Re: Vichy Army,
Morality is ridiculous nonsense; it's not even logically possible to get away from arbitrary personal preferences.
Personal preferences are irrelevant; what counts is ACTIONS, and actions can be either MORAL (i.e. good) or IMMORAL (i.e. evil). What constitutes good or evil is what we have ethics for, but from an argumentation ethics standpoint, violating a person's rights (property, life, freedom) is EVIL, and thus IMMORAL.
Yeah, I am not even going to respond to contentless assertions.
Argumentation ethics is garbage.
“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre
What's "contentless" about the fact that actions like thieving are inherently immoral? Or do you like having things stolen from you?
What I see is that you prefer not to argue to defend a preconceived notion that markets are "amoral". They cannot be "amoral" since the very actions of the participans are moral in themselves.
Again, morality is nonsense. There is no 'ought' without sidereal constraints and arbitrarily posited values combined with concepts about achieving ends.
What's "contentless" about the fact that actions like thieving are inherently immoral?
The word 'immoral' means nothing.
Or do you like having things stolen from you?
Irrelevant. Genghis Khan didn't like resistance, so his enemies were immoral, right?
From your convoluted wording I gather you are confusing morality with physics. [Censored insult]
Really? Again, you like to have things stolen from you?
Wrong - you're relying on sophistry. You don't even know how to argue.
Let me give you one just as ridiculous: A rapist does not like his victims to resist, so resisting is immoral, right? Makes as much sense as what you wrote.
Stealing implies violence. Resisting implies a reaction TO violence, committed by someone. In the cases above, both the rapist and Ghenghis Kahn are committing evil (i.e. immoral) acts, not the victims.
*sigh*
Same here, pal.
"What's "contentless" about the fact that actions like thieving are inherently immoral?" Immoral to you, maybe. Your conception of morality does not hold on anyone else necessarily.
Immoral to you, maybe. Your conception of morality does not hold on anyone else necessarily.
If there were starving children outside a private warehouse full of grain.....I'd proudly thieve.
Re: Gregory Drew,
"MY" conception? Could not I derive moral principles from reasoning, and if so, could they still be "my" opinion?
"Vichy, the decision to ENGAGE in peacefull exchange IS a moral decision." Assertion. Not so, Greg. Again, engaging in exchange versus thieving is a moral decision. That's not an assertion, it's a conclusion. "I just don't commit evil acts." Maybe from your point of view. Not from my point of view. Again, one can arrive at moral principles from reasoning, which would not make them mere opinion. What is your problem with cost/benefit analysis? I have no problem with cost/benefit analysis. I just don't use cost/benefit analysis to justify actions, as that would lead to obscuring evil acts. You have no idea why people are making the choices they are, their actions could be coming from their sense of morality, or I could think that stealing will lead to retaliation and no one will trade with me ever again. Intentions are irrelevant, ACTIONS are not. An ACT that is good is still good no matter if the person rationalized it or not. Actions can be immoral or moral from the point of view of someone else, but what if they don't believe in morality? Are they just stupid and thats it? I don't know what they are, if stupid or not. Is it important? Does stupidity justify evil? Would you feel better if your assailant or rapist did not believe in morality, would it justify his violent acts, against you, in your mind? Or would it not? I feel theres a contradiction here. You start to say morality depends on subjective values[...] I have made no such assertion, you just made that one up. (thats all they are) then you go on to say violating a persons rights is evil and immoral- what about from the point of view of the violator? Taking stuff is obviously good to him. Can you define rights in a non arbitrary fashion? Why would it be important to judge acts from the standpoint of the violator? Would YOU do that if it were YOUR violator? Would i make you feel better that he found the experience enjoyable? Immoral to you, maybe. Your conception of morality does not hold on anyone else necessarily. Again, not "my" conception of morality. Moral principles can be derived from reasoning. You on the other hand seem not to be concerned about all the perfunctory contradictions you committed. | Post Points: 5
