Yes, I'm the one being called a logical positivist here. And Mises was well aware of the impossibility of objective "natural rights.
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."
You'd make an excellent religious fanatic.
In the world of ethics subjectivism is just the intelligent way out.
Its really simple for you to shut me up though, prove that it's objective.
(Or admit you believe it on unproven grounds)
But, you obviously agree that some things are subjective, such as whats "lame."
You'll come around.
Angurse:Precisely.
Yet you stated that you thought it was wrong.
Angurse:You can have an opinion on what constitutes "good" and "bad" but nothing more. There isn't an objective good or bad just as there isn't an objective funny or un-funny. Its nothing more than an opinion.
Well now you have gone from ethical propositions don't have truth to well they can have truth but not everyone agrees with them.
Angurse:Yes, I think taxes are wrong. Its only my opinion, it isn't an objective fact.
Where are taxes a 'good thing'? I'd learn to hear how you can work that in concert with austrian economics.
Angurse:I'm saying it isn't truth to me nor is it truth to anybody. Such statements simply aen't applicable to truth at all. Instead, what I'm saying is that is my opinion of taxes. Not everything is applicable to truth, including humour, taste, ethics, and morals.
So your 'opinion' is beyond truth or fiction?
Angurse: They are all opinions. Morality is to humour as "right" is to "funny."
They are all opinions. Morality is to humour as "right" is to "funny."
Well some 'opinions' are right and some 'opinions' are wrong. The simpsons is funny is not an ethical proposition.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Angurse:Yes, I'm the one being called a logical positivist here. And Mises was well aware of the impossibility of objective "natural rights." I'm the one saying that objective ethics aren't necessary. Logic, economics law, is more than enough.
Well Mises was obviously a utilitarian and that in itself is an objective ethical system in the sense that the maximization of social pleasure / welfare is the highest goal to be pursued.
Laughing Man:Well Mises was obviously a utilitarian and that in itself is an objective ethical system
No, it isn't. Utilitarianism is just another expression of subjective preferences. Everyone is utilitarian.
As far as morality is concerned, Mises was right.
Juan: By the way, invoking the Mises and his mistakes doesn't mean much...
Once someone proves natural law, I'll consider it to be a mistake.
Juan: Uh oh. You mean someone detached from reality, who doesn't believe in good and evil, 'cause "it's all subjective" ?
No. Not at all. I believe in "good" and "evil" just as I believe in "humourous" and "humourless." I mean someone who believes in something without proof. Hey, where is this proof of objective ethics?
Juan: How do you prove that? (I mean, you don't even understand what problems ethics deal with).
How'd you come to that conclusion? (I mean, the problems ethics deal with hardly makes them automatically objective)
Juan:No, you prove that there's nothing wrong with stealing, murdering, raping and that kind of thing.
But Juan that impossible! Thats the entire point! How could I do that? "Right" and "wrong" are subjective opinions and therefore unfalsifiable (i.e. not truth-apt). So the burden of proof is on you, you who say objective ethics are provable.
Juan:Or admit you are no different than criminals who think that stealing, raping, murdering, etc are justified actions.
I don't recall saying such actions are just, in fact I said they were immoral. I just didn't foolishly saying "its an objective fact that stealing, raping, murdering, etc ae immoral."
Juan:Excuse me? You 'philosophy', if it deserves such a name, is objectively lame. Or are you talking about the food I like ?
Personally, I hope it doesn't deserve the name philosophy. Philosophy is lame as we know.
Juan:Ah yes. You also can predict the subjective future...truly amazing.
What can I say, I see potential in you Juan. You're just a little misguided.
Juan:Or maybe I would be convinced by the bunch of nihilists of this forum ? Well, I admit you won the best joke-of-the-year award...
Now you, the joker of all people, are giving me the joke-of-the-year award. You are more humble than I originally thought. You have potential my friend.
Laughing Man:Yet you stated that you thought it was wrong.
How many times does this need be repeated?
Angurse:I don't know that its wrong, that's the entire point. Knowing is truth-apt, which doesn't apply when it comes to opinions, including ethics. I think murder is immoral the same way I think The Simpsons is funny, or that English is an ugly language, or that Johannes Brahms is a boring composer.
Angurse:Ethical statements are not propositions and therefore cannot be expressed as true or false, or truth-apt.
I think its wrong. (I'm making a purely ethical statement, it is only my opinion, which isn't a proposition, it cannot be verified as true or false)
Laughing Man:Well now you have gone from ethical propositions don't have truth to well they can have truth but not everyone agrees with them.
There isn't any truth to any ethical statement. Even my own. Ethical statements are statements of opinion only.
Laughing Man:Where are taxes a 'good thing'? I'd learn to hear how you can work that in concert with austrian economics.
Have you not read a thing I've written? Its impossible for taxes to be "good" or "bad." I cannot and shall not try to work an ethics system into a science.(Please try and stay in the realm of ethics though to avoid any confusion over the economic meaning of good.)
Laughing Man:Well some 'opinions' are right and some 'opinions' are wrong.
Sure. But one has to distinguish between types of opinions. Opinions that concern something that is falsifiable, i.e. an interpretation of facts can certainly be considered wrong. Such opinions are tuth-apt. For example, "In think if you mix red and yellow you'll get orange" That is right, or true. But opinions about ethics like, "I think eating meat is wrong" aren't an interpretation of facts. They are nothing more than an emotional expression, unfalsifiable, not truth-apt.
Laughing Man:The simpsons is funny is not an ethical proposition.
Its a statement of opinion just like ones concerning ethics.
