Have the forums been functioning EXCRUCIATINGLY slow for anyone today besides me?
nirgrahamUK:just so you know, insulting someone is not ad hominem fallacy. as KoB tried to explain, only if wild said, you are arrogant therefore your argument in favour of X is unsound, would he then be making the ad hom fallacy. if he does not use the insult to cut against your argument then its not ad hom fallacy.
K, well I'm probably wrong than. But it seems to me that he means that I am presuming more than is warranted when he calls me arrogant. If my statement is correct however, and he doesn't understand the universalizability principle, then I wasn't really being arrogant. I know that's a bit of a stretch. But I'm not sure I used it incorrectly.
Did you read the page I linked?
Knight_of_BAAWA: Did you read the page I linked?
Just the part you quoted. I understood an ad hominem to mean responding with a personal attack instead of a logical argument. I was wrong about that. I'm still not sure though that there was no ad hominem.
Yes, LvMI has been running slow.
That's quite a lot of pages of oversimplified arguments, people completely talking past eachother, a repetition of the naturalistic fallacy in multiple ways and a total inability on hashem's part to provide any real grounds for his claims.
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."
Stephen Forde: nirgrahamUK:just so you know, insulting someone is not ad hominem fallacy. as KoB tried to explain, only if wild said, you are arrogant therefore your argument in favour of X is unsound, would he then be making the ad hom fallacy. if he does not use the insult to cut against your argument then its not ad hom fallacy. K, well I'm probably wrong than. But it seems to me that he means that I am presuming more than is warranted when he calls me arrogant. If my statement is correct however, and he doesn't understand the universalizability principle, then I wasn't really being arrogant. I know that's a bit of a stretch. But I'm not sure I used it incorrectly.
Stephen,
I drew the line. What is the basis of your assertion that I don't understand the universalizability principle? (That latter isn't tautological unintentionally both in the rhetorical and thus denoting the propositional logic, too.) And don't say because I didn't answer your questions that came up later, after the fact. I drew the line right at when you made the initial assertion. Anarchist Cain answered your question and you apologized - why did you find the need to apologize?
I know what it means. I'm talking about what came up before and continued to come up in a mixture with more pertinent questioning.
hashem:I contend
OK, we get it. How about some proof?
hashem:because if it were a law all humans should murder each other, they would not exist.
And all this proves is that there should be now law requiring humans to murder each other. If you try saying "if there were no laws requiring that people refrain from murdering each other, humans would not exist". I'd say, sure, but if there were no laws requiring that humans refrain to taking heroin, the same thing would happen. So, I guess we should ban heroin now, right?
And what, in your opinion, is so good about human survivial anyway?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
hashem: Anarcho-Mercantilist: hashem:When we speak of someone having a right, we mean that it is impermissible to use aggression to prevent him from exercising that right. This sounds almost circular. The phrase "impermissible to use aggression to prevent him from exercising that right" seems redundant. That simply means that "all rights are non-aggressive." I was describing the nature of rights. The important characteristic of a right is that it is wrong to use aggression to prevent someone from exercising it. This does not mean that "all rights are non-aggressive."
Anarcho-Mercantilist: hashem:When we speak of someone having a right, we mean that it is impermissible to use aggression to prevent him from exercising that right. This sounds almost circular. The phrase "impermissible to use aggression to prevent him from exercising that right" seems redundant. That simply means that "all rights are non-aggressive."
hashem:When we speak of someone having a right, we mean that it is impermissible to use aggression to prevent him from exercising that right.
This sounds almost circular. The phrase "impermissible to use aggression to prevent him from exercising that right" seems redundant. That simply means that "all rights are non-aggressive."
I was describing the nature of rights. The important characteristic of a right is that it is wrong to use aggression to prevent someone from exercising it. This does not mean that "all rights are non-aggressive."
How did you define the term "aggression"? You probably had defined the term "aggression" to constitute the following actions:
For example, when you say that a person has a 'right to free speech', that means that they can say anything they want without suffering from aggression. However, because you had defined the term 'aggression' as the above list, the person that has a 'right to free speech' cannot have their income taxed, and lives regulated. Therefore, you had defined that all rights are necessarily synonymous to 'non-aggression'.
Contrastingly, a "right to regulate people's lives" is self-contradictiory by definition. Because you had defined 'rights' as necessarily synonymous to non-aggression, and that regulations are aggressive, you had contradicted yourself.
'All rights are necessarily non-aggressive', at least according to your definition of 'rights' and 'aggression'.
