I. Ryan:All that I notice is the incredibly ridiculous amount of strawmans that you and Anarchist Cain and Juan have created.
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
scyg:Because life's not fair, and because total equality is not achievable from a practical point of view. Doesn't mean you can't try to change things for the better, though. (Just thought I'd add that, seeing as I must be coming across as a complete downer).
So they merely have the luck of establishing rights?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
nirgrahamUK:tell me more
I, Ryan does not announce his belief system yet somehow I strawman him. Interesting concept is it not?
Rooster:moral nihilism = denying objective morality? That doesn't follow.
moral nihilism, is the denial of objective morality. or tell me, what moral nihilism the denial of? what is being 'nihiled'?
Anarchist Cain:I, Ryan does not announce his belief system yet somehow I strawman him. Interesting concept is it not?
i'm not allowed to notice things, that too could be a strawman
nirgrahamUK:i'm not allowed to notice things, that too could be a strawman
I think that is a self-implied strawman, stop strawmanning yourself.
at least strawmanning is not immoral . small comfort.
nirgrahamUK: Rooster:moral nihilism = denying objective morality? That doesn't follow. moral nihilism, is the denial of objective morality. or tell me, what moral nihilism the denial of? what is being 'nihiled'?
Well if you define it that way, that's fine. I don't claim to be an expert on the different philosophical labels but I think it is more ambiguous. But couldn't you be moral even if you can't deduce it logically?
nirgrahamUK:at least strawmanning is not immoral . small comfort.
ARE YOU SUREEEE???
I. Ryan: nirgrahamUK: the ranks of libertarian moral nihilists seem to be on a rising trend, anyone else notice this and find it curious? All that I notice is the incredibly ridiculous amount of strawmans...
nirgrahamUK: the ranks of libertarian moral nihilists seem to be on a rising trend, anyone else notice this and find it curious?
the ranks of libertarian moral nihilists seem to be on a rising trend, anyone else notice this and find it curious?
All that I notice is the incredibly ridiculous amount of strawmans...
I notice something else, too: an amazing level of indulgence such arguments. I try to just ignore anyone who persistently strawmans, misreads, conflates, or otherwise chronically fails to show reasonable understanding of logic. It's tempting to reply when you can easily prove such people wrong, but since they won't understand (or care?) that they are wrong they will just continue sniping senselessly about and bloating the thread. Just my opinion.
Why anarchy fails
Anarchist Cain: scyg:However, I'm not denying the existence of normative rights, just their "natural" quality. The basis of an unperverted human exchange is voluntary and non-violent in nature. Therefore that is natural.
scyg:However, I'm not denying the existence of normative rights, just their "natural" quality.
The basis of an unperverted human exchange is voluntary and non-violent in nature. Therefore that is natural.
Violence, and coercion are also quite natural.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
Rooster:But couldn't you be moral even if you can't deduce it logically?
laminustacitus:Violence, and coercion are also quite natural.
Really? Explain how you have come to this idea.
nirgrahamUK:moral nihilism, is the denial of objective morality.
I for one merely ask people who use terms like "objective morality" to define them unambiguously. I can't deny something until I've seen a precise, unambiguous statement of what that something is supposed to be defined as.
AJ:I for one merely ask people who use words like "objective morality" to define them unambiguously. I can't deny something until I've seen a precise, unambiguous statement of what that something is supposed to be defined as.
The problem is you think nearly everything that is said about natural rights is ambiguous.
AJ:I for one merely ask people who use terms like "objective morality" to define them unambiguously. I can't deny something until I've seen a precise, unambiguous statement of what that something is supposed to be defined as.
morality that is true for everyone, (whether they believe it or not) like the laws of science are true for everyone.(w t b i o n) (thats an illustrative analogy, not a proof )
Anarchist Cain: AJ:I for one merely ask people who use words like "objective morality" to define them unambiguously. I can't deny something until I've seen a precise, unambiguous statement of what that something is supposed to be defined as. The problem is you think nearly everything that is said about natural rights is ambiguous.
As far as I have seen, it is. If anyone has anything say using unambiguous terms, I am all ears.
So far, I've spent several days trying to get a precise statement on natural law or natural rights from a poster, a scholar - anyone. If anyone purported to have a logically precise argument but could not produce even a single rigorous definition, how long would you humor that person?
AJ: As far as I have seen, it is. If anyone has anything say using unambiguous terms, I am all ears. So far, I've spent several days trying to get a precise statement on natural law or natural rights from a poster, a scholar - anyone. If anyone purported to have a logically precise argument but could not produce even a single rigorous definition, how long would you humor that person?
