-
[quote user="Ricky James Moore II"]But the substantive and practiced elements - such as property boundaries, norms and defaults for contract re-negotiation, payment standards for tort punishments, etc. are a product of customary and professional action; generally derived from whatever is acceptable to the parties involved.[/quote] The whole
-
[quote user="AJ"]Anyway, to your main point there, I guess I am still not sure how you are defining extensional thought and intensional thought . I haven't really felt like I understood what the distinction was trying to get at, as you have been using it.[/quote] OK, let's see how this goes... The extension is the thing referred to;
-
[quote user="Danny Sanchez"]As I outlined in my OP, the wants of each and all are more bountifully provided the more individual income is tied to the individual's contribution to consumer satisfaction. Insofar as contribution-irrelevant privilege becomes a factor of income, that tie is slackened, and the bounty for each and all is decreased
-
It’s been so long, I have to refresh myself on what we were talking about… [quote user="AJ"]For this one, I would say that PA cannot believe, and set ZFC set theory cannot observe - only humans or other actors can. But maybe I missed the point or forgot something. [/quote] This is only supposed to be an analogy, not to be taken
-
[quote user="Danny Sanchez"]Whatever point in time at which you establish the legal code. Ideally a portion of a legal code will be worked out before relevant instances of conflict arise. To acquire near-universal assent, this portion of the legal code should be perceived to have a tendency to benefit most any person. [/quote] Such is to be
-
[quote user="Danny Sanchez"]With regard to any given conflict of interests, there might be any number of "salient" standards one can choose, and individuals will always be inclined to support the salient standard that is pursuant to their own interest. [/quote] The whole point of salience is to achieve coordination between parties;
-
[quote user="Danny Sanchez"]What are the replies to the two objections, and how are the two meaningfully analogous?[/quote] In the analogy, the prize represents the benefits of cooperation (i.e., of not having to fight over everything). The reason why the no-communication case relates to real-world negotiation is elaborated on by Schelling
-
[quote user="Danny Sanchez"]But if that deontology has no bearing on either party's ends, neither would be convinced by it unless they were indoctrinated to believe that it was an end in itself.[/quote] On this I think we agree: that the only way a deontological theory can be true is if we strip away all the “end-in-itself”
-
[quote user="I. Ryan"]But how would it make sense to try to "reconcile" two ultimately conflicting points of view?[/quote] Practically speaking, it means forcing one of the disputants to back down. Theoretically, it means showing that one side's position is somehow untenable (i.e., cannot be supported by any doctrine other than
-
[quote user="Danny Sanchez"]If you were convinced that (A) complete adherence to the natural right of property happened to necessarily engender untold poverty, suffering, and death, but (B) the tiniest imaginable abrogation of the non-aggression principle, undertaken on a very infrequent basis necessarily engendered prosperity, happiness,