Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

You guys are right

This post has 670 Replies | 16 Followers

Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 687
Points 16,345
Jacob Bloom replied on Mon, Jun 29 2009 11:34 PM | Locked

JonBostwick:

Jacob Bloom:

JonBostwick:

Jacob Bloom:

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Because violating someone's rights is immoral.

Why?  Says whom?

Tens of thousand of years of collective human experience.

Our internal sense of morality isn't just a coincidence, its an evoluntary adaptation for social cooperation.

I don't experience anything like internal morality.  I don't think you do either.  You just ask yourself "what's going to get me what I want?"  And you do that.

So you have no emotional reaction to things like the Holocaust? I'd say you've evidenced to the contrary.

Of course I do, those are my people.

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 687
Points 16,345
Jacob Bloom replied on Mon, Jun 29 2009 11:35 PM | Locked

Nerditarian:

We can play moral relativsm v. moral absolutism another day. However please consider this Jacob.

 

Jacob Bloom:
Force is messy.

Fine. This is itself a principle if followed consistently should lead you to the Anarchist side. If force is messy/inefficient (something you recognized before when you praised voluntary economies)  and the State provision of defense/justice requres force then what is it? Messy/inefficient. Why is it messy/inefficent again? Because it's an involuntary monopoly. So how can we relieve ourselves of this messiness and inefficiency?  By allowing a free market in protection of private property from crime and war  just as the free market is optimal in other ways. If you accept the above a priori you must be an anarchist.

If I'm an anarchist, I'm the worst one ever because I don't want anarchy.  I just want to see the system run in a way that's more desirable to me.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 687
Points 16,345
Jacob Bloom replied on Mon, Jun 29 2009 11:37 PM | Locked

Alright, I really have to go though.  I promise I'll come back later and take the time to answer each one of your replies as I do appreciate them.  Later.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,939
Points 49,110
Conza88 replied on Mon, Jun 29 2009 11:37 PM | Locked

Jacob Bloom:
If I'm an anarchist, I'm the worst one ever because I don't want anarchy.  I just want to see the system run in a way that's more desirable to me.

Which would consist of... yes, you being ruler?

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 279
Points 4,645
Nerditarian replied on Mon, Jun 29 2009 11:41 PM | Locked

Jacob Bloom:

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Jacob Bloom:
So why have a system that limits liberty arbitrarily?
We don't.

 

Yes you do.  Morals limit choice.  Choice is key to freedom.

Psst nonsense! Libertarian morals stop a Hitler or a Stalin or a Mussolini from gaining control and violating others right to individual choice. 

You should not have a choice to be a slaveowner. Why? Because being a slave owner deprives others of freedom and choice. You should not have a choice to be an axe murderer. Why? Because being an axe murderer deprives others of life and therefore the choice of how to live it. You should not have the choice to walk into your neighbors home eat all the food he has and take a crap on his carpet. Why? Because that deprives him of freedom and choice.I can go on like this all day, but I won't.

However, let's adopt a messiness and inefficiency standard. Isn't a society where slavery creates less efficient workers and people have to fear being murdered by axe murderers and people have to worry about you sneaking into their house to eat their food and crap on their carpet both a more troubled/messy society and a less economically efficient society? Therefore shouldn't we illegalize rights violations of this sort in order to create a efficient and less messy society?

So you can adopt a pseudo-pro-rights position on the basis of creating a less messy and more efficient society.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 279
Points 4,645
Nerditarian replied on Mon, Jun 29 2009 11:43 PM | Locked

Jacob Bloom:

JonBostwick:

Jacob Bloom:

JonBostwick:

Jacob Bloom:

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Because violating someone's rights is immoral.

Why?  Says whom?

Tens of thousand of years of collective human experience.

Our internal sense of morality isn't just a coincidence, its an evoluntary adaptation for social cooperation.

I don't experience anything like internal morality.  I don't think you do either.  You just ask yourself "what's going to get me what I want?"  And you do that.

So you have no emotional reaction to things like the Holocaust? I'd say you've evidenced to the contrary.

