Anarchist Cain: True, action does show whither or not things are good or bad. Preference through action after all.
True, action does show whither or not things are good or bad. Preference through action after all.
What is the definition of "moral" that you use?
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
I. Ryan:What is the definition of "moral" that you use?
That which is conducive towards the flourishing of the human being. [ Voluntary trade/exchnage, non-violence with the exception of self-defense ]
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Anarchist Cain: Angurse:Well, no. They can still speak of morality, if just to say nothing more than the concept itself is incorrect. Otherwise you are contending that all amoralists are contradicting themselves by rejecting morals. No I am contending that amoralists are suffering from performative contradiction by establishing the rightness or wrongness of moral systems. Explain how morality is correct or incorrect? Morality is define as a code of conduct proposed by a given group or individual. Explain how that is correct or incorrect.
Angurse:Well, no. They can still speak of morality, if just to say nothing more than the concept itself is incorrect. Otherwise you are contending that all amoralists are contradicting themselves by rejecting morals.
No I am contending that amoralists are suffering from performative contradiction by establishing the rightness or wrongness of moral systems. Explain how morality is correct or incorrect? Morality is define as a code of conduct proposed by a given group or individual. Explain how that is correct or incorrect.
I think you mean "Yes I am contending that amoralists are suffering from performative contradiction..."
You are using the term "value judgment" extremely vaguely, and conflating it with judgments based on rationality, preference, deliberation, etc... you must apply context, otherwise its just a meaningless rhetorical device.
Anarchist Cain:No it can't in terms of morality. Perhaps you will see this when trying to justify the correctness or incorrectness of morality itself.
Exactly. Amoralists, by definition, do not speak in terms of morality, they can however still speak of morality.
Angurse:you must apply context, otherwise its just a meaningless rhetorical device.
Says the individual who is trying to prove Natural law is simply 'incorrect'
Angurse:Exactly. Amoralists, by definition, do not speak in terms of morality, they can however still speak of morality.
Speaking of morality implies a sense of morality. Otherwise like you said they are merely making platitudes like ' I am an amoralist.' You are trying to establish a contradiction by saying I can be an amoralist but make value statements about the morality which is bad. Going back to Giles explain of an atheist an analigious case would be: I am an atheist but I think God is evil. I am an amoralist but Natural Law is wrong. If one were truly an atheist then God wouldn't exist therefore God couldn't be good or bad. Likewise for an amoralist, lacking a distinction between right and wrong implies that one cannot distinguish if natural law is right or wrong.
Anarchist Cain: Speaking of morality implies a sense of morality. Otherwise like you said they are merely making platitudes like ' I am an amoralist.' You are trying to establish a contradiction by saying I can be an amoralist but make value statements about the morality which is bad. Going back to Giles explain of an atheist an analigious case would be: I am an atheist but I think God is evil. I am an amoralist but Natural Law is wrong. If one were truly an atheist then God wouldn't exist therefore God couldn't be good or bad. Likewise for an amoralist, lacking a distinction between right and wrong implies that one cannot distinguish if natural law is right or wrong.
The word "right" is a synonymn of the word "correct" and the word "wrong" is a synoymn of the word "incorrect". If you want to describe some thing that is morally incorrect, then use the phrase "morally incorrect" or "morally wrong".
Anarchist Cain: That which is conducive towards the flourishing of the human being. [ Voluntary trade/exchnage, non-violence with the exception of self-defense ]
If that is the definition of "moral", then how it is even possible to be an amoralist?
I. Ryan:The word "right" is a synonymn of the word "correct" and the word "wrong" is a synoymn of the word "incorrect". If you want to describe some thing that is morally incorrect, then use the phrase "morally incorrect" or "morally wrong".
Then establish how natural law is 'incorrect' without inserting value judgements. You will just be speaking in platitudes.
Anarchist Cain: Then establish how natural law is 'incorrect' without inserting value judgements.
Then establish how natural law is 'incorrect' without inserting value judgements.
What is the definition of "natural law"?
I. Ryan:What is the definition of "natural law"?
A system of rights derived from the logical deduction concerning the welfare of the human being. What are rights? legitimately enforable claims that establish obligation between two or more individuals.
Anarchist Cain:Says the individual who is trying to prove Natural law is simply 'incorrect'
I have done no such a thing, nor attempted to. I'm just correcting your errors.
