodigal folklore.
I had defined ethical apriorism as similar to the non-intuitionist form of ethical rationalism. But ethical rationalism is ambiguous on performative contradictions and the fact-value dichotomy.
Both Rothbardian natural law and the categorical imperative are forms of ethical apriorism. So refute ethical apriorism, you refute both Rothbardian natural law and the categorical imperative.
zefreak: As in the possibility of ethical apriorism. For anyone/anything.
As in the possibility of ethical apriorism. For anyone/anything.
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.
Wilmot of Rochester: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.
Sorry but I feel that is an outdated event. I do not advocate the use of violence, this is a battle of ideas not of bullets.
Wilmot of Rochester:but to think that it will go away if all the people just stop believing in it is wishful at best, in my opinion.
Belief isn't anything without action.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Anarcho-Mercantilist: Evolutionary biologists assert that males have evolved adaptations to increase their reproductive potential. However, those adaptations have a cost of earlier senescence. Therefore, males are evolved to die earlier so they can have greater reproductive potential. In addition, men are taller than women merely because they have evolved in conditions in which men fight each other for women. Only the taller men who killed their competitors can have a chance to copulate with females. Hence, males are adapted that trait. By your logic, reproduction is more "natural" than survival. But I, myself, think that nothing is "natural".
Holy crap you are talking to me?! Hey while I have your attention can you answer my question about the Aristotlian laws?
But please, spin out this logic that I think reproduction is more natural then survival.
zefreak:Technically I am not arguing against a moral position, but an epistemological or meta-ethical position
I am not saying the values you hold are wrong,
just that your means of justification are flawed.
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."
Anarchist Cain:But please, spin out this logic that I think reproduction is more natural then survival.
Nature is nature. Nature is fact. Humans assign value to survival because they are evolved to value survival.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:Humans assign value to survival because they are evolved to value survival.
Are you establishing an objective natural value?
Anarchist Cain: Wilmot of Rochester: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. Sorry but I feel that is an outdated event. I do not advocate the use of violence, this is a battle of ideas not of bullets. Wilmot of Rochester:but to think that it will go away if all the people just stop believing in it is wishful at best, in my opinion. Belief isn't anything without action.
What about Waco then? I don't think we really need to go into too many examples to prove the point that the state, when you push it, is going to push back and hard. Maybe that's necessary, I'm not saying it isn't, just from a strategic point of view I never underestimate an opponent.
existence is elsewhere
Anarcho-Mercantilist: 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? Evolutionary biologists assert that males have evolved adaptations to increase their reproductive potential. However, those adaptations have a cost of earlier senescence. Therefore, males are evolved to die earlier so they can have greater reproductive potential. In addition, men are taller than women merely because they have evolved in conditions in which men fight each other for women. Only the taller men who killed their competitors can have a chance to copulate with females. Hence, males are adapted that trait. By your logic, reproduction is more "natural" than survival. But I, myself, think that nothing is "natural".
Aside from your "nothing is natural" comment for if not in nature then where and aside from that meaning everything is a perverson and abomination of what then?
You gave very brief facts, and as you may know there is a vast amount of inquiry of human nature that anthropologists study. There's not only physical anthropology but also cultural anthropology.
Wilmot of Rochester:I don't think we really need to go into too many examples to prove the point that the state, when you push it, is going to push back and hard. Maybe that's necessary, I'm not saying it isn't, just from a strategic point of view I never underestimate an opponent
Apparently you glossed over my premise that this is a battle of ideas, not bullets.
Wilmot of Rochester: What about Waco then? I don't think we really need to go into too many examples to prove the point that the state, when you push it, is going to push back and hard. Maybe that's necessary, I'm not saying it isn't, just from a strategic point of view I never underestimate an opponent.
Of course.
Let us just all agree that homosexuality is unnatural, thus against natural law. Ok?
Anarchist Cain: Anarcho-Mercantilist:Humans assign value to survival because they are evolved to value survival. Are you establishing an objective natural value?
What do you mean by "objective"? Prescriptive or descriptive?
If you mean it in the descriptive sense, I will ask you two questions: Do you mean "objective" as applied to all humans? No, because some humans do not value survival. Do you mean "objective" as applied to biologically normal humans? Then you're correct.