Laughing Man:Well Mises was obviously a utilitarian and that in itself is an objective ethical system in the sense that the maximization of social pleasure / welfare is the highest goal to be pursued.
That's not really true. Mises wasn't saying that we should organize society so as to maximize utility, Mises point was that one can't make any scientific statements about ends. We can, however, demonstrate (or so the argument goes) that the free market is that form of social organization that will allow everybody to pursue and acheive their subjectively valued preferences in the long run.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
as long as you are trapped in the objective/subjective paradigm it really isn't constructive to continue the discussion. it creates a gap in the discussion.
A) for instance the first post you gave and I responded to in this thread: you said natural law isn't necessary. i responded sarcastically that yes life, liberty, and property isn't necessary (for human nature to flourish).
B) Second back and forth: Your objection to natural law was a supposed negation of its value based on your projection of what most people find worthwhile. So then I responded with an obvious consent that Obama is of value to most people that vote so therefore his book is a must read.
C) You say philosophy is lame and so I pointed out the first book Mises and others explicitly point out as a warmer to economics is philosophy, namely a specific Intro. to Logic book.
And lastly, simply by saying ethics is subjective isn't anything of significance to the discussion. I don't find it to have any explanatory power. I say the same about objective ethics as well. I always have since I've come to this forum. But my personal abhorring isn't on what subjective nor objective ethics refer to. It's the way some posters evoke few word answers and get caught up in the words and not the concepts invoke by the words. It's usually the people that try to clear their minds of words as a relaxation technique of some sort (one that isn't working well obviously) that actually are bothered by words, thus why their head hurts when they try to think or find it tiring to think. It's their own individual fetish with words that has trapped them in a self-inflicted conflict between their own heart and mind.
I know it is universally absolute that murder isn't good. And I understand a murderer and his or her sympathizers will not bring judgment upon the murderer in declaring such an act is bad or good. Unless, as some murderers feel and think in hindsight, they have some kind of reborn again attitude and confess that what they did was bad. I mean this is child's stuff. Two green chairs are absolutely two green chairs, but then along comes somebody that says, "No one chair is slightly not as green as the other." So what? They are still absolutely green - universally even. There is an exercise in honesty and in what field of interest any particular person has to these causes. Some people grow up to love Law and Order or CSI Movies and TV shows, some want to be lawyers, cops, or private detectives, and others don't want to bother with it. so what?
I can state Natural Law is an absolute in human nature for intellectual law (aka natural law) includes all forms, such forms as how I feel today, the measured distance between me and a murderer, etc.., etc... are each calculated assessments that the intellect apprehends via the senses. There isn't a knowledge void in what is gathered via the senses as I bring a certain epistemic skill to each moment. For example, a child doesn't know a passing car can kill them if they run out in front of it. A more mature person is capable of such an understanding based on their intellectual maturation.
Yeah, you feel this way, I feel that way - so what? My intellect apprehends and interprets such feelings. I construct strategies in my life based on not only how I feel, but what my eyes relay to my mind and what intellectual maturity my mind, thus, my epistemic skill renders of the world. It is human nature to learn even when the learning is a discarding of events. I can choose to ignore that a passing car will kill me if I run out in front of it - so what? Then I die when I apply such knowledge. The epistemic gap in subjective and objective trappings isn't worthwhile as it bogs down dialogue to a fit and fancy of how you are trying to encapsulate the whole of the world into one final concept: subjective. The world is a bit more than one word. There are other words and there are objects too. Yes objects exist, in other words, there is a capable objective perspective, and objects are not only trees but emotions, etc...; the world isn't only about the ego of one subject/human as subjectivity blocking out the rest of the world entails. So the world isn't only objects and isn't only the selfish subject. It's a bit more than such efforts to pack categorical boxes into one word universal theories such as subjectivity.
Even a farmer understands choices involve not only repeating "subjective", but other words such as corn, beans, and shovel actually do arise. And sometimes a corn doesn't grow good. It was a bad corn season. And yes the neighbor can find humor and laugh at the farmer and say it's all subjective that it is a bad corn season while the neighbor munches on corn bought down at the grocery store. Sure people can laugh at the moral efforts of murderers and find comedy in the tragedy. Some people laugh about the ill-wills of others, but I don't find that to be appropriate and considering. So yes, rape is bad and I not only feel remorse for the person raped, but I fully know if I could, I would bring justice to the rapist and have consideration for victims of crime and not simply reduce such events to humor. It is a awful ethics to perverse events in such a way.
wilderness:as long as you are trapped in the objective/subjective paradigm it really isn't constructive to continue the discussion. it creates a gap in the discussion.
Are you denying subjectivity and objectivity?
wilderness:A) for instance the first post you gave and I responded to in this thread: you said natural law isn't necessary. i responded sarcastically that yes life, liberty, and property isn't necessary (for human nature to flourish).
Read it. So what? Natural law isn't required for life, liberty, or property.
wilderness:B) Second back and forth: Your objection to natural law was a supposed negation of its value based on your projection of what most people find worthwhile. So then I responded with an obvious consent that Obama is of value to most people that vote so therefore his book is a must read.
I didn't object to natural law. I asked for proof of it. I objected to the necessity of natural law. As I've repeatedly said, logic, economic laws are more than enough for humans to flourish.
wilderness:C) You say philosophy is lame and so I pointed out the first book Mises and others explicitly point out as a warmer to economics is philosophy, namely a specific Intro. to Logic book.
