1)yes (but you shouldnt)
2)these laws exist if moral agents are possible
3)because they are not physical laws, or logical laws, they are transgressable in physical terms . They are moral laws. i explained that already.
4)nothing happens to them physically, what happens to them is an ethical phenomenon.
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
nirgrahamUK: 1)yes (but you shouldnt) 2)these laws exist if moral agents are possible 3)because they are not physical laws, or logical laws, they are transgressable in physical terms . They are moral laws. i explained that already. 4)nothing happens to them physically, what happens to them is an ethical phenomenon.
1. Telling some people they shouldn't isn't good enough. You have to tell them "this is what happens if you do."
2. Moral agents like yourself aren't always around and don't always have the power to instill morality in everyone. There are always going to be people like me, except a million times worse, who will laugh in your face and steal and kill unless you give them a better reason not to.
3. Moral laws seems kind of like an oxymoron. Maybe we should call them moral guidelines? Because guidelines are like suggestions but...they can either be taken or not taken.
4. So explain to me this "ethical phenomenon", does it hurt people?
1)isnt good enough for what? and it does tell people what happens if they do. it tells them they are bad/wrong
2) yes, well we defend against those people. so what ?
3) moral laws are no more oxymoronic than laws of logical argumentation. you can transgress them, you can say 'square circles are possible', but you are wrong in this regard. you can say, (P and not P) and you will have transgressed the rules of logical argument. thunderbolts dont strike you down. you will still be wrong
4) not necessarily
nirgrahamUK: 1)isnt good enough for what? and it does tell people what happens if they do. it tells them they are bad/wrong 2) yes, well we defend against those people. so what ? 3) moral laws are no more oxymoronic than laws of logical argumentation. you can transgress them, you can say 'square circles are possible', but you are wrong in this regard. you can say, (P and not P) and you will have transgressed the rules of logical argument. thunderbolts dont strike you down. you will still be wrong 4) not necessarily
1. That doesn't even work on 4 year olds, you're telling me it's going to work on adults who will realize that...there's no punishment for being good or bad?
2. How are we going to defend those people if they outnumber us and have bigger guns?
3. Yes but I can't actually make a square circle. It's not possible. But I can break your moral laws. Why have mods? They're like the thunderbolt hurlers of forums. Someone has to be hurling thunderbolts in your anarchist region.
O and 4. So what happens?
Jacob Bloom: 3. Yes but I can't actually make a square circle. It's not possible. But I can break your moral laws. Why have mods? They're like the thunderbolt hurlers of forums. Someone has to be hurling thunderbolts in your anarchist region.
Once again you are conflating physical laws with logical or ethical laws.
By the way, you are using logic when you state that a square circle is impossible. You can not prove it through induction alone, see David Hume. You are proving it through the laws of identity and the excluded middle. Observation alone can't help you, so you are implicitly recognising the existence of laws that are outside the realm of observation. You are being inconsistent when you reject ethics for not conforming to physical phenomena.
I don't see this conversation getting anywhere until you brush up on your philosophy, including epistemology and ethics.
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
1) disincentives comes from people not likeing what you did. you are asking too much of moral systems. they are not supposed to tyrannise the mind so that no moral acts occur. they are supposed to distinguish between moral and immoral acts. they do that fine.
2) if your question is, what will you do if you are outgunned? you must concede that your situation is certainly no worse when you have a state 'supposedly' working in your interest than a private defence force. in other words, it is hardly a criticism of anarchy in favour of a military state, that you might be outnumbered by enemies. since military states might be outnumbered by enemies. you had thought of that hadn't you? ......hadnt you?
3) transgressing moral laws is possible, thats conceded. moral laws arent perfectly analgous to various other laws you have in mind. so what?
zefreak: Jacob Bloom: 3. Yes but I can't actually make a square circle. It's not possible. But I can break your moral laws. Why have mods? They're like the thunderbolt hurlers of forums. Someone has to be hurling thunderbolts in your anarchist region. Once again you are conflating physical laws with logical or ethical laws. By the way, you are using logic when you state that a square circle is impossible. You can not prove it through induction alone, see David Hume. You are proving it through the laws of identity and the excluded middle. Observation alone can't help you, so you are implicitly recognising the existence of laws that are outside the realm of observation. You are being inconsistent when you reject ethics for not conforming to physical phenomena. I don't see this conversation getting anywhere until you brush up on your philosophy, including epistemology and ethics.