"I just don't commit evil acts." Maybe from your point of view. Not from my point of view. Again, one can arrive at moral principles from reasoning, which would not make them mere opinion. What is your problem with cost/benefit analysis? I have no problem with cost/benefit analysis. I just don't use cost/benefit analysis to justify actions, as that would lead to obscuring evil acts. You have no idea why people are making the choices they are, their actions could be coming from their sense of morality, or I could think that stealing will lead to retaliation and no one will trade with me ever again. Intentions are irrelevant, ACTIONS are not. An ACT that is good is still good no matter if the person rationalized it or not. Actions can be immoral or moral from the point of view of someone else, but what if they don't believe in morality? Are they just stupid and thats it? I don't know what they are, if stupid or not. Is it important? Does stupidity justify evil? Would you feel better if your assailant or rapist did not believe in morality, would it justify his violent acts, against you, in your mind? Or would it not? I feel theres a contradiction here. You start to say morality depends on subjective values[...] I have made no such assertion, you just made that one up. (thats all they are) then you go on to say violating a persons rights is evil and immoral- what about from the point of view of the violator? Taking stuff is obviously good to him. Can you define rights in a non arbitrary fashion? Why would it be important to judge acts from the standpoint of the violator? Would YOU do that if it were YOUR violator? Would i make you feel better that he found the experience enjoyable? Immoral to you, maybe. Your conception of morality does not hold on anyone else necessarily. Again, not "my" conception of morality. Moral principles can be derived from reasoning. You on the other hand seem not to be concerned about all the perfunctory contradictions you committed.
What is your problem with cost/benefit analysis?
You have no idea why people are making the choices they are, their actions could be coming from their sense of morality, or I could think that stealing will lead to retaliation and no one will trade with me ever again.
Actions can be immoral or moral from the point of view of someone else, but what if they don't believe in morality? Are they just stupid and thats it?
I feel theres a contradiction here. You start to say morality depends on subjective values[...]
(thats all they are) then you go on to say violating a persons rights is evil and immoral- what about from the point of view of the violator? Taking stuff is obviously good to him. Can you define rights in a non arbitrary fashion?
Which makes you nothing more than a damned thief. I would buy the grain.
By the way,
Vichy Army wrote:
Humans are well wired to understand 'in this together' and direct cooperation. Indirect cooperation, especially ones involving basically amoral self equilibrating mechanisms which are not dependent on intentions, are both confusing and offensive to normal morality. This is why markets alienate them, and also why customary law just doesn't click in their heads. The latter is true of many libertarians, too, who get into silly 'angels on pinhead' arguments over natural law, etc.
This is a moral argument against markets, yet Vichy [INSULT DELETED] replies to me with:
So what was the POINT of what he argued first?
This is a moral argument against markets, yet Vichy (being the arrogant fool) replies to me with:
It is nothing of the kind. It is a set of psychological mechanisms developed through the process in a largely sum-zero universe with only fairly limited, direct cooperation and largely egalitarian property norms. That is what it means, sociobiology. THIS is what morality is, and regardless of your mad notions I have no 'moral' constraints at all. However it is impossible to justify these, as they are facts and not subject to 'refutation'; they lack ontological status except as subjective values. Which means they could potentially be arbitrary, and there would be no decided amongst them. Indeed, they may not exist at all! That is my view, that once one realises that 'right' is nothing but a subjective complex one realises they are not things that can be argued about. Some of this don't have this sense at all.
Old Mexican:I can make THOUSANDS of cost/benefit analysis until the cows come home, that would not justify my actions (I consider Utilitarianism pure quackery); the fact is that engaging in peaceful exchange versus thievery IS a moral decision.
Would you agree that there can be amoral individuals, or are all beings (maybe just self-aware beings?) inheirently moral?
Possibly; or you may not care, being a person that's not good at confrontations, like Marty McFly's father. Who cares? If on the other hand you believe that thievery is WRONG, that is EVIL, then you won't have to bother with such calculations.
Of course, if you thought the concepts of (normative) "wrong" and "evil" were superfluous, then you would have to rely on some other potential action analysis.
You're confusing morality with culture.
How?
It is nothing of the kind.
Indirect cooperation, especially ones involving basically amoral self equilibrating mechanisms which are not dependent on intentions, are both confusing and offensive to normal morality.
