Knight_of_BAAWA:

zefreak:

Both the principles of non-aggression and aggression as moral imperatives are not "philosophically justifiable". Both rely on or are ought propositions that are not justified.

False. Now let's hear from someone who actually understands the issue.

 

Do you really think that just saying "false", without providing a comprehensive argument of your own explaining why, suffices as an adequate response to people's posts? It's rather bizarre that you seem to think that you can completely skip over the substance of people's arguments and automatically declare victory. Neither does the fact that someone strongly disagrees with you about an issue necessarily mean that they do not understand the substance of the various positions on it.

When no argument is provided for me to respond, I respond with no argument. That's how I roll. Don't like it--tough. And why must you strawman all the time? Seriously. This: "Neither does the fact that someone strongly disagrees with you about an issue necessarily mean that they do not understand the substance of the various positions on it." is a whining fucking strawman. Kill it now.

What do you mean by special pleading? And why does it falsify arguments a priori?

zefreak:

It looks like Juan's sophistry is spreading.

There is a third option you are leaving out.. NEITHER aggression nor non-aggression is "philosophically justifiable", if by that you mean deducible from facts of observation.

Wrong zefreak. By the way, I think I asked you at least twice what sort of knowledge is 'observable'.

I'll ask for the third time - what sort of thing do you deduce "from facts of observation" ?

Aggression is as justifiable as non-aggression (both require ought propositions) given a different set of propositions.

In your amoral universe moral propositions are not justifiable ? You already repeated that...a thousand times ?

But the moral fact remains : you can claim control over your fellows - might-makes-right - but you can't morally justify such control.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

zefreak:

Both the principles of non-aggression and aggression as moral imperatives are not "philosophically justifiable". Both rely on or are ought propositions that are not justified.

False. Now let's hear from someone who actually understands the issue.

exactly.

life is, liberty is, and property is... thus intellectually apprehended, understanding is in order... it's a logical process...

 

Brainpolice, What sort of argument do you think actually justifies non-aggression ? Can you present a concise argument of your own ?

scineram:

What do you mean by special pleading?

This.

 

scineram:

And why does it falsify arguments a priori?

Because it shows an inconsistency manifested as a performative contradiction.

 

I'm expecting to hear the argument from uncoolness. "hey man, that just ain't cool"

Juan:

Brainpolice, What sort of argument do you think actually justifies non-aggression ? Can you present a concise argument of your own ?

Well I don't think that one can coherantly argue for non-aggression without taking consequences into account to one degree or another. I don't think that non-aggression is valuable for its own sake so much as in relation to other values and in a specific context. In this sense, I don't treat non-aggression as being a fundamental, but more as an instrumental part of the end of flourishing. It cannot coherantly be justified as an end in itself. If someone initiates aggression, there are many consequentialist reasons why it will not likely ultimately lead to their flourishing as an individual.

I can only argue for non-aggression if people value certain other ends in the first place, such as life and happiness. I can then possibly try to demonstrate that it is in the mutual self-interest of them and others that cooperation and production is a more efficient means of obtaining their ends than aggression is and that a social context in which aggression is not institutionalized provides the framework for them to pursue their ends in the most maximizing way - that the consequences of such a social order will be most beneficial to both their survival and their flourishing. For the sociopath, however, this will simply never work.

In short, I don't think that there is such thing as an axoimatic, knock-down justification for non-aggression in the absence of a social context and consequentialist considerations. I think that non-aggression can only be justified as part of a broader bundle of values, and that all attempts to justify it in a vacuum as an end in itself inherently fail. I think that this is much more reasonable and intellectually honest than any of the attempts to justify the NAP in as a categorical imperative or a contextless rule that is somehow supposed to be valid for its own sake. In the absence of taking other related values and people's underlying motivations into consideration, noone is likely to accept it at face value.

