Considering the following irrefutable conditions we live in
In what way would you prefer to see these 3 problems dealt with, with the likelihood that the maximum amount of people would benefit and get along without conflict?
Angurse:See prior posts above.
I don't get it.
Non-effective communication doesn't strike you as... non-effective communication?
Angurse:Non-effective communication doesn't strike you as... non-effective communication?
Sure it does.
Jackson LaRose:Sure it does.
Doesn't look that way
"I don't get it." "why not?" "Why are you pointing it out?" "I don't really understand what this link infers."
Angurse:"I don't get it." "why not?" "Why are you pointing it out?" "I don't really understand what this link infers."
So now I am to be faulted for misunderstanding what you are trying to communicate to me?
Of course.
Angurse:Of course.
OK
wilderness: The Late Andrew Ryan:Economics is the study of human action, aren't ethics supposed to be based off of human action? Yes. You are correct. But economics isn't ethics. Categorically they are distinct. That's why human action can be applied to various social sciences but one wouldn't say history is economics or psychology is economics, etc.... But human action being an axiom it applies universally. But one axiom doesn't rule out other axioms. They are all axioms.
The Late Andrew Ryan:Economics is the study of human action, aren't ethics supposed to be based off of human action?
Yes. You are correct. But economics isn't ethics. Categorically they are distinct. That's why human action can be applied to various social sciences but one wouldn't say history is economics or psychology is economics, etc.... But human action being an axiom it applies universally. But one axiom doesn't rule out other axioms. They are all axioms.
One axiom necessarily rules out other axioms. For instance if I have an axiom which states that "All cars are red" then it rules out all axioms such as "all cars are not red" or "all cars are green". If two axioms come into direct conflict one or both must be false and are not actually axioms at all. Furthermore an axiom in one science cannot contradict another or one if false. Economics rules out the axiom "there is objective value" and therefore there can be no objective ethics per se, I will expound upon this further down in the reply.
wilderness: The Late Andrew Ryan:Or will you admit that they are arbitrary whims? At any rate if there is no objective value that will compel an individual to value something as good an evil, then it is obviously not objective. I don't know what you mean. Individuals are objective. Individuals are subjective. Could you explain.
The Late Andrew Ryan:Or will you admit that they are arbitrary whims? At any rate if there is no objective value that will compel an individual to value something as good an evil, then it is obviously not objective.
I don't know what you mean. Individuals are objective. Individuals are subjective. Could you explain.
Lol, sorry I don't really understand exactly what you are asking here. Individuals exist objectively, they value things at points in time objectively and can set objective standards, but over time they are subjective and varying, and their value preferences are, by their very nature subjective from individual to individual, therefore there can be objective standards set, I can say "killing is always wrong" and that ethic exists objectively, so in a very real sense objective ethics do exist, but only as standards. The worth behind that ethic however is entirely subjective, I can even change my mind about the ethic afterwords, I can decide that "killing is sometimes right" and that will now become my new ethic but by the judgment of the old ethic this new ethic will be immoral and wrong.
By this reasoning morality is utterly subjective in its actual worth and relevance. I feel as though I'm not being very clear here so I will attempt to clarify the position somewhat. Let's take the ethic "don't steal" now, according to this ethic, confiscating the property of others is immoral and each individual should refrain from doing so. If someone steals the wallet of another he is now immoral according the standard of ethical behavior implied within the phrase "stealing is immoral" however he is now moral under the ethic "it is moral to steal wallets" you choose your ethics, depending upon your subjective value preferences you project worth onto a set of ethics or consider one set of behaviors to be "wrong" and another "right" there is nothing objective about ethics, it varies between individuals depending upon their value preferences because there is no such thing as objective value, and over time as the value preferences of these individuals changes.
wilderness: The Late Andrew Ryan:Indeed such a principal is essential to understand, we are all but collections of molecules, how can there be any objective "good" or "evil" except what an individual deems to be "good" or "evil"? The individual always makes the decision. To clarify one thing, some objectivists point out that human action is objective. Would that make sense to you?
The Late Andrew Ryan:Indeed such a principal is essential to understand, we are all but collections of molecules, how can there be any objective "good" or "evil" except what an individual deems to be "good" or "evil"?