Of course I do, those are my people.

By exhibiting sympathy for the annihilation of people you share religous/cultural kinship with you are expressing a moral principle, namely that it is bad/wrong to annihilate people who you share a religous/culural kinship with. Can you deny this?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 279
Points 4,645
Nerditarian replied on Mon, Jun 29 2009 11:45 PM | Locked

Jacob Bloom:

Nerditarian:

We can play moral relativsm v. moral absolutism another day. However please consider this Jacob.

 

Jacob Bloom:
Force is messy.

Fine. This is itself a principle if followed consistently should lead you to the Anarchist side. If force is messy/inefficient (something you recognized before when you praised voluntary economies)  and the State provision of defense/justice requres force then what is it? Messy/inefficient. Why is it messy/inefficent again? Because it's an involuntary monopoly. So how can we relieve ourselves of this messiness and inefficiency?  By allowing a free market in protection of private property from crime and war  just as the free market is optimal in other ways. If you accept the above a priori you must be an anarchist.

If I'm an anarchist, I'm the worst one ever because I don't want anarchy.  I just want to see the system run in a way that's more desirable to me.

I'm not saying your an anarchist. I'm saying that if you really believed that "Force was messy" and that voluntary economies are more efficient ways of achieving your ends then you'd have to be a market anarchist in order to be consistent. Of course you are not thinking consistently...yet. 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,011
Points 47,070
Knight_of_BAAWA replied on Mon, Jun 29 2009 11:50 PM | Locked

Jacob Bloom:
Yes you do.  Morals limit choice.
No, they do not. You can choose to perform immoral acts.

Are you quite done being silly?

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 470
Points 7,025
Vitor replied on Mon, Jun 29 2009 11:56 PM | Locked

Jacob Bloom:

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Jacob Bloom:
So why have a system that limits liberty arbitrarily?
We don't.

 

Yes you do.  Morals limit choice.  Choice is key to freedom.

Reality limits choice. I cant chose to travel above speed of light.

C'mon, you are not even try to come with more than half-assed arguments.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,538
Points 93,790
Juan replied on Tue, Jun 30 2009 12:21 AM | Locked
Jacob:
Morals limit choice.
You must be using some weird definition of morals.
Conza88:
It's irrelevant whether you spend time in jail? Interesting... well hate to burst your bubble bubba, but in a Libertarian society it's going to be harder for you to get away with violating someone elses rights.. Justice would be infinitely more accessible.

So you're a libertine then.
You seem to have made a little mistake...People who violate rights are criminals, not 'libertines'...

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."

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 471
Points 9,105
Wilmot of Rochester replied on Tue, Jun 30 2009 12:42 AM | Locked

Jacob Bloom:

After giving it a lot of thought, I've realized that if the state has the power to use force to uphold a ruling against another state in the name of the majority, they also have the power to infringe on personal choice in the name of the majority.  That's fascism.

However, I still do not see how a society can work without centralized force.  It's a conundrum to me.

But I thought I'd try to be humble and admit that I realize that at least part of what you were saying was right.

I also do not see how morality has anything to do with any of this, it's just...logic.  If an argument can be made to allow one thing to happen, it can be made for another thing to happen.  It's simple cause and effect.

Wow. The one person to actually do something that should be respected - admit when he think he was wrong - and all this board can do is jump down your throat.

 

Way to give up the carrot for the stick, people.

existence is elsewhere

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,538
Points 93,790
Juan replied on Tue, Jun 30 2009 12:45 AM | Locked
Yeah, we're just a bunch of morals-deniers here. By the way Lord Rochester are you suggesting that people should act in a particular way ? '

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."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 471
Points 9,105
Wilmot of Rochester replied on Tue, Jun 30 2009 12:52 AM | Locked

Juan:
Yeah, we're just a bunch of morals-deniers here. By the way Lord Rochester are you suggesting that people should act in a particular way ? '

I'm saying that people that want to build a movement based on a pro-business philosophy should probably use better marketing tactics than the ones displayed here.

existence is elsewhere

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,939
Points 49,110
Conza88 replied on Tue, Jun 30 2009 1:22 AM | Locked

Juan:

Conza88:
It's irrelevant whether you spend time in jail? Interesting... well hate to burst your bubble bubba, but in a Libertarian society it's going to be harder for you to get away with violating someone elses rights.. Justice would be infinitely more accessible.