Life is filled with misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and prodigal folklore.
GilesStratton: hashem:because if it were a law all humans should murder each other, they would not exist. And all this proves is that there should be now law requiring humans to murder each other. If you try saying "if there were no laws requiring that people refrain from murdering each other, humans would not exist".
And all this proves is that there should be now law requiring humans to murder each other. If you try saying "if there were no laws requiring that people refrain from murdering each other, humans would not exist".
One additional fact: Some people will refrain from killing one another even if there exists no law requiring people to refrain from murdering one another. Those people refrain from killing because they feel empathy for one another.
Same thing with heroin: Heroin will kill some people, but it will not kill some others.
Why do you not want to set laws prohibiting heroin but want to set laws prohibiting killing? That sounds like cognitive dissonance.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:Why do you not want to set laws prohibiting heroin but want to set laws prohibiting killing? That sounds like cognitive dissonance.
Because heroin is voluntarily injected into your blood system. If you voluntarily consent to being murdered, the it is assisted suicide. That is a very basic distinction.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Anarchist Cain: Anarcho-Mercantilist:Why do you not want to set laws prohibiting heroin but want to set laws prohibiting killing? That sounds like cognitive dissonance. Because heroin is voluntarily injected into your blood system. If you voluntarily consent to being murdered, the it is assisted suicide. That is a very basic distinction.
But that depends on your definition of 'voluntary'. Usually, ancaps equate 'voluntary' with 'non-aggressive'. Therefore, that depends on your definition of 'aggression.'
You defined 'murder' as 'aggressive' and injecting heroin as 'non-aggressive'.
What if I made a loud noise in my neighborhood without everybody's consent? What if I emitted carbon dioxide without everyone's consent? What if I interfered on someone's broadcasting frequency without his or her consent? Do you define all those as aggressive or voluntary (non-aggressive)?
Why did you label killing an innocent person without consent as 'aggression' when you did not label the above scenarios 'aggression'? Sounds like cognitive dissonance.
But that was neve rpart of Hashem's original exposition.
Anarcho-Mercantilist: But that depends on your definition of 'voluntary'. Usually, ancaps equate 'voluntary' with 'non-aggressive'. Therefore, that depends on your definition of 'aggression.'
Deriving consent from a party or person. That is a loose definition of voluntary. I am not one of those libertarians who simply thinks that if there is no aggression in the world then there can be no dominance.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:What if I made a loud noise in my neighborhood without everybody's consent?
That would be a question of whose property you are on.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:What if I emitted carbon dioxide without everyone's consent?
Again a question of property rights.
Anarcho-Mercantilist: What if I interfered on someone's broadcasting frequency without his or her consent?
A form of aggression against the property rights of another.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:Why did you label killing an innocent person without consent as 'aggression' when you did not label the above scenarios 'aggression'? Sounds like cognitive dissonance.
Strange. You made this statement without even waiting for my replies as to what is and isn't aggression. I don't apperciate being told what I am supposedly thinking. Don't do it again. It is tasteless and in poor manners.
GilesStratton:But that was neve rpart of Hashem's original exposition.
What can I say? I don't like to see several individuals pelting a single one with multiple criticisms. I am also a natural rights theorist and I'm sure if I say something Hashem feels differently about, then he will raise his objection.
GilesStratton:OK, we get it. How about some proof?
I was setting forth my original position for MarxisStudent because we were going to carry on a debate here.
GilesStratton:So, I guess we should ban heroin now, right?
For the umpteenth time: natural law for any organism states what is good and what is bad for the organism. Thus, the law is "murder is bad," not like the positive law "do not murder," or even something as ridiculous as "murder is impossible." The law holds, murder is indeed bad. For if the law were "murder is good," then it would follow that humans would feel an imperative to murder (since the laws are based on the nature of a given organism), and yet we don't and even if we did, we would not exist.
Heroin use does not necessarily invade the property of anyone, and its effects are not universal, so I'm not sure what natural law has to say about heroin in respect to humans
Your lack of respect also seems very unnatural to me.
Says you.
the human "being's nature" has two parts: 1-fixed one (natural) 2- changable one (social), the firsth one is fixed (life and liberty) while the second (with or without property) comes from the society. the most primitive societies are the most natural ones, and we don't have property there, so the "natural human nature" what is trully within the being's nature IN nature does NOT include property.
Arbitrary/fabricated distinction TBH, try better. You are conflating "natural" with "primitive" without having offered any proof that primitive societies don't have property (nonsense, even ones with use-based concepts of ownership do.)