The individual always makes the decision. To clarify one thing, some objectivists point out that human action is objective. Would that make sense to you?
It would in the sense that human action is, by definition, always real. However it is not alway purposeful. I'm sorry if I'm missing something but quite frankly I don't understand how this is relevant
wilderness: The Late Andrew Ryan:They are both but standards that each individual sets for an action or thing. You can define ethical behavior as, say, that action which is best for the most people, But that isn't based on each individual being deliberate and purposeful. You're bringing up "most people", but human action is within or of each person. Explain.
The Late Andrew Ryan:They are both but standards that each individual sets for an action or thing. You can define ethical behavior as, say, that action which is best for the most people,
But that isn't based on each individual being deliberate and purposeful. You're bringing up "most people", but human action is within or of each person. Explain.
I was merely giving an example of an objective ethic that one could propose, I think you misunderstood me. Indeed the last part of your statement agrees with my concept of subjective morality, human action is within each individual respectively, there's not some sort of standard which can escape the fact that it is your preference and the ethics of others are their preferences.
wilderness: The Late Andrew Ryan:but this is merely your standard which you set and project out wards to the world, there is nothing objective therein. I don't understand "objective" in this context.
The Late Andrew Ryan:but this is merely your standard which you set and project out wards to the world, there is nothing objective therein.
I don't understand "objective" in this context.
It isn't objective in that it does not have any inherent value except what you and others give it.
wilderness: The Late Andrew Ryan:Please tell me how you can consider an ethical system that does not take into account human nature and reality "worth" following. Human nature doesn't equate human action. They are distinct. Human nature is the genus and human action would be a specie of human nature, categorically speaking. Human action is only about deliberate and purposeful action, ie. choices. But the nature of being human includes involuntary, non-deliberate action, ie. heart beating, etc.... Just so we are clear, not that you don't know this already. I don't understand what you mean by an ethical system "worth" following. Is that addressed to your ethical system or my ethical system? and what ethical system?
The Late Andrew Ryan:Please tell me how you can consider an ethical system that does not take into account human nature and reality "worth" following.
Human nature doesn't equate human action. They are distinct. Human nature is the genus and human action would be a specie of human nature, categorically speaking. Human action is only about deliberate and purposeful action, ie. choices. But the nature of being human includes involuntary, non-deliberate action, ie. heart beating, etc.... Just so we are clear, not that you don't know this already.
I don't understand what you mean by an ethical system "worth" following. Is that addressed to your ethical system or my ethical system? and what ethical system?
Any and every ethical system. This is talked about above. Worth means exactly what it sounds like, value, whether you value its validity, implications, ECT.
Finally I doubt that your ethical system and my ethical systems have any major differences other than that you hold yours to be somehow objective, and I understand that objectives are, by their very nature, subjective, you seem to be under the impression I am a consequentialist, I am not, I am an existentialist libertarian
The Late Andrew Ryan: wilderness: The Late Andrew Ryan:Economics is the study of human action, aren't ethics supposed to be based off of human action? Yes. You are correct. But economics isn't ethics. Categorically they are distinct. That's why human action can be applied to various social sciences but one wouldn't say history is economics or psychology is economics, etc.... But human action being an axiom it applies universally. But one axiom doesn't rule out other axioms. They are all axioms. One axiom necessarily rules out other axioms. For instance if I have an axiom which states that "All cars are red" then it rules out all axioms such as "all cars are not red" or "all cars are green".
One axiom necessarily rules out other axioms. For instance if I have an axiom which states that "All cars are red" then it rules out all axioms such as "all cars are not red" or "all cars are green".
Those are not axioms. Those are premises. There is a huge logical difference.
The Late Andrew Ryan: If two axioms come into direct conflict one or both must be false[ and are not actually axioms at all. Furthermore an axiom in one science cannot contradict another or one if false. Economics rules out the axiom "there is objective value" and therefore there can be no objective ethics per se, I will expound upon this further down in the reply.
If two axioms come into direct conflict one or both must be false[ and are not actually axioms at all. Furthermore an axiom in one science cannot contradict another or one if false. Economics rules out the axiom "there is objective value" and therefore there can be no objective ethics per se, I will expound upon this further down in the reply.
Sorry. But that's not the definition of axioms at all and is rather confusing. Axioms are what I said above. They are self-evident and undeniable. You are talking about premises.