I made a joke - you didn't get it.
wilderness:And lastly, simply by saying ethics is subjective isn't anything of significance to the discussion. I don't find it to have any explanatory power. I say the same about objective ethics as well. I always have since I've come to this forum. But my personal abhorring isn't on what subjective nor objective ethics refer to. It's the way some posters evoke few word answers and get caught up in the words and not the concepts invoke by the words. It's usually the people that try to clear their minds of words as a relaxation technique of some sort that actually are bothered by words, thus why their head hurts when they try to think or find it tiring to think. It's their own individual fetish with words that has trapped them in a self-inflicted conflict between their own heart and mind.
There is a crucial difference my friend. To claim something is objective, is to carry the burden of proof. All I've done is request that those who make such claims prove them.
wilderness:I know it is universally absolute that murder isn't good. And I understand a murderer and his or her sympathizers will not bring judgment upon the murderer in declaring such an act is bad or good. Unless, as some murderers feel and think in hindsight, they have some kind of reborn again attitude and confess that what they did was bad. I mean this is child's stuff. Two green chairs are absolutely two green chairs, but then along comes somebody that says, "No one chair is slightly not as green as the other." So what? They are still absolutely green - universally even. There is an exercise in honesty and in what field of interest any particular person has to these causes. Some people grow up to love Law and Order or CSI Movies and TV shows, some want to be lawyers, cops, or private detectives, and others don't want to bother with it. so what?
And how do you know that? What evidence are you using? Or is it a "gut" thing?
wilderness: I can state Natural Law is an absolute in human nature for intellectual law (aka natural law) includes all forms, such forms as how I feel today, the measured distance between me and a murderer, etc.., etc... are each calculated assessments that the intellect apprehends via the senses. There isn't a knowledge void in what is gathered via the senses as I bring a certain epistemic skill to each moment. For example, a child doesn't know a passing car can kill them if they run out in front of it. A more mature person is capable of such an understanding based on their intellectual maturation.
What exactly is the Natural Law? In what units are the assessments calculated? The laws of physics (i.e. actually proven laws) determine the effects of a car wreck. These are all measurable, provable laws. Lacking knowledge of such laws is completely irrelevant. To the best that I can determine, that isn't the case for natural law. Please explain how it is.
wilderness: Yeah, you feel this way, I feel that way - so what? My intellect apprehends and interprets such feelings. I construct strategies in my life based on not only how I feel, but what my eyes relay to my mind and what intellectual maturity my mind, thus, my epistemic skill renders of the world. It is human nature to learn even when the learning is a discarding of events. I can choose to ignore that a passing car will kill me if I run out in front of it - so what? Then I die when I apply such knowledge.
So what? Thats the point. What happens is that the laws of physics still apply whether you choose to ignore them or not. However, you're feelings aren't objective. By definition, they are a conscious subjective experience. Physics are indifferent to your feelings. In contrast ethics boil down to feelings.
wilderness:The epistemic gap in subjective and objective trappings isn't worthwhile as it bogs down dialogue to a fit and fancy of how you are trying to encapsulate the whole of the world into one final concept: subjective. The world is a bit more than one word. There are other words and there are objects too. Yes objects exist, in other words, there is a capable objective perspective, and objects are not only trees but emotions, etc...; the world isn't only about the ego of one subject/human as subjectivity blocking out the rest of the world entails. So the world isn't only objects and isn't only the selfish subject. It's a bit more than such efforts to pack categorical boxes into one word universal theories such as subjectivity.
Again you have falsely interpreted my position. I'm not packaging the world as subjective. I accept objectivity where it is verifiable. Laws absolutely exist. Laws of physics, logic, algorithms, etc... All of these laws are provable. Yet ethics isn't. If it is please demonstrate. Thats all I've asked. And no, emotions certainly are not objects, they are, by definition, subjective experiences.
wilderness: Even a farmer understands choices involve not only repeating "subjective", but other words such as corn, beans, and shovel actually do arise. And sometimes a corn doesn't grow good. It was a bad corn season. And yes the neighbor can find humor and laugh at the farmer and say it's all subjective that it is a bad corn season while the neighbor munches on corn bought down at the grocery store. Sure people can laugh at the moral efforts of murderers and find comedy in the tragedy. Some people laugh about the ill-wills of others, but I don't find that to be appropriate and considering. So yes, rape is bad and I not only feel remorse for the person raped, but I fully know if I could, I would bring justice to the rapist and have consideration for victims of crime and not simply reduce such events to humor. It is a awful ethics to perverse events in such a way.
So it's agreed humour is subjective. You'll be a radical subjectivist soon enough.
liberty student:No, it isn't. Utilitarianism is just another expression of subjective preferences
No it isn't. Utilitiarians propound that the good is maximizing social pleasure, the bad is vice versa. What maximizes social pleasure is subjective, however the system itself isn't.
liberty student:Everyone is utilitarian.
Angurse:I think its wrong. (I'm making a purely ethical statement, it is only my opinion, which isn't a proposition, it cannot be verified as true or false)
Here we go in the circle again, how do you know it is wrong if you can't prove it true or false?
Angurse:There isn't any truth to any ethical statement. Even my own. Ethical statements are statements of opinion only.
Then you are speaking jibberish in thinking you think something is wrong. You are just saying 'Boo on taxes'. What use is that?
Angurse:Have you not read a thing I've written? Its impossible for taxes to be "good" or "bad." I cannot and shall not try to work an ethics system into a science.(Please try and stay in the realm of ethics though to avoid any confusion over the economic meaning of good.)
The economic meaning of good? Economics is a positive science, there is no 'economic good'. I repeat again where are taxes a 'good thing'.