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Juan:Stephen, why don't you provide the 'correct' justification for natural rights in your own words and in a couple of paragraphs ? The shorter the better.
The task of political philosophy is to assign rules regarding the use of scarce goods. It is a theory of legal norms, specifically who is justified in controlling a given resource. Justification only comes about in the course of interpersonal propositional exchange. If someone denies this, they are attempting to justify a proposition to another person and affirm the very thing they are denying i.e. they are caught in a performative contradiction. When a proponent makes an argument they must presuppose that their opponent is capable of understanding the truth of a proposition in the same way they do and must therefore be based on objective criteria. The only truly objective criteria however, are those that must necessarily presuppose argumentation and its superset, action.
Now what this implies in the field of ethics is that all distinctions between justified and unjustified claims over scarce goods must be based on praxeological criteria. Any argument which is not based on objective criteria, but on arbitrary value judgments is incapable of convincing one’s opponent by argumentative force alone. But convincing one’s opponent by argumentative force alone is itself logically presupposed by the proponent in the course of making an argument. Therefore any argument in favour of an ethic based on arbitrary categories such as need or income inequality must be regarded as unjustified.
Furthermore, certain legal norms must be logically presupposed during the course of interpersonal argumentation. Both participants must allow full unhampered control over the other’s body during the course of the exchange. Otherwise the participants in the exchange cannot meaningfully argue. At the very least, both participants must have control over their own vocal chords, ears and brains and since there is no praxeological distinction between different parts of the body, it is impossible for anyone engaged in argumentation to deny the right of one’s opponent the uncoerced use of their entire body. In addition, for one to engage in argumentation, they must also occupy some standing room, or land. Because there is no praxeological distinction between different types of land, the right to homestead must be assumed by anyone attempting to justify any legal norm whatsoever. Also, there is no praxeological difference between actors who are engaged in argumentation and those who are not, both legal norms must be considered justified for every human being.
Sorry it's not shorter.
Stephen Forde:The task of political philosophy is to assign rules regarding the use of scarce goods.
This is your premise, and it's wrong, so your entire argument, so long as it allegedly derives logically from this premise, is wrong.
The task of political philosophy is rather to describe the laws already assigned by nature, and their applications concerning humans.
if it turns out that the laws assigned by nature are laws regarding the use of scarce goods then you are agreeing.
just sayin'
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
They are, but I was pointing out that the task is not for humans to assign rules, but rather for humans to learn and describe pre-existing laws and their applications.
hashem: They are, but I was pointing out that the task is not for humans to assign rules, but rather for humans to learn and describe pre-existing laws and their applications.
K, sure. But I don't see how it changes anything.
nirgrahamUK: Stephen Forde:There are different rules for soldiers than for civilians. Different rules for public servants than for private citizens you are obviously not thinking of justice. are you confusing state law with natural law?
Stephen Forde:There are different rules for soldiers than for civilians. Different rules for public servants than for private citizens
you are obviously not thinking of justice. are you confusing state law with natural law?
Maybe. Maybe not. All I was doing was pointing out that universalizability is not obviously an inherent feature of law.
when asked by juan to state your own perspective earlier, you used Hoppes argumentation ethics, and you emphasised its universalizability. sure positive law is not inherently universalizable, but dont your other beliefs compel you to follow and assent that moral law is inherintly universalizable ?
wilderness: Stephen Forde: nirgrahamUK:just so you know, insulting someone is not ad hominem fallacy. as KoB tried to explain, only if wild said, you are arrogant therefore your argument in favour of X is unsound, would he then be making the ad hom fallacy. if he does not use the insult to cut against your argument then its not ad hom fallacy. K, well I'm probably wrong than. But it seems to me that he means that I am presuming more than is warranted when he calls me arrogant. If my statement is correct however, and he doesn't understand the universalizability principle, then I wasn't really being arrogant. I know that's a bit of a stretch. But I'm not sure I used it incorrectly. Stephen, I drew the line. What is the basis of your assertion that I don't understand the universalizability principle? (That latter isn't tautological unintentionally both in the rhetorical and thus denoting the propositional logic, too.) And don't say because I didn't answer your questions that came up later, after the fact. I drew the line right at when you made the initial assertion. Anarchist Cain answered your question and you apologized - why did you find the need to apologize? I know what it means. I'm talking about what came up before and continued to come up in a mixture with more pertinent questioning.