So then it's possible to make a square circle? But it doesn't exist in theory it just exists in real life? Do you know how crazy that sounds? I was just using his term because I thought square circles were impossible, but now you tell me they are possible?? You guys are confusing.
1. What if I don't give a damn what people think? And yeah, I think moral systems are limited, something else is required. You guys say it can be provided privately, I have my doubts. I'm ready to be gung ho on anarchism, but you guys aren't selling it very well.
2. Lol, Could happen. But I think it is more likely that your region's private force will be outgunned just because you don't have that many anarchists in the first place. I mean...you would need to dissolve EVERY SINGLE STATE left on earth and disband them into anarchist regions before this plan could work. Otherwise, someone is just going to come along and kill all of you. And that would make me sad. Very sad.
3. So then it doesn't do to go around telling people about the importance of natural law if...they're kinda weak laws. We need strong laws! Laws of consequence are stronger. You do this and you die kinda laws.
ok mr josef stalin hitler man
Jacob Bloom: So then it's possible to make a square circle? But it doesn't exist in theory it just exists in real life? Do you know how crazy that sounds? I was just using his term because I thought square circles were impossible, but now you tell me they are possible?? You guys are confusing.
It is logically impossible for an entity to exist that is both a square and a circle at the same time, because of the laws of identity and excluded middle. Within the concept of square exists the identifier "four sides", while the concept of circle contains the identifier "0 sides", or "an infinite number of sides". The reason such an object CANNOT exist is due to logic. Induction can only reveal what does not or has not existed, but not what categorically cannot exist.
So you implicitly accept logic and its laws, even though they are not self-evident. They are based on concepts such as causality and identity, which cannot be proven without infinite regression. Yet you reject ethics for the same reason.
nirgrahamUK: ok mr josef stalin hitler man
I'm just trying to make this system make sense to me so I can tell other people about it. I was serious when I said I thought the Republican party needs to be taken over by Austrians economics people. But then...the books I've read that got me here didn't mention you guys were all anarchists! Anyways, I'm gonna take a break. You guys are cool, I'm going to keep trying to understand what you're telling me.
zefreak: Jacob Bloom: So then it's possible to make a square circle? But it doesn't exist in theory it just exists in real life? Do you know how crazy that sounds? I was just using his term because I thought square circles were impossible, but now you tell me they are possible?? You guys are confusing. It is logically impossible for an entity to exist that is both a square and a circle at the same time, because of the laws of identity and excluded middle. Within the concept of square exists the identifier "four sides", while the concept of circle contains the identifier "0 sides", or "an infinite number of sides". The reason such an object CANNOT exist is due to logic. Induction can only reveal what does not or has not existed, but not what categorically cannot exist. So you implicitly accept logic and its laws, even though they are not self-evident. They are based on concepts such as causality and identity, which cannot be proven without infinite regression. Yet you reject ethics for the same reason.
Because ethics sprouted out of morality which sprouted out of an idea of an eternal being and creator. So morals ultimately regress to God. But I don't believe in God.
Logic, however, is observable. Cause and effect are the way we all experience the universe. So logically, everything has to have a cause and an effect. But morals have no cause and no effect! They are not a sufficient means of creating a workable political philosophy. Therefore, we should look to observable cause and effect (reason and logic) to guide our philosophy. And reason has nothing to do with right or wrong. It has to do simply with what happens and what doesn't.
Jacob Bloom: I'm just trying to make this system make sense to me so I can tell other people about it. I was serious when I said I thought the Republican party needs to be taken over by Austrians economics people. But then...the books I've read that got me here didn't mention you guys were all anarchists! Anyways, I'm gonna take a break. You guys are cool, I'm going to keep trying to understand what you're telling me.
Austrian Economics is value-free and doesn't require or propose any system of ethics. However, most people value liberty and Austrian Economics does demonstrate how liberty is conducive to the ends that most people value. Hence, Austrian Economics is a powerful tool to anarchists.
But then...the books I've read that got me here didn't mention you guys were all anarchists!
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Harry Felker: I had started a debate here. I contend that Natural Law proves the illegitimacy of the state, using the axiom that just government derives from consent of the governed, and only a just government is legitimate. I make the claim derived from the likes of Spooner and Long that consent cannot be proven so therefore it cannot be just, if it is not just then it is illegitimate... Giles, bring it....