If you mean it in the prescriptive sense, I will ask you this question: How can you assign greater value to the descriptive proposition that "humans assign value to survival" over other propositions such as "humans assign value to reproduction" and "humans assign value to shelter, water, and food"?
Juan:Oh, I missed this post so I'm replying now. zefreak:Technically I am not arguing against a moral position, but an epistemological or meta-ethical position There's no such thing as meta-ethics, that's just more sophistry. We are discussing philosophy. And, your position is based on the dogma of a guy who was considered a philosopher (...). But like a typical lawyer you think that you can 'win' by invoking a (phony) technicality. I am not saying the values you hold are wrong, I didn't say you said that. just that your means of justification are flawed. uh oh. By the way zefreak do you mind telling me where (page number) does Hume present his 'fact-value' dichotomy ?
Meta-ethics: the branch of ethics that seeks to understand the nature of ethical properties, statements, attitudes, and judgments.
from wiki: meta-ethics addresses questions such as "What is goodness?" and "How can we tell what is good from what is bad?", seeking to understand the nature of ethical properties and evaluations.
Example: Meta-ethical relativists maintain that all moral judgments have their origins either in societal or in individual standards, and that no single objective standard exists by which one can assess the truth of a moral proposition. Meta-ethical relativists, in general, believe that the descriptive properties of terms such as "good", "bad", "right", and "wrong" do not stand subject to universal truth conditions, but only to societal convention and personal preference. Given the same set of verifiable facts, some societies or individuals will have a fundamental disagreement about what one ought to do based on societal or individual norms, and one cannot adjudicate these using some independent standard of evaluation. The latter standard will always be societal or personal and not universal, unlike, for example, the scientific standards for assessing temperature or for determining mathematical truths.
And please, I discovered Stirner long after I held these positions. And no, I can't tell you what page number Hume discusses the fact-value dichotomy.
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
Anarcho-Mercantilist:What do you mean by "objective"?
A universal truth.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:No, because some humans do not value survival. Do you mean "objective" as applied to biologically normal humans? Then you're correct.
Define biologically normal humans?
Anarcho-Mercantilist:How can you assign value to the descriptive proposition that "humans assign value to survival" over other propositions such as "humans assign value to reproduction" and "humans assign value to shelter, water, and food"?
Why is it necessary to establish value in an ordinal system?
And no, I can't tell you what page number Hume discusses the fact-value dichotomy.
scineram:Let us just all agree that homosexuality is unnatural, thus against natural law. Ok?
Why is homosexuality unnatural? I think that Sigmeud Fraud at least got one thing correct in his studies that the human child is in fact born a bisexual and through social norms establishes either hetero or homosexual tendencies.
And please, I discovered Stirner long after I held these positions.
zefreak:Meta-ethical relativists maintain that all moral judgments have their origins either in societal or in individual standards, and that no single objective standard exists by which one can assess the truth of a moral proposition.
Please note that Juan and others might misinterpret this statement normatively as advocating whatever moral code that society may practice, or the status quo.
zefreak:Meta-ethical relativists, in general, believe that the descriptive properties of terms such as "good", "bad", "right", and "wrong" do not stand subject to universal truth conditions, but only to societal convention and personal preference.
Please note that Juan and others might misinterpret this statement as advocating majority preference.
zefreak:And please, I discovered Stirner long after I held these positions. And no, I can't tell you what page number Hume discusses the fact-value dichotomy.
I have no influence from Stirner too. I felt bored after reading the first several pages of The Ego and Its Own, and thus I quit. I never believed in any religion anyway, thus I had no interest in Stirner's antitheism.
Anarchist Cain: Anarcho-Mercantilist:No, because some humans do not value survival. Do you mean "objective" as applied to biologically normal humans? Then you're correct. Define biologically normal humans?
Biologically 'normal' humans are heterosexual humans who are not psychopaths and have no physical defects or mental retardation.
Anarcho-Mercantilist: Please note...
Please note...
Please note I'm waiting for that quote of Rothbards in which he rejects happiness as an end, but of course you can't cause I quoted Rothbard saying happiness is an end.