lol... as if a sociopath will accept anything at face value and be logical... so let's build more reasoned walls that somehow will magically stop an illogical person - let's bombard an illogical person with more and more reason and maybe they will listen... ah, too late, the murderer committed the act using their own free-will. if only another reasonable deduction could have been given before...

it comes down to free-will and that concept continues to baffle some... if only the sociopath could have been fed this reason or that reason and the maze and traps grows larger and larger...

wilderness:

lol... as if a sociopath will accept anything at face value and be logical... so let's build more reasoned walls that somehow will magically stop an illogical person - let's bombard an illogical person with more and more reason and maybe they will listen... ah, too late, the murderer committed the act using their own free-will. if only another reasonable deduction could have been given before...

it comes down to free-will and that concept continues to baffle some... if only the sociopath could have been fed this reason or that reason and the maze and traps grows larger and larger...

None of your arguments are going to work any better on a sociopath. No argument of any sort will function as a physical barrier or forcefield to someone murdering you. That's obvious and beside the point.

Brainpolice:

wilderness:

lol... as if a sociopath will accept anything at face value and be logical... so let's build more reasoned walls that somehow will magically stop an illogical person - let's bombard an illogical person with more and more reason and maybe they will listen... ah, too late, the murderer committed the act using their own free-will. if only another reasonable deduction could have been given before...

it comes down to free-will and that concept continues to baffle some... if only the sociopath could have been fed this reason or that reason and the maze and traps grows larger and larger...

None of your arguments are going to work any better on a sociopath.

self-defense will or will not (contingent)... a sociopath is a human with said quiddites (life, liberty, and property), but of course repercussion for such ill-will, unreasonable actions of said sociopath are in order but that's leading into another topic...

free-will seems to dance and bothers you or something... it connects to the fortress of reason that you seemingly erect due to a flaw in your foundational premise which is why I stated basics repeatedly come up due to your lack of insight on such basics.  The labyrinth of the minotaur that you seemingly built trapping yourself as you yourself state can't be stopped - if a sociopath desires to kill he or she will kill or attempt to do so.  They have free-will.  They essentially have liberty, life, and property being the humans they are....  Education is in order for we are rational beings and we can intellectual apprehend other ways to enact life, liberty, and property... on and on this can go, but an education built on a false foundation will not reach the aimed target without serious errors leading to more and more unnecessary patchworks that could have been avoided if the foundation was built well due to sound understanding.  

BP,

Can your position be described as some variety of utilitarianism ?

Juan:

BP,

Can your position be described as some variety of utilitarianism ?

The Kantian Golden Rule and the universalizability test function like 'utilitarianism' in the sense that they require one to imagine if it has positive and negative outcomes.  For instance, Kant's argument against 'theft' is 'utilitarian' in the sense that the absence of property will decrease prosperity.

Rothbard also incorporated an 'universalizability test' for free exchange based on the 'utilitarian' argument that trade restrictions will create decreased prosperity of society.

Murray Rothbard:

If anyone wishes to grasp how much we owe to the processes of exchange, let him consider what would happen in the modern world if every man were suddenly prohibited from exchanging anything with anyone else. Each person would be forced to produce all of his own goods and services himself. The utter chaos, the total starvation of the great bulk of the human race, and the reversion to primitive subsistence by the remaining handful of people, can readily be imagined.  (Chapter 7 of The Ethics of Liberty)

Deontological ethics is a form of consequentialism in the sense that we can define an 'inherently good act' as a 'good consequence' and an 'inherently bad act' as a 'bad consequence'.

Contrastingly, 'rule-consequentialism' is indistinguishable from some forms of 'deontology'.  Most ''consequentialists' are de facto 'deontologists' in the sense that they will respect moral prescriptions such as "don't steal" and "don't murder."  Most 'deontologists' are not 'absolutists' in the sense that they will not always apply their prescriptions in lifeboat situations.

According to the above meanings, 'deontology' and 'consequentialism' distinction is a false dichotomy.