So you're a libertine then.
You seem to have made a little mistake...People who violate rights are criminals, not 'libertines'...

He's a libertine & if he violates someones rights within a Libertarian society, he's going to find it harder to get away with it than he would currently. That was my point.

Libertine: n.

  1. One who acts without moral restraint; a dissolute person.

Wilmot of Rochester:
I'm saying that people that want to build a movement based on a pro-business philosophy should probably use better marketing tactics than the ones displayed here.

Bro-business philosophy would be Corporatism. Do you see any of that here? Confused

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,221
Points 34,090
Moderator
Nitroadict replied on Tue, Jun 30 2009 1:32 AM | Locked

Wilmot of Rochester:

Juan:
Yeah, we're just a bunch of morals-deniers here. By the way Lord Rochester are you suggesting that people should act in a particular way ? '

I'm saying that people that want to build a movement based on a pro-market philosophy should probably use better marketing tactics than the ones displayed here.



Fixed, but you're going to be ignored, regardless, imo. 

"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

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,551
Points 46,635
AJ replied on Tue, Jun 30 2009 5:39 AM | Locked

Jacob Bloom:
However, I still do not see how a society can work without centralized force.  It's a conundrum to me.

It's this openmindedness and willingness to revise your views that will allow you to come to the truth. I don't see why others aren't commending you.

Now as to how a society can work without centralized force, those are practical points about which much has already been written. Since they are practical, real-world points, they are a bit more complicated and not short enough to explain here, but here is a convenient reading list that includes some short articles that make good cases all by themselves. You say you're not interested in anarcho-capitalism, but don't mind the name - it's just anti-monopolism. If you'd like to know how a society can work without centralized force, that school of thought has the best set of arguments and explanations you'll find.

Jacob Bloom:
I also do not see how morality has anything to do with any of this, it's just...logic. 

I agree. Morality seems to me a useless additional construct, or just a semantic obfuscation. It needlessly confuses people.

We have a sense of empathy (but we can't rely on everyone having it), and we have self-interest and logic. It seems that all the conclusions of "morality" that are relevant to political economy can be derived from those basic aspects of human nature, without the confusing complications. For example, the non-agression principle is attractive because it would outlaw any violation of the life, liberty, and property of us, everyone we care about, and who could ever benefit us. It is further attractive because it organizes society in an extremely efficient way. Both the attractive "moralistic" and utilitarian aspects only require self-interest to explain. Of course, the NAP is also attractive to the sense of empathy most people have even for complete strangers, but that is just icing on the cake.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 84
Points 1,860
Lord Shore-Twilly replied on Tue, Jun 30 2009 6:22 AM | Locked

Nerditarian:

Jacob Bloom:

JonBostwick:

Jacob Bloom:

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Because violating someone's rights is immoral.

Why?  Says whom?

Tens of thousand of years of collective human experience.

Our internal sense of morality isn't just a coincidence, its an evoluntary adaptation for social cooperation.

I don't experience anything like internal morality.  I don't think you do either.  You just ask yourself "what's going to get me what I want?"  And you do that.

So you have no conscience? What keeps you from stealing? Running off the road everyone who cuts you off? Sleeping with your brother's wife/girlfriend?

What is behind that thought, nature or nurture?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,255
Points 80,815
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator
Jon Irenicus replied on Tue, Jun 30 2009 6:46 AM | Locked

By the way, morals limit freedom.  Because you can't do whatever you want anymore.