Angurse:Sure. But one has to distinguish between types of opinions. Opinions that concern something that is falsifiable, i.e. an interpretation of facts can certainly be considered wrong. Such opinions are tuth-apt. For example, "In think if you mix red and yellow you'll get orange" That is right, or true. But opinions about ethics like, "I think eating meat is wrong" aren't an interpretation of facts. They are nothing more than an emotional expression, unfalsifiable, not truth-apt
It is a fact for those expressing the proposition. You seem to be getting into Jan Narveson in thinking that ethical statements between two individuals cannot be delved into to find common ground. That if I say I think property rights is right and you think property rights are wrong then we can't do anything. I think that is a wrong mentality because why cannot one be convinced that property rights is right? Why cannot one be shown they are contradicting themselves? It is rather like David Friedman's critique of apriorism.
Angurse:Its a statement of opinion just like ones concerning ethics
It has nothing to do with humor unless you say is humor good or bad.
GilesStratton:That's not really true. Mises wasn't saying that we should organize society so as to maximize utility, Mises point was that one can't make any scientific statements about ends. We can, however, demonstrate (or so the argument goes) that the free market is that form of social organization that will allow everybody to pursue and acheive their subjectively valued preferences in the long run.
Mises took for 'granted', I guess you can say, that prosperity, abundance and peace are utilitarian goals that the world pursues.
Angurse: wilderness:as long as you are trapped in the objective/subjective paradigm it really isn't constructive to continue the discussion. it creates a gap in the discussion. Are you denying subjectivity and objectivity?
Honestly I think you missed the point by responding to each point I wrote. I don't deny them. I deny the hang-up. And life, liberty, and property are of natural law. You dismiss this, and I could care less. But when I read or discuss with somebody any particular concept I find it helps to know what I'm talking about and understand the traditional usage of concepts. Semantics word play is tricky of the weak. I'm not hung-up on trying to pin this down to such willy-nilly preferences to prove to a skeptic. How does one prove anything to a sophist/skeptic? Prove - skeptic are natural contraries.
Angurse: And how do you know that? What evidence are you using? Or is it a "gut" thing?
How do I know what?
Angurse: By definition, they are a conscious subjective experience. Physics are indifferent to your feelings. In contrast ethics boil down to feelings.
By definition, they are a conscious subjective experience. Physics are indifferent to your feelings. In contrast ethics boil down to feelings.
This is exactly the hang-up with those trapped in the subjective/objective paradigm. Feelings are objects that can be objectively defined. Feelings are of the subject and can be subjectively defined. And yet whether it is objective or subjective it is these feelings being defined. I have more stimulating intellectual curiosities to contemplate. No offense, but this isn't anything ground-breaking to discuss. Maybe it is for you, but I don't find running over intellectual ground that I've learned about years ago to be worth my attention today.
Angurse: Thats all I've asked. And no, emotions certainly are not objects, they are, by definition, subjective experiences.
Thats all I've asked. And no, emotions certainly are not objects, they are, by definition, subjective experiences.
Emotions are objects. They are things. They can be referred to. I can intellectually apprehend the love I feel. I'm not in some mind-heart conflictive relationship. I'm at peace with myself more than such experiences would render.
Angurse: So it's agreed humour is subjective. You'll be a radical subjectivist soon enough.
Not really. You're so focused on the paradigm of subjective/objective conflicts that you dare not to cross over and notice the conceptual arrangement beyond such mere labels that are not superbly informative, not even beyond two hints of an epistemic skill. It's creates a stir of you supporting laughing instead of helping what are absolutely bad situations. I'm sorry, but I can't discuss with somebody that is this heartfelt sick. It's bothersome that people approach the world this way.
have a good day.
wilderness: Honestly I think you missed the point by responding to each point I wrote. I don't deny them. I deny the hang-up. And life, liberty, and property are of natural law. You dismiss this, and I could care less.
Honestly I think you missed the point by responding to each point I wrote. I don't deny them. I deny the hang-up. And life, liberty, and property are of natural law. You dismiss this, and I could care less.
So the natural law is life, liberty, and property? Please elaborate and provide evidence for your claim. That has been my only request, this entire thread.
wilderness:But when I read or discuss with somebody any particular concept I find it helps to know what I'm talking about and understand the traditional usage of concepts. Semantics word play is tricky of the weak. I'm not hung-up on trying to pin this down to such willy-nilly preferences to prove to a skeptic. How does one prove anything to a sophist/skeptic? Prove - skeptic are natural contraries.
I understand the traditional usage of the term natural law and objective ethics and its differed tremendously. I'm not playing with semantics here, my language has been as clear and forthright as possible. If you feel otherwise please point out where your point of contention stems.
wilderness:How do I know what?
How do you know that "it is universally absolute that murder isn't good"? Can you verify your opinion with facts. To be more precise, can you explain your opinion with something that is scientifically verifiable? Or is it just your own normative analysis?
wilderness:This is exactly the hang-up with those trapped in the subjective/objective paradigm. Feelings are objects that can be objectively defined. Feelings are of the subject and can be subjectively defined. And yet whether it is objective or subjective it is these feelings being defined. I have more stimulating intellectual curiosities to contemplate. No offense, but this isn't anything ground-breaking to discuss. Maybe it is for you, but I don't find running over intellectual ground that I've learned about years ago to be worth my attention today.
You aren't making any sense:
(1) Feelings are objects that can be objectively defined.
(2) Feelings are of the subject and can be subjectively defined.
Which one is it? If its both than you've answered my first question. You are denying subjectivity and objectivity.