The Late Andrew Ryan: wilderness: The Late Andrew Ryan:Or will you admit that they are arbitrary whims? At any rate if there is no objective value that will compel an individual to value something as good an evil, then it is obviously not objective. I don't know what you mean. Individuals are objective. Individuals are subjective. Could you explain. Lol, sorry I don't really understand exactly what you are asking here. Individuals exist objectively, they value things at points in time objectively and can set objective standards, but over time they are subjective and varying, and their value preferences are, by their very nature subjective from individual to individual, therefore there can be objective standards set, I can say "killing is always wrong" and that ethic exists objectively, so in a very real sense objective ethics do exist, but only as standards.
Lol, sorry I don't really understand exactly what you are asking here. Individuals exist objectively, they value things at points in time objectively and can set objective standards, but over time they are subjective and varying, and their value preferences are, by their very nature subjective from individual to individual, therefore there can be objective standards set, I can say "killing is always wrong" and that ethic exists objectively, so in a very real sense objective ethics do exist, but only as standards.
ok. No argument from me here.
The Late Andrew Ryan:The worth behind that ethic however is entirely subjective, I can even change my mind about the ethic afterwords, I can decide that "killing is sometimes right" and that will now become my new ethic but by the judgment of the old ethic this new ethic will be immoral and wrong.
I have no arguments with that.
The Late Andrew Ryan:By this reasoning morality is utterly subjective in its actual worth and relevance.
No. Because then you dismiss the value that you previously discussed yourself above IF you mean by subjective=value.
The Late Andrew Ryan:I feel as though I'm not being very clear here so I will attempt to clarify the position somewhat. Let's take the ethic "don't steal" now, according to this ethic, confiscating the property of others is immoral and each individual should refrain from doing so. If someone steals the wallet of another he is now immoral according the standard of ethical behavior implied within the phrase "stealing is immoral" however he is now moral under the ethic "it is moral to steal wallets" you choose your ethics,
I base my ethics on economics and stealing is not economically valid. It destroys capital and makes even barter impossible if taken to the extreme.
The Late Andrew Ryan:depending upon your subjective value preferences you project worth onto a set of ethics or consider one set of behaviors to be "wrong" and another "right" there is nothing objective about ethics,
depends, but so far you understanding of subjective doesn't conflict with how I understand objective. Your subjective ethics and anothers objective ethics, we are using two different words. I am not sure if I am a subjective or objective ethicists. I never really have made up my mind as I find these terms to quickly become meaningless when we discuss what we actually mean by those terms.
The Late Andrew Ryan:it varies between individuals depending upon their value preferences because there is no such thing as objective value, and over time as the value preferences of these individuals changes.
It depends on what you mean by "objective value". You made value objective when you typed it here, in one sense of the word objective. You made it understood to others in order that others can observe these words and preferences of yours.
The Late Andrew Ryan: wilderness: The Late Andrew Ryan:Indeed such a principal is essential to understand, we are all but collections of molecules, how can there be any objective "good" or "evil" except what an individual deems to be "good" or "evil"? The individual always makes the decision. To clarify one thing, some objectivists point out that human action is objective. Would that make sense to you? It would in the sense that human action is, by definition, always real. However it is not alway purposeful. I'm sorry if I'm missing something but quite frankly I don't understand how this is relevant
Human action by definition is always purposeful. That's praxeological. And I say that because I'm really having a difficult time understanding how you are using the terms subjective and objective. And it's not your fault. It's the terms that themselves that I find no use for, unless you could explain what you mean by those terms. The meaning is what I want to know about.
The Late Andrew Ryan: wilderness: The Late Andrew Ryan:They are both but standards that each individual sets for an action or thing. You can define ethical behavior as, say, that action which is best for the most people, But that isn't based on each individual being deliberate and purposeful. You're bringing up "most people", but human action is within or of each person. Explain. I was merely giving an example of an objective ethic that one could propose, I think you misunderstood me. Indeed the last part of your statement agrees with my concept of subjective morality, human action is within each individual respectively, there's not some sort of standard which can escape the fact that it is your preference and the ethics of others are their preferences.