I had started a debate here.
I contend that Natural Law proves the illegitimacy of the state, using the axiom that just government derives from consent of the governed, and only a just government is legitimate.
I make the claim derived from the likes of Spooner and Long that consent cannot be proven so therefore it cannot be just, if it is not just then it is illegitimate...
Giles, bring it....
I don't think you can prove it without using God. I'm fine with using God to show that, but you might not be.
I think you could use natural rights theory as an axiom from which the best consequences are derived from, however. This is something called rule utilitarianism.
existence is elsewhere
Wilmot of Rochester: I don't think you can prove it without using God.
I don't think you can prove it without using God.
What is "prove"?
Jacob Bloom: Because ethics sprouted out of morality which sprouted out of an idea of an eternal being and creator. So morals ultimately regress to God. But I don't believe in God.
Wrong. Ethics is simply the branch of philosophy that is concerned with morals, or ought statements. Ethics, and therefore morality, is not necessarily derived from the supernatural or divine, although it often is. A system of morals is rational if consistently derived from a primary assertion of value. This statement of value cannot be justified, hence why natural law as proposed by the OP is flawed.
Jacob Bloom: Logic, however, is observable.
Logic, however, is observable.
This is incorrect. Logic is how we process information received through our sensory organs. It would be more accurate to say that without logic, observation would be meaningless, and perhaps impossible. (Recent breakthroughs in neuroscience imply that consciousness relies on synchronicity between neural networks in the brain relating to your different senses. This synchronicity creates the sensation of an object having both touch, sight and smell. It essentially creates a conceptual model of an object, without which there would no observable world.)
Jacob Bloom: Cause and effect are the way we all experience the universe. So logically, everything has to have a cause and an effect.
Cause and effect are the way we all experience the universe. So logically, everything has to have a cause and an effect.
This is more correct, although I would state that reason is how we observe a singular reality, and cause and effect is how we deal with and understand that reality.
Jacob Bloom: But morals have no cause and no effect! They are not a sufficient means of creating a workable political philosophy. Therefore, we should look to observable cause and effect (reason and logic) to guide our philosophy.
But morals have no cause and no effect! They are not a sufficient means of creating a workable political philosophy. Therefore, we should look to observable cause and effect (reason and logic) to guide our philosophy.
This is completely wrong. First of all, the concept of a workable political philosophy implies morality! Otherwise, all systems of organization are equally legitimate, even those resulting in self destruction. To imply that a workable political philosophy is one that maximizes happiness is itself value-laden. If someone is truly an ethical nihilist, they should be consistent.
Jacob Bloom: And reason has nothing to do with right or wrong. It has to do simply with what happens and what doesn't.
And reason has nothing to do with right or wrong. It has to do simply with what happens and what doesn't.
What happens and what doesn't will always be merely descriptive, never prescriptive. Even prescribing reason and self-interest is a moral statement.
zefreak: Jacob Bloom: Because ethics sprouted out of morality which sprouted out of an idea of an eternal being and creator. So morals ultimately regress to God. But I don't believe in God. Wrong. Ethics is simply the branch of philosophy that is concerned with morals, or ought statements. Ethics, and therefore morality, is not necessarily derived from the supernatural or divine, although it often is. A system of morals is rational if consistently derived from a primary assertion of value. This statement of value cannot be justified, hence why natural law as proposed by the OP is flawed.
I still think all is based on a value system. So what's the flaw?
wilderness: Wilmot of Rochester: I don't think you can prove it without using God. What is "prove"?
Assuming some basic agreements about the existence of God would be an obvious pre-requisite.
wilderness: I still think all is based on a value system. So what's the flaw?
The flaw is that you can not justify a value statement with a factual statement. There is no inherent value in physical objects or patterns, hence why value is subjective, or agent relative. Therefore, you can only justify a statement of value with further statements of value, which will themselves require justification. It is infinately regressive. However, this is only a problem with regards to ethical systems that propose themselves to be objective.
Juan:nonsense.
Why?
I reject ethics, because it has zero correspondence with reality that I know of. Whether NAP or not for me is the same as whether axiom of choice or not. I assume it if i need to, but I try to avoid it if I can.
then its disengenious of you to write in other threads that certain arrangements are not fraudulent, are not immoral, since you deny the very paradigm of immorality , or fraud.
scineram: I reject ethics, because it has zero correspondence with reality that I know of. Whether NAP or not for me is the same as whether axiom of choice or not. I assume it if i need to, but I try to avoid it if I can.