But I'm going to consult Princeton to help what I'm saying.
Feelings are emotions they only exist within the mind, they are intangible. In stark contrast to an object, which exist outside of the mind.
You cannot borrow a feeling. (Sorry Kirk) If you still don't understand contact Kinsella, I don't this to deteriorate further to another IP debat.
Laughing Man:Here we go in the circle again, how do you know it is wrong if you can't prove it true or false?
What circles? This is you just repeating yourself.
I DO NOT KNOW THAT IT IS WRONG.
IT CANNOT BE KNOWN THAT IT IS WRONG.
Laughing Man:Then you are speaking jibberish in thinking you think something is wrong. You are just saying 'Boo on taxes'. What use is that?
To express my preference. Whats the use of saying The Simpsons is funny? Is it still jibberish?
Laughing Man:The economic meaning of good? Economics is a positive science, there is no 'economic good'. I repeat again where are taxes a 'good thing'.
In economics, a "good" is a tangible product that involves the transfer of ownership from a seller to a customer. (Now, please do not make another comment concerning economic goods)
Laughing Man:I repeat again where are taxes a 'good thing'.
I repeat, this is you just repeating yourself.
Angurse:Have you not read a thing I've written? Its impossible for taxes to be "good" or "bad."
Obviously taxes are "good" nowhere (except in someone's mind).
Laughing Man:It is a fact for those expressing the proposition. You seem to be getting into Jan Narveson in thinking that ethical statements between two individuals cannot be delved into to find common ground. That if I say I think property rights is right and you think property rights are wrong then we can't do anything.
Thats not a fact. There is no such thing as a "fact-for-you." I'll give you an example, "Ghandi murdered ten thousand Mexicans." It does not become any more of a fact because I said it. My opinion here is false. As Ghandi never did such a thing and it can be verified that he never did such a thing. In contrast, the statement "Its was wrong for Ghandi to protest British occupation" cannot be verified. (Unless you can prove objective ethics)
I do enjoy Jan Narveson actually, you should read more of him to understand fully. As he doesn't say there is nothing more we can do. Which is why I've repeatedly pointed to economic laws and logic.
Narveson:Now my claim is that in fact we have no reason for objecting to people’s use of things other than in the case where somebody is already using them. Acquisition in a genuine state of nature, where there simply isn’t anybody there yet, seems to me obviously justified. And it’s justified by the Pareto principle. Somebody’s now using it, nobody else is worse off because nobody else is around so you can’t be invading somebody else’s use of it.
Laughing Man:I think that is a wrong mentality because why cannot one be convinced that property rights is right? Why cannot one be shown they are contradicting themselves? It is rather like David Friedman's critique of apriorism.
Why? Thats the question I've asked you. Show that its ethically "right." Show that they are contradicting themselves. But again, you don't need to believe in natural law or objective ethics to believe in property rights. Look towards Leeson, Friedman, Jarveson, and de Jasay for a fuller explanation.
Laughing Man:No it isn't. Utilitiarians propound that the good is maximizing social pleasure, the bad is vice versa. What maximizes social pleasure is subjective, however the system itself isn't.
If its built on a subjective preference (pleasure, in this case) then it is 100% subjective.
Angurse:But Juan that impossible! Thats the entire point! How could I do that? "Right" and "wrong" are subjective opinions and therefore unfalsifiable (i.e. not truth-apt).
So the burden of proof is on you, you who say objective ethics are provable.
A: J: Or admit you are no different than criminals who think that stealing, raping, murdering, etc are justified actions. I don't recall saying such actions are just, in fact I said they were immoral.
J: Or admit you are no different than criminals who think that stealing, raping, murdering, etc are justified actions.
Feelings are emotions they only exist within the mind, they are intangible.
Angurse: What circles? This is you just repeating yourself. I DO NOT KNOW THAT IT IS WRONG. IT CANNOT BE KNOWN THAT IT IS WRONG.
Then why do you think it is wrong? If you don't know whether it can or cannot be wrong, why do you think it wrong?
Angurse: To express my preference. Whats the use of saying The Simpsons is funny? Is it still jibberish?
The simpsons being funny isn't a ethical proposition. It's like saying 'Blue is an interesting color.'
Angurse:In economics, a "good" is a tangible product that involves the transfer of ownership from a seller to a customer. (Now, please do not make another comment concerning economic goods)
I never made a comment about economics goods meaning commodities.
Angurse:Obviously taxes are "good" nowhere (except in someone's mind).
So it is merely a matter of showing the rational to others why they are not good.
Angurse:Ghandi murdered ten thousand Mexicans." It does not become any more of a fact because I said it. My opinion here is false
That's not an opinion. That is a false statement.
Angurse:Its was wrong for Ghandi to protest British occupation" cannot be verified. (Unless you can prove objective ethics)
Yes it can be through logical deduction.
A.) What was it about Ghandi's protesting that was wrong?
B.) Under what conditions was Ghandi under?
C.) What was his motivation?
Angurse:Why? Thats the question I've asked you. Show that its ethically "right." Show that they are contradicting themselves. But again, you don't need to believe in natural law or objective ethics to believe in property rights. Look towards Leeson, Friedman, Jarveson, and de Jasay for a fuller explanation.
Explain how private property comes about.
What does that even mean?
You're playing a semantic game poorly. We're all utilitarians because we're all rational actors. So-called social pleasure is just another value preference. I wouldn't even grace what you are doing with the label "quibbling". You are trying to manufacture a divide where none exists. Not unlike the broader argument about the objective ethics that you cannot prove, and also resort to semantics over.