Oh noes, whatever will I do without my freedom to steal, rape, pillage and plunder. Confused

Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 304
Points 6,045
ivanfoofoo replied on Tue, Jun 30 2009 7:51 AM | Locked

I think Jacob Bloom really likes what we talk about, but he doesn't know how it would work in practice. It's not that it's easy to say "It will work perfectly", but I really don't have any doubts that an anarcho-capitalist society is possible. You should always consider that any political system (for example, republicanism, democracy, dictatorship), always rest in the passive consent of the population. Nowadays, almost every  single person I know have the idea that "democracy is not good, but is the better system we've made", and that "capitalism is immoral and unjust, but it's the only system that works so far". This people are so blinded that they can't even think for a minute what other ideologies exist.

Anarcho-capitalism (which is the most radical name, because anarchy implies "chaos", and capitalism, "benefit for the capitalists") or free-market libertarianism (this one sounds nicer xD) comes naturally from individuals recognizing their mutual rights of private property, and making voluntary contacts. Everything follows from that. As society have a need for protection and courts, people will voluntarily do that tasks, and they will make profit from it, or do it for free, but in a voluntary way.

But every society can dissappear. Even the biggest empires and dictatorships. I just don't think (as many others naively do) that anarcho-capitalism can provide the best army (maybe, if the ancap society is very big and has achieved tremendous techonological advance, but I still don't think that it can win a war to a, let's say, a very effective dictatorship), but that is not the main idea. If an ancap society is established, it will be the clearest example for other societies to follow.

And we should not forget the main idea behind anarcho-capitalism. It's not private property rights, and it's not the non-aggression principle. It's voluntaryism. An ancap society should (and must) be established by the voluntary consent of every individual. And it's right, they may share the same values, let's say, individualism and the highest political end. Just like John Galt in Atlas Shrugged, they will propagate their moral code to every one, because everyone will notice that this is beneficial to everybody, at least, who share the same ends. Only after the first establishment of a truly ancap society, we can expect the world to follow. As democracy did, as communism tried, but this way, it will be voluntarily.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630
wilderness replied on Tue, Jun 30 2009 8:10 AM | Locked

Jacob Bloom:

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Jacob Bloom:
So why have a system that limits liberty arbitrarily?
We don't.

Yes you do.  Morals limit choice.  Choice is key to freedom.

Look at my signature and tell me how good limits choice.  It's what's bad that limits choice.  (why do I feel like I'm in a kindergarden class using these words in such simple ways... yes Johnny that's bad, Bob that was very good..)

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630
wilderness replied on Tue, Jun 30 2009 8:14 AM | Locked

Wilmot of Rochester:

Wow. The one person to actually do something that should be respected - admit when he think he was wrong - and all this board can do is jump down your throat.

Way to give up the carrot for the stick, people.

Yeah life's is so... so... sniff, sniff... tough when liberty is at stake. Crying

But of course you don't give carrot stick's you only know the gun.

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 258
Points 4,595
majevska replied on Tue, Jun 30 2009 8:35 AM | Locked

I would suggest you reconsider reading some books on ancap. As another poster suggested, David Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom  is a pretty good one to start with. I agree with you on morality, but Friedman gives a purely consequentialist argument for ancap.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630
wilderness replied on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:02 AM | Locked

majevska:

I would suggest you reconsider reading some books on ancap. As another poster suggested, David Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom  is a pretty good one to start with. I agree with you on morality, but Friedman gives a purely consequentialist argument for ancap.

Look at my signature and state what's wrong (if you can contradict yourself) about morality.

 

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 258
Points 4,595
majevska replied on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:30 AM | Locked

Bob walks into Pobork's house and steals twelve ounces of gold; he doesn't get caught and lives a more satisfying life because of his increased wealth. In this case, stealing contributed to the life and flourishing of a living entity-- so it should be considered good.

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 2,966
Points 53,250
DD5 replied on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:33 AM | Locked
To deny morality is to deny human nature. Human morality is an evolved trait. We can argue about what comprises it, but it exists. Morality is a hot topic in evolutionary psychology, as well as harder sciences such as neuroscience. A psychopath may be a person whose disorder that most likely affects the moral faculty in the brain. It is wrong to think that morality is all subjective. It is clearly not.
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,959
Points 55,095
Spideynw replied on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:35 AM | Locked

Jacob Bloom:
After giving it a lot of thought, I've realized that if the state has the power to use force to uphold a ruling against another state in the name of the majority, they also have the power to infringe on personal choice in the name of the majority.