I don't know of an objective ethics that would disagree with that to be honest. Keep in mind I have yet to label myself as an objective ethicist as I find it more useful to discuss the denotations of these terms or the meaning of these terms.
The Late Andrew Ryan: wilderness: The Late Andrew Ryan:but this is merely your standard which you set and project out wards to the world, there is nothing objective therein. I don't understand "objective" in this context. It isn't objective in that it does not have any inherent value except what you and others give it.
ok, but if it's what I or others give it, then it's of our preferences.
The Late Andrew Ryan: wilderness: The Late Andrew Ryan:Please tell me how you can consider an ethical system that does not take into account human nature and reality "worth" following. Human nature doesn't equate human action. They are distinct. Human nature is the genus and human action would be a specie of human nature, categorically speaking. Human action is only about deliberate and purposeful action, ie. choices. But the nature of being human includes involuntary, non-deliberate action, ie. heart beating, etc.... Just so we are clear, not that you don't know this already. I don't understand what you mean by an ethical system "worth" following. Is that addressed to your ethical system or my ethical system? and what ethical system? Any and every ethical system. This is talked about above. Worth means exactly what it sounds like, value, whether you value its validity, implications, ECT.
Ok. We both have meant this, and nobody has said otherwise. I really don't see the difference between what you're trying to explain and what an objectivist would try to explain.
The Late Andrew Ryan:Finally I doubt that your ethical system and my ethical systems have any major differences other than that you hold yours to be somehow objective,
I haven't said if mine is "objective". I've argued that I don't hold either position due to semantics, but I might hold one of those positions in the way I act. I haven't been able to accurately label the adjective of my ethics for nearly as long as I've been in these forums. I've argued from both sides and only argue against mishaps in a mediator style as I find objectivists and subjectists talk past each so often and don't realize that they are talking about the same thing. I have yet to find out what you mean by "objective". If you could define that it would be very helpful. Usually some people don't have the patience with me when I get this far with them on what I'm trying to relate as to what my ethics are. Thank you for being forthcoming and patient with me thus far.
The Late Andrew Ryan:and I understand that objectives are, by their very nature, subjective, you seem to be under the impression I am a consequentialist, I am not, I am an existentialist libertarian
I don't know what a "consequentialist" or a "existentialist" libertarian are. I know the former is discussed much on this forum, but I haven't found those topics to be of interest to further pursue as of yet. My interests in learning since I've been here have been first logic with some political/ethical books thrown in. Yet even in the latter books I was very interested in the logic and have studied the terminology as much as possible and have read various books of Aristotle or Aquinas' commentary on Aristotle, etc.... But never in the books that I have read have subjective, objective, nihlist, etc... come up and if they ever have their purpose in explanation wasn't very relevant to the totality of the books goals. Those terms are usually discussed a lot on this forum which I find, as I mentioned previously, to not be very meaningful and personally speaking don't provide much understanding. I've only recently begun to get into economics as I've slowly worked my way into being able to comprehend economics in a fashion that I think knowing logic will be of significance. Near when I first came to these forums I discovered the importance of logic. Then reading Aquinas he said logic should be the second subject people learn (math being first). Lastly, when Mises was asked by a student at a seminar or something, what is the first economic book that he should read and Mises said "Intro. to Logic" by Cohen. I bought that book and have slowly been reading it. It's fascinating. Anyways enough of my tangent and jabbering. Generally that's what I've pursued since coming here. I'd be interested in knowing what an existentialist libertarian is.
Jackson LaRose:So now I am to be faulted for misunderstanding what you are trying to communicate to me?
You're trolling, and whenever someone calls out your bullshit, you play the victim. It's very boring to be honest.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Esuric:You're trolling, and whenever someone calls out your bullshit, you play the victim. It's very boring to be honest.
Why do you think I'm trolling?
Jackson LaRose: Esuric:You're trolling, and whenever someone calls out your bullshit, you play the victim. It's very boring to be honest. Why do you think I'm trolling?
Because you attack everyone else's position on ethics and property, but when your premise that supports the attack is confronted you recoil.