In fact, we have seen many debates within the so-called 'deontological libertarians' and the so-called 'consequentialist libertarians' that confuses their terminology.  For example, some self-identified 'consequentialist libertarians' conflate 'deontological libertarianism' with 'moral absolutism', which in fact that deontology is not inherently 'absolutist' in enforcing moral prescriptions.  Some self-identified 'deontological libertarians' define 'consequentialist libertarianism' as a form of 'moral relativism' in which it allows 'whatever it goes to maximize some group of individuals'.  However, most self-identified 'consequentialist libertarians' disallow theft at all contexts (except lifeboat situations) just like that most self-identified 'deontological libertarians' disallow theft at all contexts (except perhaps lifeboat situations).  The so-called 'controversy' is primarily based on the different definitions of 'deontology' and 'consequentialism'.

To clarify, we do not think that the controversy is purely semantic.  We just think that the terms 'consequentialism' and 'deontology' are so ambiguous that we should not use them without clarification.  See our above conclusion that 'deontology' and 'consequentialism' in their broad senses are indistinguishable.

However, Austrian economists usually define "utilitarianism" as an ethical doctrine which enables technocrats or rulers to intervene economically and make utility calculations.  They define "utilitarianism" as socialism which makes cardinal utility calculations.

Broadly speaking, however, Rothbardian 'natural law' and the categorical imperative are a forms of 'utilitarianism' in the sense that it applies the universalizability tests to the free market and free exchange.  Rothbard even discusses the maximization of 'psychic utility' (or 'profit').  Most self-identified 'utilitarians' will agree that ethics which maximizes 'psychic utility' is a form of 'utilitarianism'.  However, Rothbard has a knee-jerk reaction against the term 'utilitarianism' because he conflates 'utilitarianism' roughly with 'socialism'.

it's getting longer and longer and longer... hmmmm...

What a waste of time. As far as I'm concerned, this topic ended in the is/ought thread created by lilburne. I am interested in debating whether or not argumentation ethics has any validity as a method of justifying an ethical system, but I will not be pulled into a debate that I consider dead and burried. Some people refuse to learn, and I'm not going to throw myself against the wall to try and change their minds.

Thank you for conceding that you're wrong.

Anarcho-Mercantilist:

Juan:

BP,

Can your position be described as some variety of utilitarianism ?

The Kantian Golden Rule and the universalizability test function like 'utilitarianism' in the sense that they require one to imagine if it has positive and negative outcomes.

I don't advocate the Kantian Golden Rule and the universalizability test. In fact, I've blogged repeatedly on why I think that universality by itself is insufficient, and sometimes too rigid. In either case, you're correct that the traditional deontology/utilitarian dichotomy breaks down in the sense that deontology collapses into consequentialism the moment that it takes consequences into account at all and utilitarianism collapses into deontology the moment that it makes use of "general rules" (hence becoming "rule utilitarianism", which is a softened deontology). Deontology in a "pure" sense is problematic because its rigidity cannot take moral dillemas into account without making using of consequentialism and ceasing to be "pure", while utilitarianism in a "pure" sense is problematic because it can lead to an endorsement of things that rub up against most people's "common sense moral intuition" in the name of pursueing consequences and ceasing to be "pure" as soon as we water it down to take such things into account.

But to address the original question, I'm not exactly a utilitarian (in the sense of making use of a pleasure/pain principle or in the sense of trying to make morality metric). For one thing, I don't consider utilitarianism and consequentialism to be completely interchangable terms in the first place. Utilitarianism often has collectivist connotations in the vague sense of "the greatest good for the greatest number" taken to the point of violating an individual in the name of detached abstract notions of "society" or "humanity". It has a certain instability that actually risks devolving into a form of hedonism or amoralism, which can only be avoided by moving towards "rule utilitarianism". The "3rd way" that is often left out of the discourse on ethics is some sort of virtue egoism, which fits neither the traditional definitions of utilitarianism or deontology. It is neither a rigid system of "categorical imperatives" or a purely metric "pragmatism".