I would call it mob rule.

Jacob Bloom:
However, I still do not see how a society can work without centralized force.  It's a conundrum to me.

Well, you are definitely not in the minority for that concern!

First of all, why does a state really need a standing military?  It is pretty easy to call up people to fight, if they are really needed.  Second of all, if people are free to trade with everyone, there probably will not be any reason for another country to attack us.  However, if you believe people are inherently evil, then you probably believe that it would be pretty easy for a leader to convince a nation to attack another peaceful people.  If so, it will probably be pretty hard to convince you that a standing military is not needed.

Jacob Bloom:
But I thought I'd try to be humble and admit that I realize that at least part of what you were saying was right.

Impressive.

Jacob Bloom:
I also do not see how morality has anything to do with any of this, it's just...logic.

You are pretty much correct.  All morality is subjective.  But I think the idea of theft is pretty much universal and easily understood and agreed upon that stealing from another is wrong. 

As to deciding who has the best claim to ownership, well that is why humans need neutral courts, to resolve disputes.

At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,959
Points 55,095
Spideynw replied on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:38 AM | Locked

DD5:
To deny morality is to deny human nature.

No it is not.  Morality is subjective.  Do you think killing someone is always wrong?  Or do you think all murder should carry the same sentence?  Do you think it is always wrong to steal from someone?  Do you think it is always immoral to lie?  Or when a cop asks you for your information, should you tell the cop the truth?

At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 166
Points 3,765
whipitgood replied on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:40 AM | Locked

majevska:

Bob walks into Pobork's house and steals twelve ounces of gold; he doesn't get caught and lives a more satisfying life because of his increased wealth. In this case, stealing contributed to the life and flourishing of a living entity-- so it should be considered good.

That does not take into account what is not seen - Pobork's loss. His life would be less satisfying.

Good luck measuring the amount of satisfaction and doing the arithmetic necessary to determine whether or not Bob's gained satisfaction outweighs Pobork's lost satisfaction. Wait, by what metric do you even measure satisfaction? Hint: you don't. it's impossible. You're talking about moral nihilism

"Constitution worship is our most extended public political ritual, frequently supervised as often by mountebanks as by the sincere"
-James J Martin

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,959
Points 55,095
Spideynw replied on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:41 AM | Locked

majevska:
Bob walks into Pobork's house and steals twelve ounces of gold; he doesn't get caught and lives a more satisfying life because of his increased wealth. In this case, stealing contributed to the life and flourishing of a living entity-- so it should be considered good.

And then Pobork walks into Bob's house and blows his brains all over the walls.

It is not about morality, it is about mortality and dispute resolution.

At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630
wilderness replied on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:46 AM | Locked

majevska:

Bob walks into Pobork's house and steals twelve ounces of gold; he doesn't get caught and lives a more satisfying life because of his increased wealth. In this case, stealing contributed to the life and flourishing of a living entity-- so it should be considered good.

And it was bad for Pobork.  A clear understanding of justice would help you with this but since you don't believe in justice, liberty, and having any moral clarity you prove my point that individuals, such as yourself, that lack moral clarity would have a difficult time not praising Hitler and Stalin.

 

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 258
Points 4,595
majevska replied on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:48 AM | Locked

DD5:
To deny morality is to deny human nature. Human morality is an evolved trait. We can argue about what comprises it, but it exists. Morality is a hot topic in evolutionary psychology, as well as harder sciences such as neuroscience. A psychopath may be a person whose disorder that most likely affects the moral faculty in the brain. It is wrong to think that morality is all subjective. It is clearly not.