THAT is a moral argument, not a psychological argument. You just judge the mechanisms to be "amoral" because they don't judge "intentions."
However it is impossible to justify these, as they are facts and not subject to 'refutation'; they lack ontological status except as subjective values.
They are subject to refutation - you can try to refute the statement "It is wrong to murder a person."
Moral principles can be derived from reasoning. Biology (or nature) only allowed us to have a brain to find these principles, that's all.
Re: Jackson LaRose,
Individuals can be purple, if they wanted to be. What is judged are actions, not intentions. Thieving is WRONG whether the person committing the violent act is moral or amoral.
You can rely on your National Enquirer horoscope for all I care. It is ACTIONS which are judged, not intentions. The point is that markets ARE moral in the sense that the actions that make up the market ARE moral in themselves, otherwise you would NOT have a market. So Vichy Army is being wrong when thinking that markets are inherently AMORAL and thus is wrong in his conclusion that MORAL people find markets abhorent. That was the whole point of the discussion - you chose to put me to task instead of the one that wrote the big whopper.
You're confusing morality with culture. How?
Cultural conventionalisms and morality are not the same - you seem to be lumping them together. People may find prostitution immoral because they don't like the idea themselves, but that does not mean that a voluntary exchange between two consenting adults is inherently immoral. People confuse their hangups with morality and other people then tend to confuse moral principles with hangups. I do not - I judge actions by how they affect people's rights (life, property, liberty). From this I can derive moral principles: It is wrong to steal, it is wrong to murder, it is wrong to enslave or unduly hinder a person's liberty. But I certainly do not justify actions by the good intentions behind them or the seeming soundness of a cost/benefit analysis, which is the utilitarian approach. I would not feel better if the guy who stole from me showed me the cost/benefit analysis he generated, I would still be out of what he stole.
Gregory Drew:Old Mexican, can you define the terms you are using here? Morality, good, evil, you're just throwing these words around as if everyone is supposed to agree with your conception of good and bad.
He won't, because he can't without reducing his position to triviality.
“If you wish to converse with me,” said Voltaire, “define your terms.” How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to the strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task.
- Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy
He is welcome to prove me wrong by defining his terms.
Why anarchy fails
Old Mexican:The point is that markets ARE moral in the sense that the actions that make up the market ARE moral in themselves, otherwise you would NOT have a market.
Well, I suppose if you consider voluntary exchange as a moral action, then I understand what you are saying, but I still disagree with your premise. I think the following quote should explain the fundamental contention:
Moral principles can be derived from reasoning.
Which may or may not be the case. I'm not here to argue the validity of argumentation ethics, but I am more than willing to argue that you as an individual are too ignorant and unobservant (nothing personal, I believe we all are) to be capable of formulating universally applicable, and eternally valid, normative laws.
To put it another way, the methodological approach of applying logic and reason to deduce laws may be valid (I have my doubts), but even if it were, humanity is incapable of attaining "perfect" knowledge, therefore is incapable of developing "perfect" reason, therefore is incapable of divining "perfect" laws of conduct.
Old Mexican:People confuse their hangups with morality and other people then tend to confuse moral principles with hangups. I do not - I judge actions by how they affect people's rights (life, property, liberty).
You know some might consider your faith in the rights of individuals as a rather big "hang-up".
AJ, you got it on the money (yet again). I've literally typed pages of muck on this forum based around confusion and conflation of terms. Semantics and language are harsh mistresses...
Really? Is it important? What do YOU think - That's important. Do YOU think your rights are someone's "hang up"?
Old Mexican:Do YOU think your rights are someone's "hang up"?
I don't think I have rights, so yes. If you think I have rights, that is your "hang up". Really, I don't have much to do with it either way.
Jackson LaRose,
I don't think I have rights, so yes.
You don't think you have a right to your life? Would you not object then if I take it?
Are you accostumed to making these perfunctory contradictions?
I'm not here to argue the validity of argumentation ethics, but I am more than willing to argue that you as an individual are too ignorant and unobservant (nothing personal, I believe we all are) to be capable of formulating universally applicable, and eternally valid, normative laws.