Hey, if you don't like my arguments then go to the source. Roderick Long is a philospher who I agree with concerning natural law. Go to the source. I hope you find your answer.
I agree with AJ. Please define 'subjective' and 'objective'. I found about ten or so different definitions for those terms.
Life is filled with misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and prodigal folklore.
nirgrahamUK: AJ:I for one merely ask people who use terms like "objective morality" to define them unambiguously. I can't deny something until I've seen a precise, unambiguous statement of what that something is supposed to be defined as. morality that is true for everyone, (whether they believe it or not) like the laws of science are true for everyone.(w t b i o n) (thats an illustrative analogy, not a proof )
Thank you. I see how a statement can be true or false, but I don't see how morality can be "true" or "false." Please provide an unambiguous definition of "morality" that makes it clear how morality can be "true" or "false."
Note: If you'd like to use "ought" and then say "ought" cannot be defined and is "atomic," please fully articulate your reasoning on that.
By the way, if you do post your question to Dr. Long then can you perhaps post his response on the forums or message me it? I am always trying to perfect my arguments.
AJ:Thank you. I see how a statement can be true or false, but I don't see how morality can be "true" or "false." Please provide an unambiguous definition of "morality" that makes it clear how morality can be "true" or "false.
when a statement is true about something, like the statement 'the cat is in the tree' is true about the cat being in the tree, it describes what is real. cats can really be in trees. and some cat is really in a tree. and you can say true statements about that. or false ones.
now, when a moral statement is true about something, like the statement 'Ted Bundy butchering innocents is wrong' is true about the fact that its immoral for ted bundy to have killed people, it describes what is real. killing innoccents can really be immoralm and some people really do commit immoral acts. and you can say true statements about that, or false ones.
Anarchist Cain: AJ: As far as I have seen, it is. If anyone has anything say using unambiguous terms, I am all ears. So far, I've spent several days trying to get a precise statement on natural law or natural rights from a poster, a scholar - anyone. If anyone purported to have a logically precise argument but could not produce even a single rigorous definition, how long would you humor that person? Hey, if you don't like my arguments then go to the source. Roderick Long is a philospher who I agree with concerning natural law. Go to the source. I hope you find your answer.
Good idea. As far as I have seen, no one currently posting on the board can even define natural law or natural rights as well-formed, unambiguous concepts, so to see how they could form any kind of basis for libertarianism stretches the imagination.
Anarchist Cain: By the way, if you do post your question to Dr. Long then can you perhaps post his response on the forums or message me it? I am always trying to perfect my arguments.
I'd be happy to.
Anarchist Cain: laminustacitus:Violence, and coercion are also quite natural. Really? Explain how you have come to this idea.
Not only is it a proposition that is supported by empirical experiences with the behavior of man, but it is also a position that is supported by our current understanding of evolution. Man is an animal whose insticts are often to kill, rape, and steal, and who must control surpress those natural instincts in order to live in a civil society. To deny the fact that aggression is not in man's nature is an absurdity.
laminustacitus:Not only is it a proposition that is supported by empirical experiences with the behavior of man, but it is also a position that is supported by our current understanding of evolution. Man is an animal whose insticts are often to kill, rape, and steal, and who must control surpress those natural instincts in order to live in a civil society. To deny the fact that aggression is not in man's nature is an absurdity.
And I have seen the opposite. The question is which is more likely to be the actions of man and since we're not all constantly raping, murdering and stealing like some Sadian world, then I find that my argument is the correct one.
From Wikipedia (emphasis added)...
Moral nihilism, also known as ethical nihilism, is the meta-ethical view that nothing is moral or immoral. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is not inherently right or wrong. This view can lead to amoralism. Moral nihilism must be distinguished from ethical subjectivism and moral relativism, which do allow for moral statements to be true or false in a non-objective sense...
Moral nihilism must be distinguished from ethical subjectivism and moral relativism, which do allow for moral statements to be true or false in a non-objective sense...
No one denies that aggression i not in man's nature. I think that the idea of natural rights is an approach to establish an objective morality. Every natural rights theroist is a moral absolutist, and wants to keep his "premises" valid everywhere and everytime. So they build a system based on some values that we all have (or should) hold as valid. The libertarian natural rights try to establish that initiating active physical aggression is immoral; I think that if we are a little civilized we can get this idea. The other one is that the legitimate owner of a scarce good is the person (or people) who first homesteaded that good. I try to keep the concepts as simply as they can get, as the idea of natural rights doesn't seem so "natural", they maybe called something like "rational rights", as they belong to reason (based on real facts, like scarcity and "body ownership").