Also you have yet to clarify your position on ethics. A whole day has gone by and you conveniently have decided to start ignoring my probing questions.
filc: filc:Ethics is a code of conduct described to attempt to achieve a desired end, or ends. Jackson LaRose:If those ends are answering questions about the morality of actions. Speak to me like im a kindergartener. Can you re-word this sentence for me? I don't see how it follows that ends answer questions about morality. Morals guide our actions to achieve ends. For example, it would be immoral for me to kill. The end would be that I am a good Christian because of not killing. The morals are my guide to acquire the end. The end is the end, it is not answer anything. Being a good Christian does not answer anything, it just is. Now the morals involve answer us how we should conduct ourselves to achieve the end. filc:Do you agree to my definition or not Jackson LaRose:Only in the context explained above. And in what context would you disagree? Forgive me I thought you were going to start clarifying your positions. I hate to keep asking you. Jackson LaRose:If you started asking specific questions, I'd give specific responses. My questions above were extremely specific, and you provided non specific answers. So much so that I constantly have to go back and re-ask the same questions to dig through your evasiveness.
filc:Ethics is a code of conduct described to attempt to achieve a desired end, or ends.
Jackson LaRose:If those ends are answering questions about the morality of actions.
Speak to me like im a kindergartener. Can you re-word this sentence for me? I don't see how it follows that ends answer questions about morality. Morals guide our actions to achieve ends. For example, it would be immoral for me to kill. The end would be that I am a good Christian because of not killing. The morals are my guide to acquire the end.
The end is the end, it is not answer anything. Being a good Christian does not answer anything, it just is. Now the morals involve answer us how we should conduct ourselves to achieve the end.
filc:Do you agree to my definition or not
Jackson LaRose:Only in the context explained above.
And in what context would you disagree? Forgive me I thought you were going to start clarifying your positions. I hate to keep asking you.
Jackson LaRose:If you started asking specific questions, I'd give specific responses.
My questions above were extremely specific, and you provided non specific answers. So much so that I constantly have to go back and re-ask the same questions to dig through your evasiveness.
filc:My questions above were extremely specific, and you provided non specific answers. So much so that I constantly have to go back and re-ask the same questions to dig through your evasiveness.
Just because you can't seem to understand my answers, doesn't mean I'm being evasive. It could be equally as possible you are dense.
filc:Speak to me like im a kindergartener.
OK, I'll try to make this as explicit and simplistic as possible.
I disagree with this definition, because it seems to imply (as I understand it) that ethics can be applied when attempting to achieve any kind of end (being happy, getting food, relieving my poison ivy rash). I think this definition could work if only one type of end was desired, namely:
filc:answering questions about the morality of actions.
That, to me, is all ethics are good for.
If I want a dollar bill, I don't apply ethics to figure out how to get it, I come up with possible actions that I think give me a reasonable chance at getting the dollar. Let's say I come up with three possible actions I can take to get the dollar:
1. ask a friend
2. mug someone
3. work at my lemonade stand
Now, at this point, I might begin to weigh ethical questions when making my choice about which action to take, if it is important to me which actions are more/less moral than the other two. Ethics does not help me achieve the end of "getting the dollar", it only helps me achieve the end of "making the most morally "good" choice". Do you understand?
This is why I added that caveat to your definition.
Jackson LaRose: That, to me, is all ethics are good for. If I want a dollar bill, I don't apply ethics to figure out how to get it, I come up with possible actions that I think give me a reasonable chance at getting the dollar. Let's say I come up with three possible actions I can take to get the dollar: 1. ask a friend 2. mug someone 3. work at my lemonade stand Now, at this point, I might begin to weigh ethical questions when making my choice about which action to take, if it is important to me which actions are more/less moral than the other two. Ethics does not help me achieve the end of "getting the dollar", it only helps me achieve the end of "making the most morally "good" choice". Do you understand? This is why I added that caveat to your definition.
And what if my decisions are purely based on economics, not on ethics. What if the formation of property was an economic attribute, not an ethical one. That people chose to acknowledge property not becuase it was the right thing to do, but because it made the most economic sense to them personally. This becomes exacerbated across all capital owners. To state otherwise is a conflation of economics with ethics simply because it is an economic viewpoint that many can agree apon. The same could be said for the market, many agree on the market but by your definition does that make it an ethical system? As economics can tell us what is the right, or wrong they to do, assuming we want personal prosperity.