Please don't bother contradicting me with a picture of Rothbard, like that appeal to authority adds anything to your non-argument, if you don't actually have something to say.
liberty student:What does that even mean?
It means that objectively speaking the maximization of social pleasure is the goal of utilitarians. All of them apply that tenet to their actions and premises. What that social pleasure varies, however the fact they all look for the maximization is objective.
liberty student:Please don't bother contradicting me with a picture of Rothbard, like that appeal to authority adds anything to your non-argument, if you don't actually have something to say.
Thanks for the obvious strawman. You said everyone is a utilitiarian, I show you someone who wasn't and suddenly I'm appealing to authority.
liberty student:We're all utilitarians because we're all rational actors.
Utilitarians are not defined by their human penchant for being utility maximizers, they are people who believe that what actions are ethically objectively right and wrong are determined by the consequences they have for the 'utility of the populace'
in other words saying that so and so is a utilitarian is saying something about their normative beliefs. and is not describing their positive behaviour (as such)
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
Laughing Man:the maximization of social pleasure is the goal
Is a subjective preference.
Laughing Man:Thanks for the obvious strawman.
Was it a strawman?
liberty student:Is a subjective preference.
To you, when does subjective turn into objective?
liberty student:Was it a strawman?
A misrepresentation of an opponents argument. The fact that you think I am trying to appeal to authority by disproving your statement that 'everyone is a utilitarian' with a picture reminding you...that not everyone is a utilitarians. I can give you other individuals in history who weren't or aren't utilitarians.
nirgrahamUK:in other words saying that so and so is a utilitarian is saying something about their normative beliefs. and is not describing their positive behaviour (as such)
Oh, so it is more pointless discussion. I avoid threads on religion for precisely this reason. Thanks.
peoples normative beliefs have dramatic effects on their behaviour. i dont think its pointless for this reason. This thread however may be pointless
Laughing Man:To you, when does subjective turn into objective?
Please don't suck me into your bottomless pit of thread jacking to debate endless arguments so far offtopic, no one but the parties in them cares to follow the discussion, and the parties in them only carry on, because they are chained to the discussion by their already sunk costs in the debate.
Laughing Man:The fact that you think I am trying to appeal to authority
You were. You didn't need to show me a picture of anyone.
Laughing Man:I can give you other individuals in history who weren't or aren't utilitarians.
But you didn't.
nirgrahamUK:peoples normative beliefs have dramatic effects on their behaviour. i dont think its pointless for this reason.
I want to make a joke here, but fear I have already invested myself too much in other people's wasted time.
nirgrahamUK:This thread however may be pointless
Indeed.
for clarity as it is quite easy to not take the time to contemplate in detail the definition of words:
1 a : something material that may be perceived by the senses <I see an object in the distance> b : something that when viewed stirs a particular emotion (as pity) <look to the tragic loading of this bed…the object poisons sight; let it be hid — Shakespeare>
me: emotions are correlated with hormones, but I'm not an endocrinologist and haven't studied at length this subject so I can't get all expert on you in these regards.
2 a : something mental or physical toward which thought, feeling, or action is directed <an object for study> <the object of my affection> <delicately carved art objects> b : something physical that is perceived by an individual and becomes an agent for psychological identification <the mother is the primary object of the child>
me: an object, such as feeling or tree, can be intellectually apprehended as I pointed out. Objects have definition and boundaries. Love is definable from hate. To what extent the definition proceeds for instance a love writer might have a expanded version of what love is, pages and pages worth, whereas something depressed might not have the stomach to even bring it up. Yet these are intellectually apprehended by various resources whether experience, a couple holding hands, or the shouting of the words 'I love you' from the roof top of a building. Many instances of it's recognition and the epistemic skill is sometimes referred to in any defining of a concept as layman's version or experts with many in between and neither necessarily right - depends. This is one of the definitions I was specifically referring to.
3 a : the goal or end of an effort or activity : purpose, objective <their object is to investigate the matter thoroughly> b : a cause for attention or concern <money is no object>
me: teleological understanding here
4 : a thing that forms an element of or constitutes the subject matter of an investigation or science
me: this is also what I was referring to. feelings and a tree, as well as, thoughts, buildings and birds can be conceptualized, recognized, in other words, intellectually apprehended. There are definite borders as to what each element is. A tree is not a bird and a bird isn't necessarily love, but it is possible a songbird singing on colorful evenings is feeling love. I don't know. But a person isn't love, but a person can enjoy and experience love and such love can be necessarily, at the moment of enjoyment, be considered that particular persons love. I can simply investigate much easier with a person, than say a bird, by asking the person, "Do you feel love now?". They can say yes, no, or lie, but it is definable and has discrete boundaries. Love is an object of inquiry or answer. It is a subject matter that can be investigated scientifically - it is or is not.