Please note, also, I'm waiting for zefreak to answer my questions and others in posts on the previous page.
Anarchist Cain:I think that Sigmeud Fraud at least got one thing correct in his studies that the human child is in fact born a bisexual and through social norms establishes either hetero or homosexual tendencies.
Yes. I do not buy his nonsense at all.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:Biologically 'normal' humans are heterosexual humans who are not psychopaths and have no physical defects or mental retardation.
So homosexuals are not biologically normal? Are psychopaths, handicapped people and mentally 'retarded' individuals not homo sapiens?
I felt bored after reading the first several pages of The Ego and Its Own, and thus I quit.
scineram:Yes. I do not buy his nonsense at all.
Who Freud or AC?
Anarchist Cain: Anarcho-Mercantilist:Biologically 'normal' humans are heterosexual humans who are not psychopaths and have no physical defects or mental retardation. So homosexuals are not biologically normal?
So homosexuals are not biologically normal?
Why is the preference for homosexuality less 'normal' than the preference for survival? They are both arbitrary.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:Why is the preference for homosexuality less 'normal' than the preference for survival? They are both arbitrary.
Well see yet again, like before, you contradict yourself. You state that humans are naturally evolved for survival now you say that preference for survival is an arbitrary whim. You are asking me a question that you should be asking yourself. Why is homosexuality not biologically normal? You stated what is biologically normal is a 'heterosexual individual who is not a psychopath, handicap or mentally 'retarded'.
Freud of course.
Of course if homosexuality is genetic then it is surely abnormal.
Anarchist Cain:You state that humans are naturally evolved for survival now you say that preference for survival is an arbitrary whim.
Arbitrary in the sense that you pick and choose which preferences or characteristics to define 'normal'.
scineram:Of course if homosexuality is genetic then it is surely abnormal.
Why?
Anarcho-Mercantilist:Arbitrary in the sense that you pick and choose which preferences or characteristics to define 'normal'.
–adjective
subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.
One would conclude that an evolutionary imperative is a restriction on a decision. Therefore, which do you concede? Survival is an evolutionary phenomena or survival is an arbitrary decision?
An evolutionary disfunctional genetic defect. Hence abnormal.
scineram:An evolutionary disfunctional genetic defect
How is it an 'evolutionary disfunctional genetic defect'?
Homosexuality is functional for those who choose it and you have yet to prove that being gay is cause solely by genetics. By chance are you a moralist? If I recall correctly, I believe you have some contraversy over the issue?
Anarchist Cain:One would conclude that an evolutionary imperative is a restriction on a decision. Therefore, which do you concede? Survival is an evolutionary phenomena or survival is an arbitrary decision?
I value survival, heterosexuality, empathy, health, and intelligence. Your values may differ.
Reason alone cannot derive which values we should normatively value. You and I assign values.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:Reason alone cannot derive which values we should normatively value.
So then there is no biologically normal human being?
Anarchist Cain: Anarcho-Mercantilist:Reason alone cannot derive which values we should normatively value. So then there is no biologically normal human being?
Evolutionary psychologists may define a biologically 'normal' humans as heterosexual, in order to elucidate their theories about sexual selection.
I may define a biologically 'normal' human as heterosexual, non-psychopathic, healthy, and intelligent. They obviously do exist.
I see the discussion is about human nature.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:Evolutionary psychologists may define a biologically 'normal' humans as heterosexual, in order to elucidate their theories about sexual selection.
I think you are using a catch-all phrase in order to validate your claims through a invisible number of supporters. Who are these individuals? Let them be know and their arguments presented so we can deduce their logic.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:I may define a biologically 'normal' human as heterosexual, non-psychopathic, healthy, and intelligent. They obviously do exist.
Individuals who are not psychopaths, not gay, are healthy and intelligent do exist but you have yet to provide a reason as to why they are 'biologically normal' and others are not. Are you perhaps establishing a code of conduct for human beings? Things people should be? Has natural law buried another one of its self-described gravediggers?
Anarcho-Mercantilist: Evolutionary psychologists may define a biologically 'normal' humans as heterosexual, in order to elucidate their theories about sexual selection.
Saying E.P.'s say that is misleading. But I note you said, "may".