The reasoning why mugging may outweigh in costs over benefits is due to how this action may be perceived by others in possession of goods. It may have an effect on future market dealings with capitalist possessors. If people who possess capital hear that I choose the action of theft and muggign they may decide not to do business with me. This would undermine my point of mugging. So having that forsight would deter me from being a mugger. Ethics never enters into it. I'm not saying all theives have this forsight. I'm saying many a common man recognize that they would prefer to exchange possessions with others, and that their possessions and likewise their exchanges, would be respected as such. Not on an ethical level, only out of an economic level.
Jackson LaRose:That, to me, is all ethics are good for.
This makes the definition of morality circular.
Ethics = morality = ethics = morality. You have to be even more explicit.
Still if I understand morality as I understand ethics, all it does is create a set of guidelines to shape our action to help us attempt at achieve a desired end.
For example, If I want to go to heaven I have to praise Alah. My morals create guidelines to that end.
All that is set is a premise, the morals are the recomended actions to reach the goal of that premise. (Same as ethics, code of conduct, ect...)
The same could be said for eating, and any other premise.
Premise:
I should satisfy my hunger when I am hungry by eating.
If I am hungry the moral thing to do would be to eat. If I starve myself I would be violating my own code of ethics.
However on the flip side,
If my premise is to starve myself, I would then be violating my morals by eating.
This can be witnessed by people who have different ethics/morals. Satanists vs Christians for example and Socialists vs Capitalists ect...
All you have described for us is a guideline, a set of codes or procedures, from which to direct our actions, that help us achieve an end.
In my case above the end is purely an economic one. Capitalists want to invest their capital, and they want to do so with the least amount of risk. Ethics aside, they will choose to do business with people they trust. Whether theivery is right or wrong is besides the point, people prefer to work the least amount of time for the most gain. Under the economic insentives they would be deterred from dealing with the theives. Again ethics has nothing to do with it. This is why when Wilderness, Esuric, and I are talking about property, we are not saying we have a moral right to property. We are saying that property naturally exists, as an economic phenomena in interpersonal exchange.
Can you in no way shape or form fathom the possibility that property can exist outside of the plain of ethics? That people choose to acknowledge property because they have economic intensives to do so?
Also, I hate to do this, but you will have to further clarify your definition of ethics and now morals. Morality is just another code for "Whats right" and "Whats wrong" just like ethics. But whats right and wrong depends on your premise. A premise can be as narrow or as wide as we like.
filc:And what if my decisions are purely based on economics, not on ethics. What if the formation of property was an economic attribute, not an ethical one. That people chose to acknowledge property not becuase it was the right thing to do, but because it made the most economic sense to them personally. This becomes exacerbated across all capital owners. To state otherwise is a conflation of economics with ethics simply because it is an economic viewpoint that many can agree apon. The same could be said for the market, many agree on the market but by your definition does that make it an ethical system? As economics can tell us what is the right, or wrong they to do, assuming we want personal prosperity.
Let me put out a scenario to show you how I am interpreting this passage.
filc (a natural rights believer) and Jack (a natural rights non-believer) are in a room. filc is sitting in a chair, loading a gun. Jack is standing, gazing longingly at the comfy looking chair, in which filc rests. After loading up, filc gets up out of the chair, places a placard reading,
"WARNING! PROPERTY OF FILC. NO TRESPASSING UNDER PENALTY OF DEATH"
on the seat of the chair, and stands next to it, casting a "dirty Harry"-esque glance at Jack. Jack, whose feet are really starting to ache, is presented with a choice.
Ignore filc's (is Jack's mind, non-existent) claim of "ownership" over the "property" (chair) in question, and possibly get shot and killed in the process, or remain standing, even though he'd really like to have a seat.
He decides he values standing with the known discomfort,more than sitting with the risk of being put six feet under. Does he hold any regard for this claim of "ownership of property"? No, he does not take that into consideration at all. He just is afraid of what filc might do if he felt "violated".
If that's what you meant, than I would totally agree with you.
filc: This makes the definition of morality circular. Ethics = morality = ethics = morality. You have to be even more explicit.
I don't see why. It should be more like this:
Ideology/axoims/premises leads to morals.
Ethics is used to determine the morality of specific actions.
Example:
I believe X is morally good. I want to execute action Y. How does action Y relate to belief X? This would be a question you would apply ethics to.