Note to new readers: we are discussing the definition of "objective morality."
nirgrahamUK: AJ:Thank you. I see how a statement can be true or false, but I don't see how morality can be "true" or "false." Please provide an unambiguous definition of "morality" that makes it clear how morality can be "true" or "false. when a statement is true about something, like the statement 'the cat is in the tree' is true about the cat being in the tree, it describes what is real. cats can really be in trees. and some cat is really in a tree. and you can say true statements about that. or false ones.
So far so good.
nirgrahamUK:now, when a moral statement is true about something, like the statement 'Ted Bundy butchering innocents is wrong' is true about the fact that its immoral for ted bundy to have killed people, it describes what is real.
All right, now what does an action being "wrong" mean? A few of the many possible interpretations: "I/we disapprove of X," "X is against established customs or laws," "if we allow X, consequences that I/we/you will probably not enjoy will ensue," "God disapproves of X," etc. And if "wrong" cannot be defined, please articulate why.
Lilburne:Moral nihilism must be distinguished from ethical subjectivism and moral relativism, which do allow for moral statements to be true or false in a non-objective sense...
well, of course, i disagree :-0
Anarchist Cain: laminustacitus:Not only is it a proposition that is supported by empirical experiences with the behavior of man, but it is also a position that is supported by our current understanding of evolution. Man is an animal whose insticts are often to kill, rape, and steal, and who must control surpress those natural instincts in order to live in a civil society. To deny the fact that aggression is not in man's nature is an absurdity. And I have seen the opposite.
And I have seen the opposite.
The opposite is man surpressing his instincts, anyone who says that they do not have violent insticts is a self-richteous liar.
Anarchist Cain:The question is which is more likely to be the actions of man and since we're not all constantly raping, murdering and stealing like some Sadian world, then I find that my argument is the correct one.
You lack any comprehension of what I have just said, for I have explained why man does not do those activites today,: if man desires to live in society, he must supress those instints in order to live in society, and living in society is far better than living life as life as a lone brute who seizes everything he desires by force. It is not hard to supress one's violent insticts, even easier when one realizes the alternatives.
In addition, to claim that violence is a behavior that is not naturally in man, then how does one explain that wherever man travels, violence between men follow?
laminustacitus: Anarchist Cain: laminustacitus:Violence, and coercion are also quite natural. Really? Explain how you have come to this idea. Not only is it a proposition that is supported by empirical experiences with the behavior of man, but it is also a position that is supported by our current understanding of evolution. Man is an animal whose insticts are often to kill, rape, and steal, and who must control surpress those natural instincts in order to live in a civil society. To deny the fact that aggression is not in man's nature is an absurdity.
I believe you are strawmanning Rothbard. Rothbard offers 'consequentialist' arguments for property rights and free exchange. For instance, he has argued that without property rights or free exchange, humans will have decreased productivity. He has never advocated any 'historical' arguments such as the 'fact' that humans have indeed killed, raped, or stolen from one another. He has classified property rights and free exchange as 'natural' because of their increased productivity. However, Rothbard has never justified why he categorized that maximizing productivity as 'natural'.
Sure, an organism require productivity to survive. However, why should an organism 'maximize' its productivity? Rothbard did not explicate the goals of his 'natural law'. Also, an organism can choose to starve in the future while still remaining consistent with the notion that 'natural law' presupposes the survival of the organism. This does not logically prescribe the same organism to maximize his productivity in the future.
AJ:All right, now what does an action being "wrong" mean? A few of the many possible interpretations: "I/we disapprove of X," "X is against established customs or laws," "if we allow X, consequences that I/we/you will probably not enjoy will ensue," "God disapproves of X," etc. And if "wrong" cannot be defined, please articulate why.
ok, why is whats good for the goose not good for the gander?
you ask what does 'wrong' mean but you dont ask what does 'false' mean.
the philsophical challenge to answering those questions are similar and analgous, despite our cultural bias being to accept rational scientific realism on the one hand and be moral arealist skeptics on the other hand.
laminustacitus:The opposite is man surpressing his instincts, anyone who says that they do not have violent insticts is a self-richteous liar.