Anarchist Cain:Speaking of morality implies a sense of morality. Otherwise like you said they are merely making platitudes like ' I am an amoralist.' You are trying to establish a contradiction by saying I can be an amoralist but make value statements about the morality which is bad. Going back to Giles explain of an atheist an analigious case would be: I am an atheist but I think God is evil. I am an amoralist but Natural Law is wrong. If one were truly an atheist then God wouldn't exist therefore God couldn't be good or bad. Likewise for an amoralist, lacking a distinction between right and wrong implies that one cannot distinguish if natural law is right or wrong.
You've gotten the analogy wrong. Just as an atheist can say their is no god, him doing so doesn't imply in any way a sense of god. An amoralist can say natural law is wrong (as in factually wrong, incorrect), however he cannot say natural law is evil (as in morally wrong), that would be the performance contradiction. The amoralist can still make value statements, just not value judgements from any moral framework. Hes rejecting morals from another ground, like reason, or deliberation. Again, you are using the term too vaguely.
Angurse:I have done no such a thing, nor attempted to. I'm just correcting your errors.
You were stating that you can deduce the correctness or incorrect of natural law without value statements. I would like to see you try.
Angurse:Just as an atheist can say their is no god, him doing so doesn't imply in any way a sense of god.
I'm not saying that a amoralist suffers from performative contradiction by simply saying ' I am an amoralist ' they contradict themselves when they say ' I'm an amoralist but I think natural law is wrong'
Angurse:An amoralist can say natural law is wrong (as in factually wrong, incorrect)
Strange, before you were saying you have done no such thing nor attempted to and now you are saying you can.
Angurse:Hes rejecting morals from another ground, like reason, or deliberation.
Again I ask you to prove that you can deduce correctness or incorrectness alone without value judgements.
Anarchist Cain: I. Ryan:What is the definition of "natural law"? A system of rights derived from the logical deduction concerning the welfare of the human being. What are rights? legitimately enforable claims that establish obligation between two or more individuals.
What is your definition of "legitimately"? Please don't use ambiguous words in the definition.
Why anarchy fails
AJ:What is your definition of "legitimately"? Please don't use ambiguous words in the definition.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/legitimate
Anarchist Cain:You were stating that you can deduce the correctness or incorrect of natural law without value statements. I would like to see you try.
Nope. I said an amoralist can call natural law correct or incorrect without making the judgment from a moral standpoint.
Angurse:You are using the term "value judgment" extremely vaguely, and conflating it with judgments based on rationality, preference, deliberation, etc... you must apply context, otherwise its just a meaningless rhetorical device.
Angurse:The amoralist can still make value statements, just not value judgements from any moral framework. Hes rejecting morals from another ground, like reason, or deliberation. Again, you are using the term too vaguely.
Anarchist Cain: Strange, before you were saying you have done no such thing nor attempted to and now you are saying you can.
Please, quote where I said I was an amoralist, or cease this nonsense.
Anarchist Cain:Again I ask you to prove that you can deduce correctness or incorrectness alone without value judgements.
Again, I never said otherwise. I've even taken the time to point out how you are misusing the term value judgments. Again.
Angurse: You are using the term "value judgment" extremely vaguely, and conflating it with judgments based on rationality, preference, deliberation, etc... you must apply context, otherwise its just a meaningless rhetorical device.
Please take the time to read.
Angurse:Nope. I said an amoralist can call natural law correct or incorrect without making the judgment from a moral standpoint.
If you believe it, prove it.
@ the OP
How about Hoppe's From the Economics of Laissez Faire to the Ethics of Libertarianism? It owes nothing to the Natural Law tradition. However, it still conforms to the Natural Law tradition which holds that "universally valid norms can be discerned by means of reason as grounded in the very nature of man."
Anarchist Cain: AJ:What is your definition of "legitimately"? Please don't use ambiguous words in the definition. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/legitimate
"3: accordant with law or with established legal forms and requirements <a legitimate government> b : ruling by or based on the strict principle of hereditary right <a legitimate king>4: conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards <a legitimate advertising expenditure> <a legitimate inference>"
Which of these do you mean?
Stephen Forde: @ the OP How about Hoppe's From the Economics of Laissez Faire to the Ethics of Libertarianism? It owes nothing to the Natural Law tradition. However, it still conforms to the Natural Law tradition which holds that "universally valid norms can be discerned by means of reason as grounded in the very nature of man."
Thank you, Stephen.