Do you believe people should act in a certain way? Or value certain things as you do?
Also, I don't really understand your final point. If you choose to ignore ethics then that is fine. However, I don't think ignorance is an adequate justification of a positive rejection of ethics.
nirgrahamUK: then its disengenious of you to write in other threads that certain arrangements are not fraudulent, are not immoral, since you deny the very paradigm of immorality , or fraud.
Good catch. I say those relative to a libertarian ethic. I try to derive them from libertarian principles as you and others think they are unlibertarian.
zefreak: wilderness: I still think all is based on a value system. So what's the flaw? The flaw is that you can not justify a value statement with a factual statement. There is no inherent value in physical objects or patterns, hence why value is subjective, or agent relative.
The flaw is that you can not justify a value statement with a factual statement. There is no inherent value in physical objects or patterns, hence why value is subjective, or agent relative.
And this moral agent, me, can reject gravity or not. I can value gravity in any way I choose. Since I am a reasonable person open to science I find the arguments of science when it comes to gravity very compelling.
And yes I can justify a value statement with facts. I'm not sure what you mean here.
zefreak: Therefore, you can only justify a statement of value with further statements of value, which will themselves require justification. It is infinately regressive. However, this is only a problem with regards to ethical systems that propose themselves to be objective.
Therefore, you can only justify a statement of value with further statements of value, which will themselves require justification. It is infinately regressive. However, this is only a problem with regards to ethical systems that propose themselves to be objective.
Well I value scientific gravity. It took a pursuit of such an understanding for there to be a Newton and then Einstein to come up with their scientific arguments about the nature of gravity. I value the natural law of human nature as well and I can objectively notice that when reason vacates it is very difficult to do anything - I have observed this while working in a placement facility for troubled youth that a court judge, social worker, or parent(s) have sent to such a place. When dialogue was gone, so was the social structure. Further dissolution of the society that can be described as a further lacking of reason cascaded into a further breakdown as more fear and anger driven episodes took hold. Sometimes I and others would have to protect each other as emotionally explosive youth would try to physically aggress against any innocent bystander. If by objective you mean I observed the experience and saw the social breakdown and then return to harmony - then yes I did experience this and so did others with me. I valued the return to harmony. Anger and physical aggression initiated by these youth made the days of work long, emotionally terrible, and a good riddance when the shift was over on such days or nights was in good order in my opinion. So I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
zefreak: Do you believe people should act in a certain way? Or value certain things as you do? Also, I don't really understand your final point. If you choose to ignore ethics then that is fine. However, I don't think ignorance is an adequate justification of a positive rejection of ethics.
Sometimes I certainly would like people acting or valueing things in a certain way. In that sense they should do so, because it would make me better off.
Regarding justification, I cannot even reject it because I am unable to link it to real existing phenomena. To illustrate I accept Peano axioms, for they correspond with my experience with the real world and thus with my intuition. Not so with continuum hypothesis which I cannot relate any experience.
Jacob Bloom: Logic, however, is observable. Cause and effect are the way we all experience the universe. So logically, everything has to have a cause and an effect. But morals have no cause and no effect! They are not a sufficient means of creating a workable political philosophy. Therefore, we should look to observable cause and effect (reason and logic) to guide our philosophy. And reason has nothing to do with right or wrong. It has to do simply with what happens and what doesn't.
Nice point. Ethics is beyond cause and effect. Therefore, we cannot apply Occam's razor to simplify ethics. Ethics is not a science in which we can detect an "internal essence" or "underlying phenomenon." Ethics is expandable, and cannot be plausibly simplified for the sake of "logical consistency." The over-simplification of underlying ethical principles is a very serious problem that libertarians rarely address.
wilderness: I can value gravity in any way I choose. [...] I can justify a value statement with facts.
Can you justify a value statement out of nothing? If so, then you can do it better by refining it with additional facts.
But that depends on your definition of 'justification'. If by 'justification' you mean logical justification, then it is impossible. Logically justifying an "ought" from an "is" is a non sequitur.