5 a : a noun or noun equivalent (as a pronoun, gerund, or clause) denoting the goal or result of the action of a verb b : a noun or noun equivalent in a prepositional phrase
me: grammar talk
6 a : a data structure in object-oriented programming that can contain functions as well as data, variables, and other data structures b : a discrete entity (as a window or icon) in computer graphics that can be manipulated independently of other such entities
me: I'm not talking about computers
— ob·ject·less \-ləs\ adjective
— ob·ject·less·ness noun
----
(the italicize won't turn off here for some reason, must have something to do with the copy and paste above, so this is not purposefully displayed this way): so to get mired in the fixation that something or everything (making absolutes about what ethics can and can not be) is subjectively ethical or objectively ethical is to get captivated by these classes. The marginal revolution has even made the effort to point out that getting stuck on the classes isn't getting to what is actually happening in the exchange. One person, you, made the argument that laughing at somebody being raped or a farmer having a bad corn season is supportable. Ethics are only humorous as you note. I object to such a confused emotional display and entail that I not only support justice for the person that was raped, but find it in my heart and mind to find the compassion for my farmer neighbor (if I had one), instead of merely finding humor in their ill-will. I don't deny subjective nor objective, but I don't get fixated on such concepts and get hung-up on them, meanwhile neglecting the real actions that are being professed or argued for in such instances. It's about where a person stands their ground and I'm not a limp-noodle when it comes to taking note that rape or a bad season of farming is something to revel. I'm a bit more thoughtful than that.
Juan: The entire point is that you just 'believe' in logical positivism. You are the true religious fanatic here.
And that makes you who believe in unproven natural rights the what? Zealot?
Juan:No, the burden of proof is on you : you need to prove that common sense morality is just personal 'opinion'.
Morality has changed quite a bit over the last 5,000 years and vary culture to culture. So there you go. If it was actually objective that wouldn't be the case.
Juan:Are they? Or what you mean is that you call them immoral, but the word immoral is meaningless, or at best it only means "I don't like it" ?
Yes.
Juan: I'm sure that if look up "moral/immoral" in the dictionary I won't find any entry saying that immoral means "something not liked by someone - a matter of taste"
OK? And? Will the dictionary explain how its objective at all?
Juan:Anyway, you are saying that you don't like crime, but at the same time you claim that there's nothing really wrong with it? Not very consistent, isn't it?
All thats "really wrong" with it is that I don't like it. (You could also make non-ethical case against crime as well)
Juan:Look, you are doing philosophy, whether you like it or not. As a matter of fact, your rejection of morality is just the sort of thing that post-modern, ivory-tower 'philosophers' would do.
Juan, catch a joke. But I haven't rejected morality at all, I simply understand that it is subjective. I've asked those who say that it is objective to prove it. Where is the proof.
Juan:So is language. So is meaning. So is logic. Lots of key things are 'intangible'.
Absolutely. However, logic is also a science in a similar vein as mathematics (Sorry Popper). Math not being tangible doesn't mean its subjective.
Laughing Man:Then why do you think it is wrong? If you don't know whether it can or cannot be wrong, why do you think it wrong?
Its a feeling. I like my stuff, I don't want to lose my stuff. I don't want to be a hypocrite so I don't steal. So I think its wrong to steal. Others may feel differently though. If someone says "I'm bored" do you turn to them and say "wrong, this isn't boredom." These are all due to individual attitude.
Laughing Man:The simpsons being funny isn't a ethical proposition. It's like saying 'Blue is an interesting color.'
Goodness. Saying "blue is an interesting color" is the same as saying "eating meat is wrong" in the sense that they are mere statements of opinion. Neither asserts a truth-apt idea, they are emotional expressions.
Laughing Man:I never made a comment about economics goods meaning commodities.
Of course you didn't. You said there was no economic good. Which was false.
Laughing Man:So it is merely a matter of showing the rational to others why they are not good.
You could try and emotionally persuade people to see things more like you. Or try and explain the consequences of taxes.
Laughing Man:That's not an opinion. That is a false statement.
A false statement can still be an opinion. They aren't mutually exclusive.
Laughing Man: Yes it can be through logical deduction. A.) What was it about Ghandi's protesting that was wrong? B.) Under what conditions was Ghandi under? C.) What was his motivation?
Are you being serious?
A.) Begs the question.
B.) Begs the question
C.) Begs the question
Logically deduce what entails "wrong."
Laughing Man:Explain how private property comes about.
Economic necessity. Selfishness.
I have no idea what point you are making. Are you even trying to discuss something? Not a single definition above contradicts what I said.
Angurse:Feelings are emotions they only exist within the mind, they are intangible. In stark contrast to an object, which exist outside of the mind.
Further, there isn't a thing there saying that feelings are material in any way.
1 a (1) : the one of the basic physical senses of which the skin contains the chief end organs and of which the sensations of touch and temperature are characteristic : touch (2) : a sensation experienced through this sense b : generalized bodily consciousness or sensation c : appreciative or responsive awareness or recognition2 a : an emotional state or reaction <a kindly feeling toward the boy> b plural : susceptibility to impression : sensitivity <the remark hurt her feelings>3 a : the undifferentiated background of one's awareness considered apart from any identifiable sensation, perception, or thought b : the overall quality of one's awareness c : conscious recognition : sense4 a : often unreasoned opinion or belief : sentiment b : presentiment5 : capacity to respond emotionally especially with the higher emotions6 : the character ascribed to something : atmosphere7 a : the quality of a work of art that conveys the emotion of the artist b : sympathetic aesthetic response8 : feel 4
wilderness:so to get mired in the fixation that something or everything (making absolutes about what ethics can and can not be) is subjectively ethical or objectively ethical is to get captivated by these classes. The marginal revolution has even made the effort to point out that getting stuck on the classes isn't getting to what is actually happening in the exchange.
I even tried to make it clear that this was the terms that I was using.
Angurse:But I'm going to consult Princeton to help what I'm saying.
wilderness:One person, you, made the argument that laughing at somebody being raped or a farmer having a bad corn season is supportable. Ethics are only humorous as you note.