I read the applicable section on pp. 64-65 (emphasis mine).
Hans-Hermann Hoppe: It is only as long as there is at least an implicit recognition of each individual's property right in his or her own body that argumentation can take place.
It is only as long as there is at least an implicit recognition of each individual's property right in his or her own body that argumentation can take place.
No, Hoppe, to make the statement correct you would have to replace "an implicit recognition" with "a degree of non-violation." However, one's non-violation of a right does not imply one's recognition (implicit or otherwise) of a right. Else doing nothing to "violate" a murderer's "right" to murder would consitution a recognition of the murderer's "right" to murder.
To fulfill my duty of charitable interpretations I will attempt to rephrase Hoppe's statement to something a bit more precise in the same spirit:
"It is only as long as there is an implicit recognition no violation of each individual's right not to be hindered in speaking freely that argumentation can take place."
But again, non-violation does not imply recognition. Hoppe's argument goes nowhere. However, it does serve as a good illustration of how being loose with words lets you derive any conclusion you want.
Anarchist Cain:If you believe it, prove it.
Do tell.
What is there to tell? That merely saying "I don't believe this!" isn't a demolition? When is "scepticism" ever by itself a "demolition"?
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
AJ:accordant with law or with established legal forms and requirements <a legitimate government> b : ruling by or based on the strict principle of hereditary right <a legitimate king>
The third definition shall suffice.
Looking back, you're right Jon, I misspoke. I should have said "way to refute the allegations of 'skepticism'," instead of "demolish." If you'd like to continue on the topic of skepticism in light of this clarification, I'd be glad to. At this point, however, I have nothing to add to Lilburne's comment.
Anarchist Cain: AJ:3. a: accordant with law or with established legal forms and requirements <a legitimate government> b : ruling by or based on the strict principle of hereditary right <a legitimate king> The third definition shall suffice.
AJ:3. a: accordant with law or with established legal forms and requirements <a legitimate government> b : ruling by or based on the strict principle of hereditary right <a legitimate king>
Thank you. Now back to the original context:
Plugging in the definition from above, I understand your definition of "rights" to be
"Claims that establish obligation between two or more individuals and are enforceable in accordance with law or established legal forms and requirements."
If this is what you intended, what do you mean by "law" (US law? common law?) or "established legal forms and requirements" (which ones?)? If this differs from your intended definition, please clarify.
My $0.02 worth on "natural law" and "rights" in general:
http://cygielski.com/blog/2009/08/05/another-take-on-rothbard/
In brief, I see nothing that would support the existence of "natural law", and in fact I can see examples that would refute its existence.
There just ain't such a thing as a "natural law" - all prescriptive laws are set by humans. Live with it.
AJ:"Claims that establish obligation between two or more individuals and are enforceable in accordance with law or established legal forms and requirements.
Just a nitpicking point here but I would like to announce that the basis for law is the enforcement of natural rights. Therefore the law was established to ensure this continious obligation. Bluntly, if we have natural rights and a society that at all times follows the obligations of these rights then law would not be necessary since there can be no transgression. Since we reside in a world of free will and people can disregard these obligations established by natural rights, then law is a necessary product for ensuring reparations towards the victims.
AJ:If this is what you intended, what do you mean by "law" (US law? common law?)
You have to be more clear on 'US law' because US law has some sense of common law itself.
scyg: I see nothing that would support the existence of "natural law", and in fact I can see examples that would refute its existence.
You carrying out voluntary exchange in a non-violent mannerand respecting the property rights is not supportive of 'natural law?'
Anarchist Cain: You carrying out voluntary exchange in a non-violent mannerand respecting the property rights is not supportive of 'natural law?'
Not in a "logical proof" kind of way. The empirical fact is not proof of the existence of an underlying principle, especially if there are counter-examples, or if you can logically deduce the opposite.
Anarchist Cain:But you have not proven anything is completely incoherent.
Maybe it's coherent to you because you have some special theory of logic by which one can wily-nily substitute "oughts" for "is's" in deductions. But I'm not privy to it. So I (as well as anyone else without this amazing new theory of logic) am forced to regard "is/ought" hybrid syllogisms as incoherent.
Anarchist Cain:You can either be a natural rights theorist or some variation of ulitiarianism
That is a rather naive-sounding presentation of a false choice.