Or maybe violence is the suppression of his non-violent instincts.
laminustacitus:he must supress those instints in order to live in society, and living in society is far better than living life as life as a lone brute who seizes everything he desires by force. It is not hard to supress one's violent insticts, even easier when one realizes the alternatives.
So unless an individual is living in a group, then he cannot be non-violent?
Anarcho-Mercantilist: laminustacitus: Anarchist Cain: laminustacitus:Violence, and coercion are also quite natural. Really? Explain how you have come to this idea. Not only is it a proposition that is supported by empirical experiences with the behavior of man, but it is also a position that is supported by our current understanding of evolution. Man is an animal whose insticts are often to kill, rape, and steal, and who must control surpress those natural instincts in order to live in a civil society. To deny the fact that aggression is not in man's nature is an absurdity. I believe you are strawmanning Rothbard. Rothbard offers 'consequentialist' arguments for property rights and free exchange.
I believe you are strawmanning Rothbard. Rothbard offers 'consequentialist' arguments for property rights and free exchange.
I've never spoken on the topic of Rothbard.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:For instance, he has argued that without property rights or free exchange, humans will have decreased productivity. He has never advocated any 'historical' arguments such as the 'fact' that humans have indeed killed, raped, or stolen from one another. He has classified property rights and free exchange as 'natural' because of their increased productivity. However, Rothbard has never justified why he categorized that maximizing productivity as 'natural'.
Again, have I spoken of this?
Anarcho-Mercantilist:Sure, an organism require productivity to survive. However, why should an organism 'maximize' its productivity? Rothbard did not explicate the goals of his 'natural law'. Also, an organism can choose to starve in the future while still remaining consistent with the notion that 'natural law' presupposes the survival of the organism. This does not logically lead to the fact that the same organism has to maximize his productivity in the future.
How does this even correspond to what I've said?
Anarcho-Mercantilist:I believe you are strawmanning Rothbard.
The irony is is that your entire post is a strawman of my position. All that I have stated is that violence is in man's nature, I have not spoken anything else, nor have I elucidated any conclusions from the statement - I never even mentioned Rothbard.
Anarchist Cain: laminustacitus:The opposite is man surpressing his instincts, anyone who says that they do not have violent insticts is a self-richteous liar. Or maybe violence is the suppression of his non-violent instincts.
....
Anarchist Cain: laminustacitus:he must supress those instints in order to live in society, and living in society is far better than living life as life as a lone brute who seizes everything he desires by force. It is not hard to supress one's violent insticts, even easier when one realizes the alternatives. So unless an individual is living in a group, then he cannot be non-violent?
No: the Desert Fathers, and other ascetics would be examples to the contrary. Nevertheless, society is one of the greatest motivations for man supressing his insticts, but it is not the only one.
ivanfoofoo:The libertarian natural rights try to establish that initiating active physical aggression is immoral; I think that if we are a little civilized we can get this idea.
If "immoral" were unambiguously defined, we could at least attempt to evaluate the idea. Until then, with the many possible interpretations of "immoral," the notion is cannot even be evaluated and argued for/against without assuming a definition (thereby inviting accusations of strawmanning).
i read you as saying that netiher violence nor non-violence are mans nature seeing that neither is central to the definition of 'man'. this leaves things like rationality as candidates for things that are actually mans 'nature'.
but i think the nature talk is a red herring, its supposed to clue you into moral realism, not empirical accountings of what you see people always do and what you notice that they never do. and calling the former natural and the latter unnatural...
nirgrahamUK: Lilburne:Moral nihilism must be distinguished from ethical subjectivism and moral relativism, which do allow for moral statements to be true or false in a non-objective sense... well, of course, i disagree :-0
Why would you want positions that do have important differentiae to have the same name? You seem like a nice guy, so I would hope it's not a tactical ploy... lumping decent people like me, who differ with you regarding meta-ethics, but who subjectively regard the state as evil, along with quasi-Machiavellians who deny good/evil altogether-- and the stigma attached to them.
nirgrahamUK: AJ:All right, now what does an action being "wrong" mean? A few of the many possible interpretations: "I/we disapprove of X," "X is against established customs or laws," "if we allow X, consequences that I/we/you will probably not enjoy will ensue," "God disapproves of X," etc. And if "wrong" cannot be defined, please articulate why. ok, why is whats good for the goose not good for the gander? you ask what does 'wrong' mean but you dont ask what does 'false' mean.
All right, change "false" to "logically false." "Logically false" has a well-understood, unambiguous meaning, does it not? Now what do you logically mean by "wrong"?