Many humans clearly believe that morality is a coherent concept; the fact of people believing in morality and the logical coherence of a particular moral code are two distinct ideas. I agree that belief in morality is an evolved trait, though it is not so clear exactly how this trait evolved. Clearly the genetic evolution of homo sapiens has lead to a sentient species that has a tendency to believe in morality, but it is not so obviously a biological necessity to believe in morality as there are exceptions. You could say the same about other things like religion. The fact that in the past, belief in religion was nearly if not more prevalent than belief in morality is today does not necessitate that religion is an absolute necessity or that religious beliefs, whether pagan, Muslim, Christian etc. are true. The fact that just as religions differ, so do moral codes, indicates that actually existing moral codes have some element of subjectivity.

It would be silly to argue that belief in morality or religion does not exist-- but not to argue that the claims of moralists and theologians are false.

Also, I'm not trying to steer this into a debate about religion, just using it as an analogy.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 166
Points 3,765
whipitgood replied on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:51 AM | Locked

Wilmot of Rochester:
I'm saying that people that want to build a movement based on a pro-business philosophy should probably use better marketing tactics than the ones displayed here.

^ this. Let's be as civil as possible, shall we?

 

"Constitution worship is our most extended public political ritual, frequently supervised as often by mountebanks as by the sincere"
-James J Martin

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630
wilderness replied on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:55 AM | Locked

Spideynw:

DD5:
To deny morality is to deny human nature.

No it is not.  Morality is subjective.  Do you think killing someone is always wrong?

Is it a killing of murder?  Who initiated the coerciveness?

Spideynw:

 Or do you think all murder should carry the same sentence?

Defining the sentence is not questioning the morality of murder or not.  That's why it's called murder - it's wrong.

Spideynw:

 Do you think it is always wrong to steal from someone?

Yes... it can help somebody survive as this is the typical counter argument, but whomever was stolen from isn't to be blamed because of the fault of the thief and their incompetence of understanding nature.

 

Spideynw:

 Do you think it is always immoral to lie?

I don't know.  This has nothing to do with the morality of natural rights.  But lying is a vice.

 

Spideynw:

 Or when a cop asks you for your information, should you tell the cop the truth?

lol... Why should you have to?  A cop isn't more moral because he's a cop.  Individuals v. individuals.  You're going to use a statist argument to try to counter a natural right argument...lol

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 258
Points 4,595
majevska replied on Tue, Jun 30 2009 10:01 AM | Locked

whipitgood:

That does not take into account what is not seen - Pobork's loss. His life would be less satisfying.

Pobork's loss may be taken into account-- it just shouldn't necessitate that Bob sacrifice his own happiness. 

Good luck measuring the amount of satisfaction and doing the arithmetic necessary to determine whether or not Bob's gained satisfaction outweighs Pobork's lost satisfaction. Wait, by what metric do you even measure satisfaction? Hint: you don't. it's impossible. You're talking about moral nihilism

Yep, that's what I'm talking about. There's no reason why Bob should do any estimation of Pobork's lost satisfaction unless he believes it would be to his advantage to do so; and even if he did think it was advantageous to make such an estimation, he wouldn't necessarily have to sacrifice his own estimated satisfaction for the sake of his estimation of Porbork's. That is the basic idea of (some forms of) moral nihilism, that there is no imperative to consider anyone's satisfaction but your own, unless their satisfaction relates to yours of course. See, all forms of morality necessitate that the individual consider something other than his own satisfaction

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630
wilderness replied on Tue, Jun 30 2009 10:03 AM | Locked

majevska:

DD5:
To deny morality is to deny human nature. Human morality is an evolved trait. We can argue about what comprises it, but it exists. Morality is a hot topic in evolutionary psychology, as well as harder sciences such as neuroscience. A psychopath may be a person whose disorder that most likely affects the moral faculty in the brain. It is wrong to think that morality is all subjective. It is clearly not.