In my debate with zefreak, I also pointed out the two different notions of 'justification':
anarcho-mercantilist: zefreak: It can only refine or suggest further arguments within the context of an ethical system, but never justify one. I agree, if you had used "justify" in the descriptive sense of the term. You meant that Christians still believe in their faith even though Christianity holds no biological arguments. If you meant it by this sense of the term, then I will buy it.
zefreak: It can only refine or suggest further arguments within the context of an ethical system, but never justify one.
I agree, if you had used "justify" in the descriptive sense of the term. You meant that Christians still believe in their faith even though Christianity holds no biological arguments. If you meant it by this sense of the term, then I will buy it.
So did you use 'justification' in the normative or the descriptive sense?
Life is filled with misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and prodigal folklore.
Anarcho-Mercantilist: wilderness: I can value gravity in any way I choose. [...] I can justify a value statement with facts. Can you justify a value statement out of nothing? If so, then you can do it better by refining it with additional facts. But that depends on your definition of 'justification'. If by 'justification' you mean logical justification, then it is impossible. Logically justifying an "ought" from an "is" is a non sequitur. In my debate with zedfreak, I also pointed out the two different notions of 'justification':
In my debate with zedfreak, I also pointed out the two different notions of 'justification':
I don't know what you're getting at. I can value the way science describes "gravity" or not. I don't even know if science has settled upon gravity being a particle, graviton, or if it more to do with space-time and not a particle. So in all honesty I don't even know what science values when it comes to gravity either. I can value "natural law of human nature" or not, and this I have some knowledge of and I like it.
Anarcho-Mercantilist: So did you use 'justification' in the normative or the descriptive sense?
I meant justify in the sense of providing more argumentation, demonstration, and evidence. I'm providing support to what I'm talking about, might be enough or not enough to any one person. Whether one values any justification or not is their choice. Is that normative or descriptive?
Your use of the term "value" as a noun and a verb seems very unclear. Please clarify what you mean by "value."
Anarcho-Mercantilist: Your use of the term "value" as a noun and a verb seems very unclear. Please clarify what you mean by "value."
It's something I do.
Does that help? If not, I'll try again.
Jacob Bloom:So it's kind of like a human law where murder is deemed illegal and I can transgress the law but the law still stands?
Fallacy. The law is "murder is illegal". If you murder someone, murder is still illegal. The law stands.
zefreak:There is no inherent value in physical objects or patterns, hence why value is subjective, or agent relative.
However, this is only a problem with regards to ethical systems that propose themselves to be objective.
What is the normative sense of the term? I still don't quite understand what you mean when you refer to descriptive vs normative justification.
Juan: zefreak:There is no inherent value in physical objects or patterns, hence why value is subjective, or agent relative. That applies to economics not to discussions about morals. And even when considering only economics it turns out that you as a being who has a physical existence need some definite physical conditions to remain alive. So, food migh have only 'subjective value' but it's an objective fact that food is valuable to all human beings.
It applies equally to economics and morality. A being who has a physical existence needs food for survival, but that does not mean food has an objective value. A being who does not value his existence would not value food. The food is still a means to an end, it just so happens that the vast majority of human beings value life and thus food. You are once again assuming that life is an objective value, and that things that produce life must therefore be objectively valued as conducive to that value.
Juan: zefreak:However, this is only a problem with regards to ethical systems that propose themselves to be objective. I suppose you didn't read my post to Sphairon....Can you please prove that A has moral authority over B ? (apart from might-makes-right of course). If you can't prove that some people have authority over other people then maybe you should admit that there's a moral system which can't be shown to be false.
zefreak:However, this is only a problem with regards to ethical systems that propose themselves to be objective.
You cannot conclusively prove that A has moral authority over B, just as you cannot prove that A has moral authority over A. You cannot prove any statement of value, because value is not objective.
zefreak: You cannot conclusively prove that A has moral authority over B, just as you cannot prove that A has moral authority over A. You cannot prove any statement of value, because value is not objective.
Value is subjective, objective, not subjective and not objective, some, all, either/or, none of the above. Depends on what I choose and that choice can be very contextual.
You cannot conclusively prove that A has moral authority over B, just as you cannot prove that A has moral authority over A.
The best case for natural law is probably Rothbard in TEoL. I listened to the first 2 chapters 8 times today (my work allows me to do that) to make sure I understood it. I will summarize his reasoning after I come back from eating dinner. Perhaps this will at least clear SOME things up.