That's a self-defeating argument, Jackson - it works the other way, too: You as an individual are too ignorant to arrive at ANY universally-applicable notion, like for instance: you may fall if you go off a cliff, or you may die if you drink poison.
We may all strive to perfection, but the notion that we cannot arrive at principles because as humans we're fallible is a self-defeating argument, because YOUR argument could simply NOT be valid EVER - you're fallible, right?
Let's not beat around the bush - justifying the State is paramount for State-worshippers, so denying the validity of rights has to be paramount as well, even to the point of reaching as absurd a notion as saying "I have no rights", which is a perfunctory contradiction (you CERTAINLY have the right to write that conclusion, as nobody stopped you from using your computer, typing in it, and thinking your words.)
Old Mexican:You don't think you have a right to your life? Would you not object then if I take it?
I would object.
This is were it usually begins to get ugly. I will explain that simply because I object, it does not imply that I am justified in objecting (or rather, it does not imply that it is a "good" thing to resist being murdered). Then you will say that my objection implies my assertion of said right (the right to life), then I will say that's bullshit, and you will say it isn't, yada, yada, so on and so forth. This is a conversational cul-de-sac, much like a Muslim and a Christian arguing over who is the one with the actual true doctrine. You have your faith, I have mine.
Let me guess, this will parlay to you attempting to explain how your belief in the absolute validity of your convictions is somehow not a statement of faith. Been there. Done that.
Hey, presto! Man, did I call it or what? Honestly, I hadn't even read your next response before typing the preceeding passage.
Yes, I am too ignorant to arrive at any law (aka universally appliciable notion). I completely agree with you. I don't know what would happen if I jumped off a cliff, or drank poison. I've never done so. Honestly, I've been too afraid of falling or dying to try either. I take it as a matter of faith that either outcome would be assured if I followed through with either action.
Ah, I knew you'd get it. Yes, my argument could be true or untrue, just as much as yours. This is probably why we are having this discussion, because neither of us know the "truth". This is why there is disagreement between us. If either of our positions were absolutely irrefutable, this correspondence would probably have been a lot shorter.
This is a big conceptual difference I have with most Hoppelites, which at this point seems almost completely irreconcilable. I cannot wrap my head around the fact that you seem more than willing to imply that action equates to justification (I use my computer, therefore I have a right to use my computer) when it suits your premise, but then turn around and state that some actions are unjustified, even though they have occured (I have murdered but I had no right to do so). Why is it naturally implicit that I have a right to use my computer? Because of your "logically deduced" golden rule? The monolithic edifice that argumentation ethics attempts to construct has already been shown to have cracks (many threads on this forum concerning Libertarian doctrine towards children, invalids, animals, aliens etc.). Not to mention the rather arbitrary presupposition that it is vital to remain logically consistent. To quote AJ,
"Does it (epistemologic error) hurt?"
Why is it neccessary to have a completely logically consistent philosophy?
Oh, and great job with the subtle ad hominem implying I am a statist because I do not believe rights exist, or have to exist for an anarchic society to be viable. Karl Rove would be proud.
Also, please don't start a petty semantic squabble about the meaning of the word "right". I went down that dark and stromy path once with the word "property" (shudder).
I'm guessing that somewhere in the halls of the LVMI form moderator Olympus, NirgrahamUK is shouting,
"Release the Angurse!!!"
The only guy I've ever been in contact with who likes to argue more than me. It must be something ingrained in the genetics of French-Canadians, a group of people who have been giving the finger to other groups of people for the last 400 or so years...
Why would you object? How would you object? You have no rights, remember?
This is were it usually begins to get ugly. I will explain that simply because I object, it does not imply that I am justified in objecting (or rather, it does not imply that it is a "good" thing to resist being murdered).
You're not making any sense. If you resist, is because you don't want to be killed. Why wouldn't you? You said that you don't have rights.
I cannot wrap my head around the fact that you seem more than willing to imply that action equates to justification (I use my computer, therefore I have a right to use my computer) when it suits your premise, but then turn around and state that some actions are unjustified, even though they have occured (I have murdered but I had no right to do so).