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Thank you for conceding that you're wrong.

False.

See what I did there?

In all seriousness, this attitude is precisely why debating with you would be a pointless endeavor. How you became a moderator I have no idea.

zefreak as if you even stated anything of intellectual value... so you were met with similar cause.  So I wouldn't whine about something you did.

wilderness:

zefreak as if you even stated anything of intellectual value... so you were met with similar cause.  So I wouldn't whine about something you did.

I'm not too worried about whether or not you understand my points. You haven't made a cogent arguement in quite some time.

zefreak:

wilderness:

zefreak as if you even stated anything of intellectual value... so you were met with similar cause.  So I wouldn't whine about something you did.

You haven't made a cogent arguement in quite some time.

I agree, I'm still puzzled as to how writing "liberty is... life is..." is somehow an argument.  Was that ever explained?

Nitroadict:

I agree, I'm still puzzled as to how writing "liberty is... life is..." is somehow an argument.  Was that ever explained?

I believe it is an argument he developed after reading a recent book on Natural Rights theory. I have not asked him in depth about his argument so he will need to provide that but I think it is productive that individuals come up with new arguments for libertarian positions. We do not want to devolve into a one pony show.

zefreak:

What a waste of time. As far as I'm concerned, this topic ended in the is/ought thread created by lilburne. I am interested in debating whether or not argumentation ethics has any validity as a method of justifying an ethical system, but I will not be pulled into a debate that I consider dead and burried. Some people refuse to learn, and I'm not going to throw myself against the wall to try and change their minds.

Hey zefreak did you manage to explain what sort of knowledge is 'observable' ? This is the 4th time I ask ?

Maybe that's a piece of dogma that you as a member of the stirner church can't reveal to the uninitiated ?

Brainpolice:

But to address the original question, I'm not exactly a utilitarian (in the sense of making use of a pleasure/pain principle or in the sense of trying to make morality metric).

By calling you a utilitarian, I meant that you don't believe in universal, 'natural' human rights that can be logically justified.

Am I right about your position, that is, you don't believe in 'objective' individual rights ?

zefreak:

wilderness:

zefreak as if you even stated anything of intellectual value... so you were met with similar cause.  So I wouldn't whine about something you did.

I'm not too worried about whether or not you understand my points. You haven't made a cogent arguement in quite some time.

lol... and of course you haven't either so you can continue saying nothing of intellectual value or rise above this...

"I know you are but what am I."...lol... fun, fun, fun

Nitroadict:

I agree, I'm still puzzled as to how writing "liberty is... life is..." is somehow an argument.  Was that ever explained?

well I started a thread on it, no comments, no questions, so you'll remain puzzled no point in me trying too hard

I guess I could start it off and ask this:

Do you think life, liberty, and property is?  Do they exist?  Are they being?  All the same questions...

wilderness:

Nitroadict:

I agree, I'm still puzzled as to how writing "liberty is... life is..." is somehow an argument.  Was that ever explained?

well I started a thread on it, no comments, no questions, so you'll remain puzzled no point in me trying too hard

I guess I could start it off and ask this:

Do you think life, liberty, and property is?  Do they exist?  Are they being?  All the same questions...

Forgive me, but the trailing dots are uselessly annoying.  It doesn't add the effect that you are saying anything profound, imo, but whatever, to each their own. 

What do you mean by "are they being"?  As concepts?  Or as things that literally exist?  It all sounds almost too vague to warrant a discussion.

Nitroadict:

wilderness:

Nitroadict:

I agree, I'm still puzzled as to how writing "liberty is... life is..." is somehow an argument.  Was that ever explained?

well I started a thread on it, no comments, no questions, so you'll remain puzzled no point in me trying too hard

I guess I could start it off and ask this:

Do you think life, liberty, and property is?  Do they exist?  Are they being?  All the same questions...