Many humans clearly believe that morality is a coherent concept; the fact of people believing in morality and the logical coherence of a particular moral code are two distinct ideas. I agree that belief in morality is an evolved trait, though it is not so clear exactly how this trait evolved. Clearly the genetic evolution of homo sapiens has lead to a sentient species that has a tendency to believe in morality, but it is not so obviously a biological necessity to believe in morality as there are exceptions. You could say the same about other things like religion. The fact that in the past, belief in religion was nearly if not more prevalent than belief in morality is today does not necessitate that religion is an absolute necessity or that religious beliefs, whether pagan, Muslim, Christian etc. are true. The fact that just as religions differ, so do moral codes, indicates that actually existing moral codes have some element of subjectivity.

It would be silly to argue that belief in morality or religion does not exist-- but not to argue that the claims of moralists and theologians are false.

Also, I'm not trying to steer this into a debate about religion, just using it as an analogy.

All conjecture with absolutely no facts about what my signature states.  Thus the faults of moral nihilists.  No practical wisdom to understand what should or shouldn't be done when we act and we act - we do act - but moral nihilists therefore don't know how to act.  Moral nihilists and their slippery slope to admiring blood dripping from a knife.  Majevska, yesterday it was ok for you to kick over a thing somebody's yard, today you're saying it's ok for somebody to steal from another.  Tomorrow blood dripping from the knife?  One can only wonder how far this slippery slope goes of yours.

Whipitgood had a good post responding to you, but I'm sure you don't have the explanatory power to figure it out.

 

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,959
Points 55,095
Spideynw replied on Tue, Jun 30 2009 10:07 AM | Locked

wilderness:

Spideynw:

 Do you think it is always wrong to steal from someone?

Yes...

Oh?  So you have never ever copied a rental dvd or downloaded a song without first paying for it?

wilderness:

 

Spideynw:

 Or when a cop asks you for your information, should you tell the cop the truth?

lol... Why should you have to?  A cop isn't more moral because he's a cop.  Individuals v. individuals.  You're going to use a statist argument to try to counter a natural right argument...lol

Obviously, you were wrong when you stated lying has nothing to do with the morality of natural rights.  And no, I am not using a statist argument.  I did not say you have to answer the cop, I was asking if it is OK to lie to the cop.

 

At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630
wilderness replied on Tue, Jun 30 2009 10:13 AM | Locked

Spideynw:

majevska:
Bob walks into Pobork's house and steals twelve ounces of gold; he doesn't get caught and lives a more satisfying life because of his increased wealth. In this case, stealing contributed to the life and flourishing of a living entity-- so it should be considered good.

And then Pobork walks into Bob's house and blows his brains all over the walls.

It is not about morality, it is about mortality and dispute resolution.

It's funny, in the sad sense of the term, how moral nihilists like to focus on the satisfaction of crimes and advocate for criminals.  They love to watch the blood drip.  They are a sadistic, perverted, and thus cold-blooded bunch.

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 258
Points 4,595
majevska replied on Tue, Jun 30 2009 10:14 AM | Locked

Come on man, enough with the psychologizing and emotional tirades about knives and Stalin.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 574
Points 9,305
Natalie replied on Tue, Jun 30 2009 10:15 AM | Locked

Jacob Bloom:
However, I still do not see how a society can work without centralized force.  It's a conundrum to me.

What makes you think society works because of the centralized force? And not in spite of it?

Does anyone force you to say 'hi' to your acquaintances when you meet them? How do they know how to respond? Does the government make them do it or is it one of the many social customs that society has figured out on its own? "Thou shalt not steal" and other moral rules had appeared long before the rise of the centralized governments in every society in the world. In fact, people still support the government because they hope it will provide fair protection of their property and their lives. But who said we need the monopoly of force to do it? Give me a gun, and I'll deal with the criminals on my own. Or pay someone else to do it. The government extorts more income from you than any racketeer and doesn't even promise individual protection (unless you're some kind of a government VIP).

 

If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.

J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 258
Points 4,595
majevska replied on Tue, Jun 30 2009 10:17 AM | Locked

And just to be clear, you're the one who seems to have a "blood drip" fixation if anyone does. You're really starting to sound like you're in a fit of hysteria or something.

  • | Post Points: 20
Page 2 of 17 (671 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last » | RSS