It was just an educated guess based on the content of previous posts and your arguing style. I don't know why you take it so personally.
nirgrahamUK: when asked by juan to state your own perspective earlier, you used Hoppes argumentation ethics, and you emphasised its universalizability. sure positive law is not inherently universalizable, but dont your other beliefs compel you to follow and assent that moral law is inherintly universalizable ?
Universalizability isn't obvious. Its not self-evident. So unless some reason is given for the use of the principle, there is no reason to think its justified. And yes, moral law is inherently universalize.
Stephen Forde: It was just an educated guess based on the content of previous posts and your arguing style. I don't know why you take it so personally.
And what in particular have I said before that lead you to this assertion?
what are you saying?, that moral law is inherently universalizable but that it is not obviously so ?
Stephen Forde: Universalizability isn't obvious. Its not self-evident. So unless some reason is given for the use of the principle, there is no reason to think its justified. And yes, moral law is inherently universalize.
Principles are truth. They exist. Principles are primarily intellectual and reasoning these principles is secondary. People can provide reasons for anything and counter the truth, but this lacking in reason countering their own inherent principle action is a misjudgment of their own free choosing as to what such a person understands.
Stephen Forde: Knight_of_BAAWA: Did you read the page I linked? Just the part you quoted. I understood an ad hominem to mean responding with a personal attack instead of a logical argument. I was wrong about that. I'm still not sure though that there was no ad hominem.
On second thought, I'm not even sure why I'm backpedaling. Whether or not there is an ad hominem fallacy, there is still an ad hominem, which simply means personal attack. And it's still inappropriate in an intelligent, academic discussion.
Stephen Forde: Maybe. Maybe not. All I was doing was pointing out that universalizability is not obviously an inherent feature of law.
Not sure why you said it's "not obvious". Cell life isn't obvious, so what do you mean?
Stephen Forde: hashem: Stephen Forde:The task of political philosophy is to assign rules regarding the use of scarce goods. This is your premise, and it's wrong, so your entire argument, so long as it allegedly derives logically from this premise, is wrong. The task of political philosophy is rather to describe the laws already assigned by nature, and their applications concerning humans. K, sure. But I don't see how it changes anything.
hashem: Stephen Forde:The task of political philosophy is to assign rules regarding the use of scarce goods. This is your premise, and it's wrong, so your entire argument, so long as it allegedly derives logically from this premise, is wrong. The task of political philosophy is rather to describe the laws already assigned by nature, and their applications concerning humans.
It changes everything. The task is not to assign man-made positive rules. The task is to learn and explain natural laws which were already assigned -- pre-existing.
nirgrahamUK: what are you saying?, that moral law is inherently universalizable but that it is not obviously so ?
That's right. It's not a self-evident principle. It's not something that can just be taken as a given without any proof.
Stephen Forde:All I was doing was pointing out that universalizability is not obviously an inherent feature of law.
Perhaps with common law there is a sense of subjectivity, however, the nature of law and what is benefical to him/her is rather objective.
Stephen Forde:That's right. It's not a self-evident principle. It's not something that can just be taken as a given without any proof.
I think your not realizing the implications of what you are saying.The basic tenets of natural law are certainly close to axiomatic.
Case in point: Property is necessary for survive, the need for usage on goods found in nature. Given this, how are we to deduce what is and isn't the best way to establish this property among humanity? Are we not passing into the realm of morality once we make a decision on how property is to be procured and distrubed?
If the first sentence read "the task of political philosophy is to discover rules regarding the use of scarce goods", Would you be satisfied?
If murder is against natural law and if natural law is The Law(tm), why do some sick murderers enjoy murdering?
Just wondering.
The only truly objective criteria however, are those that must necessarily presuppose argumentation and its superset, action. Now what this implies in the field of ethics is that all distinctions between justified and unjustified claims over scarce goods must be based on praxeological criteria.
Furthermore, certain legal norms must be logically presupposed during the course of interpersonal argumentation.
Both participants must allow full unhampered control over the other’s body during the course of the exchange.
At the very least, both participants must have control over their own vocal chords, ears and brains and since there is no praxeological distinction between different parts of the body, it is impossible for anyone engaged in argumentation to deny the right of one’s opponent the uncoerced use of their entire body.
In addition, for one to engage in argumentation, they must also occupy some standing room, or land.
Charles Anthony: If murder is against natural law and if natural law is The Law(tm), why do some sick murderers enjoy murdering? Just wondering.
Mutations are apart of nature.