Forgive me, but the trailing dots are uselessly annoying.  It doesn't add the effect that you are saying anything profound, imo, but whatever, to each their own.

bad day?  It's not like I was trying to state anything profound, IMO - lol.  Of course it's my opinion.  Of course you're sharing you're opinion.  Don't be so tedious, but that's only my opinion.  Way too start off on such a bad note.  Must I really feel like going on?  I don't know now.

Nitroadict:

 

What do you mean by "are they being"?  As concepts?  Or as things that literally exist?  It all sounds almost too vague to warrant a discussion.

objects.  objects that can be intellectually apprehended.  The conceptual, knowledgeable aspect as in what do they mean, etc... doesn't need to be brought up now.

Brainpolice:

I don't advocate the Kantian Golden Rule and the universalizability test. In fact, I've blogged repeatedly on why I think that universality by itself is insufficient, and sometimes too rigid.

Question: if someone says "I believe it's ok for me to initiate force against others, but it's not ok for them to do it to me", what fallacy is that called?

zefreak:

False.

False. And I see that you, like many many others, whine like a little child when his blatant, unsupported assertions are met with curt dismissal. If you don't like my method: support your claims. Don't blame me for YOUR failures, child. I will not stand for it. Learn how to properly debate or leave.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Brainpolice:

I don't advocate the Kantian Golden Rule and the universalizability test. In fact, I've blogged repeatedly on why I think that universality by itself is insufficient, and sometimes too rigid.

Question: if someone says "I believe it's ok for me to initiate force against others, but it's not ok for them to do it to me", what fallacy is that called?

The phrase "initiation of force" cannot be logically defined without circularity, unless you enumerate some specific cases belonging into the "initiation of force."  See the last posts from the thread "Rights, Property, and State" for additional details.

i love it when people who don't understand concepts lecture people that do understand concepts about how the concepts are not understandable.

Juan:

Brainpolice:

But to address the original question, I'm not exactly a utilitarian (in the sense of making use of a pleasure/pain principle or in the sense of trying to make morality metric).

By calling you a utilitarian, I meant that you don't believe in universal, 'natural' human rights that can be logically justified.

I do not believe that we can logically justify the non-aggression principle from either Hoppe's "argumentation ethics" or Molyneux's "Universally Preferable Behavior."

However, I do believe that we can logically justify the non-aggression principle from arguments such as how Austrian economics will maximize prosperity.

Indeed, Rothbard does justify the non-aggression principle from arguments such as how Austrian economics will maximize prosperity. Rothbard should set aside the "self-ownership" argument for property rights, while keeping the other 'consequentialist-like' argument how Lockean property will maximize prosperity for society as a whole.

Generally, we should justify the non-aggression principle from strictly 'consequentialist-like' arguments such as how free trade and ownership of capital goods will maximize prosperity, how the prohibition of drugs and prostitution will increase crime, how economic interventions allow rent-seeking, how the free market will solve the free rider problem and externalities, how the free market will provide better defense and roads than the state, etc.

Juan:

Am I right about your position, that is, you don't believe in 'objective' individual rights ?

Like most self-identified 'consequentialists', most self-identified 'deontologists' will also choose to infringe the property rights in lifeboat situations. For example, most self-identified 'deontologists' will justify that Klemm should break into Tom's cabin. Someone who do believe in 'universal human rights' may indeed infringe his believe in lifeboat situations.

Let us look into the definition of the term 'deontology'. According to online encyclopedias, they define 'deontology' as "an ethical approach which holds that acts are inherently 'good' or 'evil', regardless of the consequences." We will show the problems of that definition below.

First, the phrase "regardless of the consequences" has multiple interpretations. Does the "consequences" refer to the justification of the ethical prescription itself or the application of the ethical prescription? To rephrase this, does it imply that we should not regard consequences when we justify an ethical prescription, or does it imply that we should not regard consequences when we apply the ethical prescription?