It doesn't equate to justification, you're making that one up. I deduced you had access and will and freedom to your computer and I don't assume you were coerced to write what you wrote - unless you were, you can correct me in that case. I am NOT JUSTIFYING your actions based on the result. I told everybody above - I make no utilitarian judgments.
I went down that dark and stromy path once with the word "property" (shudder).
Do you have a link to that "property" debate thread? I don't recall that one
Old Mexican:Why would you object?
I don't want to die at this particular point in time.
How would you object?
I suppose it depends on the situation.
You have no rights, remember?
Nor does the potential murderer. See, I told you rights were unecessary and irrelevant.
You're not making any sense.
Maybe. Or maybe you don't (or can't) understand the point I am trying to make. This is starting to get dangerously close to the "meaning of property" fiasco death spiral of a thread filc and I were locked in a while back.
If you resist, is because you don't want to be killed.
Yes.
Why wouldn't you?
Hmm. I'd say fear of the uncertainty involved in death.
You said that you don't have rights.
I don't understand how this follows. I think you are trying to say,
"If I don't want to die, and I attempt to prevent myself form dying, I must be asserting my right to live", which I disagree with.
How do access, will, and freedom equate to a right? A right is simply a justification for action appealing to some moral or ethical norm.
Oh man, I bet I'm going to end up regreting posting that last sentence...
Dondoolee:Do you have a link to that "property" debate thread? I don't recall that one
[LOL, SUPER MOD POWERS]
Believe me, you don't want to! But if you insist:
It started here
and ended here
I hope you have about 8 hours to kill. It's a lot of words with little substance.
Ahh, yes now I recall. That is a bit too much to shift through, thanks for the links though.
Aw, c'mon, man. That's what his old name actually meant!
Who's old name ?
P.S. have you heard of this new hero in town called supermod? I wonder who he could be?
And? Again,you have no rights - you said so yourself. What makes you think you have a right to object to your murder?
Nor does the potential murderer.
Certainly. Do you think he knows that?
I don't understand how this follows.
You don't because you don't want to. If you don't have rights, you would then not have freedom to decide if your life is to be spared or not, no matter how unappealing the idea of dying. If you say you do have the freedom to decide, then you would be contradticting yourself.
Which means you would be committing a perfunctory contradiction. Of COURSE you are asserting your right to life - I am not talking to a barnacle, am I?
How do access, will, and freedom equate to a right?
It's not a simple justification to action, Jackson - you may say that you have a right to someone else's wife and then take action. Would you be right, or would then say that the wife has no right to object, like you did above?
A right is the freedom to act UNCOERCED and NON AGGRESSIVELY (i.e. acting in a MORAL way). That's it. It is NOT an A Posteriori justification for acts, like YOU said.
I think you need to head over to the "What is a right?" thread, Mexican, because you have a very broad and confusing definition of the term.
Old Mexican:What makes you think you have a right to object to your murder?
I don't think I have the right to object to my murder. In fact, I don't think rights even exist! I thought we already agreed that we don't need the "right" to act in order to act. For example, in your moral ideology, murderers don't have the right to murder. Yet murders still occur. Do you understand?
If you don't have rights, you would then not have freedom to decide if your life is to be spared or not, no matter how unappealing the idea of dying. If you say you do have the freedom to decide, then you would be contradticting yourself.
I disagree with this notion. Observe:
ahem,
"I, Jackson LaRose, being of sound mind and body, do willingly renounce my right to life."
Well, I'm still here. There is a difference between having something and having the right to something. Much like the difference between possession and property (I'm just asking for it now).
Which means you would be committing a perfunctory contradiction.
Why?
Of COURSE you are asserting your right to life - I am not talking to a barnacle, am I?
I disagree. Mmm, barnacle...
Don't ask me, I think right and wrong are made up.
Cripes, I knew it. Semantics again. I'll spare you the trouble and just let you know is that the best we can do at this point is agree to disagree about the definition of the term. If you still want to discuss, I would take Michael J Green's advice and head over to the What is a Right? thread. Clayton and AJ can elucidate far better than I.
You're jesting, right?
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/2007/B47.xls
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Marlen,
Thanks for getting the thread back on its rails. Sorry everyone.