Anarchist Cain:What is truly nonsense is to think that one can be amoral and yet engage in debate on the goodness/badness of other moral systems for engaging in such endeavors is establishing a certain moral system. Its a performative contradiction
Although Angurse has been very clear, and has patiently repeated himself, you have yet to address his point that you are conflating the issue of "morally good/"morally bad" with the issue of "factually correct"/"factually incorrect".
Anarchist Cain:Saying whither natural law is correct or incorrect is a useless endeavour because you would then need to validate its correctness or incorrectness with value statements.
The statements involved are statements like "that is illogical". Are you saying, "that is illogical" is a moral value statement?
The sophistry of your line of argument in this thread is shocking, AC.
Anarchist Cain:It is a value statement. Saying 'I like this chair' is implying I value this chair thereby implying a series of moral premises. I would ask why you like the chair, do you value comfort? color? Morality is defined as a code of conduct so seeking comfort or other desire can be put under that definition.
Categorizing ALL value statements as moral statements is a ridiculously broad definition of morality, and would only be useful if you want to muddy the discussion in order to foist up your pet theory.
Maybe I'm missing something, but over 8 pages of arguments I still don't see anything that would resemble a logical proof of the existence of "natural law". Anybody?
AJ: Anarchist Cain:How do you know you are not REALLY dreaming right now? That is very true, however, I do not attempt to prove to others I am not dreaming right now. You've come up with a more efficient demolition of natural law "proof" than I ever could: insofar as natural law theorists make extremely strong logical claims, they can expect extreme logical skepticism in response.
Anarchist Cain:How do you know you are not REALLY dreaming right now?
That is very true, however, I do not attempt to prove to others I am not dreaming right now.
You've come up with a more efficient demolition of natural law "proof" than I ever could: insofar as natural law theorists make extremely strong logical claims, they can expect extreme logical skepticism in response.
AJ I think perhaps some of the confusion and talking over head going on is that you are comming are wanting verifiability (logical proof) while the natural law advocates are comming from a falsifiability standpoint. While I am not a natural law advocate, perhaps that will give you some perspective as to where the arguments are comming from and why they exist.
After breifly going through this thread, I don't think I have actually seen anyone clearly say "No natural law can not be logically proven at this point, but here is the ground work why I believe in it.....". A comment along those lines would probably be much more productive and useful.
scyg:The empirical fact is not proof of the existence of an underlying principle, especially if there are counter-examples, or if you can logically deduce the opposite.
That doesn't make sense.
Lilburne:Maybe it's coherent to you because you have some special theory of logic by which one can wily-nily substitute "oughts" for "is's" in deductions.
It is a result from reflection on the reality around me and I am not guilty of trying to mystify the logic of natural rights in order to scam you.
Lilburne:Although Angurse has been very clear, and has patiently repeated himself, you have yet to address his point that you are conflating the issue of "morally good/"morally bad" with the issue of "factually correct"/"factually incorrect".
Because natural law is factual. It exists as an abstract deduction hence why we are discussing it. I would think it is a huge waste of time if this topic was devoted to a premise that we believe is factually incorrect yet talk about its existence.
Lilburne:The statements involved are statements like "that is illogical". Are you saying, "that is illogical" is a moral value statement?
Saying something is illogical implies that it is bad, does it not?
Lilburne:Categorizing ALL value statements as moral statements is a ridiculously broad definition of morality,
Hence why morality is a very large subject. Saying what is right and wrong [ value statement ] is implying a code of conduct.
Anarchist Cain: scyg:The empirical fact is not proof of the existence of an underlying principle, especially if there are counter-examples, or if you can logically deduce the opposite. That doesn't make sense.
Ok, let me explain as clearly as I can - you cannot deduce the existence of natural law from the empirical fact that I have conducted voluntary transactions. I may have also forced people to do things (counter-example). In terms of logical arguments, the biggest strike against "natural law", at least the way Rothbard presents it, is the fact that all your "rights" (self-ownership, life, etc.) that it implies work ONLY in society - i.e. you can claim them in the face of other humans. Ownership is moot if there are no other people around to contest it, an attacking tiger would not worry about your right to live, and so on. If there is no "natural law" in a setting outside of society, then there must be no "natural law". That would be my argument - of course I haven't been trained in classical logic, so I may be committing some kind of error there. I'd just like to hear a clear, step-by-step proof of the existence of natural law, if anyone can actually produce one. Otherwise it just becomes yet another religious argument - I believe this, I don't believe that. Not very convincing.