The former interpretation asserts that, for example, that theft is wrong regardless of the consequences of theft such as the general impoverishment of society. However, the latter interpretation asserts that, for example, that theft is always wrong regardless if you must steal to save you or another's life. These two interpretation of the phrase "regardless of the consequences" are different. Various philosophers criticizing 'deontology' confuse the two interpretations.

Libertarians, for example, commonly conflate 'deontology' with 'moral absolutism'. 'Moral absolutism', as we will define, prescribes that one must obey ethical prescriptions at all contexts regardless if it is a lifeboat situation. For example, 'moral absolutists' will push a person off their flagpole to kill him, or kill Klemm for breaking in Tom's cabin even though Tom knew, for certain, that Klemm is not a threat to his life.

Libertarians, for example, will also conflate 'deontology' with the the belief that ethical prescriptions are inherent to the essence of a human. Ethical approaches which base off this belief include Hoppe's "argumentation ethics" and Molyneux's "Universally Preferable Behavior."

The two different interpretation of the phrase "regardless of consequences," as we have shown above, stirred up intense controversy. (Bradford 1987; Murray et al., 2005; Wolff 2006). Indeed, please check out Jim Peron's article (2001) concluding that the 'deontology/consequentialist' dichotomy between the schools of libertarianism is a matter of semantics. Check his article out right now!

Second, the phrase "acts are inherently 'good' or 'bad'" also has multiple interpretations. What does it mean to be "inherently good"? This has multiple interpretations.

First, an "inherently good" act can mean an act in which it is inherently "good" in the essence of a human. This interpretation is common in Rothbardian 'natural law' approaches which rejects 'murder' as a violation of the 'essence' of a human because, as they argue, that "life presupposes the aversion of murder."

Second, an "inherently good" act can also mean an act is "good" regardless of the context (except maybe lifeboat situations). For example, in is "inherently good" to avoid murder in the sense that we must avoid murder in all times at all times.

Third, an "inherently good" act can also mean a "religious duty." For example, some religionists will define an "inherently good" act as an act which confirms to the bible. Ayn Rand (1982) critiqued this interpretation of "deontology."

All of the above example shows the problem of the terms 'deontology' and 'consequentialism'.  See my previous post for additional info.

References

1. Bradford, R. W. (1987). "The Two Libertarianisms."
2. Charles Murray, David Friedman, David Boaz, and R.W. Bradford (2005). "What's Right vs. What Works."
3. Wolff, Jonathan (2006). "Libertarianism, Utility, and Economic Competition."
4. Peron, Jim (2001).  "Are There Two Libertarianisms?"
5. Rand, Ayn (1982). "Philosophy: Who Needs It."

nirgrahamUK:

i love it when people who don't understand concepts lecture people that do understand concepts about how the concepts are not understandable.

Apparently asking for clarification is grounds for irony & dismissal now.  Oh well.

Anarcho-Mercantilist:

The phrase "initiation of force" cannot be logically defined without circularity

Nonsense. Do try to grasp that words have definitions.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Anarcho-Mercantilist:

The phrase "initiation of force" cannot be logically defined without circularity

Nonsense. Do try to grasp that words have definitions.

How do you conclude that "nuclear weapon production constitutes the initiation of force" or that "violent retribution constitutes as the initiation of force" merely from Hoppe's "self-ownership" argument?  You can't.

someone who doesnt understand the principle of explosion and insists on arguing things out with appeals to definitions and logic.....

Nitroadict:

nirgrahamUK:

i love it when people who don't understand concepts lecture people that do understand concepts about how the concepts are not understandable.

Apparently asking for clarification is grounds for irony & dismissal now.  Oh well.

apparently you have yet to intellectually grasp AM's M.O.

nirgrahamUK:

someone who doesnt understand the principle of explosion and insists on arguing things out with appeals to definitions and logic.....

I understand the principle of explosion and I do not 'reject' the law of non-contradiction in the sense that I completely reject it.