This is absolute Horse shit. I never made any such argument. I said that humour and ethics are both subjective. You conflated that as saying they are the same. Which is simply a misunderstanding of subjectivity on your part. I haven't condoned any sort of behaviour whatsoever.
wilderness:I object to such a confused emotional display and entail that I not only support justice for the person that was raped, but find it in my heart and mind to find the compassion for my farmer neighbor (if I had one), instead of merely finding humor in their ill-will.
Confused emotional display? A confused emotional display is when you call ethics objective, thereby removing them from the world of emotions to which they fully belong. But you are on the right-track. Compassion comes from the heart.
wilderness:I don't deny subjective nor objective, but I don't get fixated on such concepts and get hung-up on them, meanwhile neglecting the real actions that are being professed or argued for in such instances. It's about where a person stands their ground and I'm not a limp-noodle when it comes to taking note that rape or a bad season of farming is something to revel. I'm a bit more thoughtful than that.
Who's neglecting? What are you even talking about?
I'll ask again. Prove natural law. Prove natural rights. Prove objective ethics. (Just pick one if you prefer)
liberty student:Please don't suck me into your bottomless pit of thread jacking to debate endless arguments so far offtopic
Please, when we start getting to the root of your flavor of the week, you suddenly start calling me a thread jacker or just say 'this is a waste of time'
liberty student:You were. You didn't need to show me a picture of anyone.
Obviously you were false in your belief that 'everyone is a utilitarian.
liberty student:But you didn't.
Because you strawmanned me by saying I was appealing to authority by showing a picture of Rothbard. Now you are mad because I didn't provide several other authors of natural rights. One was enough to disprove your statement, therefore I gave one. You are smart enough to know others and why you made that statement that 'everyone is a utilitarian' is bizarre.
Laughing Man:you suddenly start calling me a thread jacker
I'm pretty sure I have been calling you a thread jacker for several months.
Laughing Man:Obviously you were false in your belief that 'everyone is a utilitarian.
Objectively!
Laughing Man:Now you are mad
You don't make me mad.
Laughing Man:You are smart
Thanks.
Laughing Man:why you made that statement that 'everyone is a utilitarian' is bizarre
"utilitarians have expanded the very meaning of pleasure to the point of linguistic incoherence. The utilitarian groundlessly places pleasure as his or her first principle, and in doing so subordinates the value of asceticism, self-sacrifice or any other "secondary" desire. Of course, the utilitarian will deny this contention altogether, claiming that ascetics also seek pleasure, but have merely chosen an alternative path in which to achieve it.
Yet such an argument is implicitly tautological ("What is it that people want? Pleasure. But what is pleasure? What people want."). The utilitarian therefore has no ultimate justification for primarily valuing pleasure, other than to say that "this is the way it should be." In this critique, utilitarianism is thus ultimately reduced to a form of dishonest ethical intuitionism, unable to recognize or acknowledge its own groundlessness."
Angurse:Its a feeling. I like my stuff, I don't want to lose my stuff. I don't want to be a hypocrite so I don't steal. So I think its wrong to steal. Others may feel differently though. If someone says "I'm bored" do you turn to them and say "wrong, this isn't boredom." These are all due to individual attitude.
Well lets hope you don't have heart burn when you read a work by a famous author. You might be so inclined to think you are developing a pension of dislike for that person.
Angurse:Goodness. Saying "blue is an interesting color" is the same as saying "eating meat is wrong" in the sense that they are mere statements of opinion. Neither asserts a truth-apt idea, they are emotional expressions.
If that is what you think then you lack a firm understanding of the English language. By saying eating meat is bad, one is accouncing that committing such an act is bad for individuals, bad in the sense of being beyond the person making the announcement. By saying 'murder is wrong' I'm not just saying that 'well I think murder is wrong for me' but that it is wrong for anyone to do it or to suffer from it.
Angurse:Of course you didn't. You said there was no economic good. Which was false.
Good in an ethical sense, yes there is no economic 'good [ moral ]' Economics is a positive science.
Angurse:You could try and emotionally persuade people to see things more like you. Or try and explain the consequences of taxes.
No room for reason? We can only use emotion?
Angurse: Are you being serious? A.) Begs the question. B.) Begs the question C.) Begs the question Logically deduce what entails "wrong."
How does it beg the question?
What entails wrong?
'the natural-law ethic states that goodness or badness can be determined by what fulfills or thwarts what is best for man's nature'
Angurse:Economic necessity. Selfishness.
Why not slavery? Why not communism? You are not supposing that everyone wants happiness and prosperity are you? And selfishness? Are you saying that everyone is objectively selfish?
liberty student:I'm pretty sure I have been calling you a thread jacker for several months
Yea well that's because you've become the forum ruffian or perhaps you've always been and I just haven't witnessed it to this degree. You brought up ethical subjectivism, I asked a question since you brought it up. If you doubt it look back to the beginning.
liberty student:You don't make me mad.
Well obviously I must be producing some negative emotion in you or how else would you be so determined to think I am wrong?
I have started reading Roderick Long's piece on Wittgenstein and I think it very brilliant. The language we employ is one of objective nature. There is no subjective linguistics because there is no private language and since we employ objective language, that is language that is not bound to one single individual but all the people who practice it, then it follows that emotivist beliefs are nonsense. When an individual says something is good, they usually mean to imply that it is a social good, that it is something beyond themselves. Therefore it is not just pure emotion like the emotivists try to make it out to be. That is what I have drawn from it so far, though I have yet to finish it. I recommend it.
Wittgenstein, Austrian Economics, and the Logic of Action
Laughing Man: Obviously you were false in your belief that 'everyone is a utilitarian.
LM, Everyone is an individual utilitarian in that everyone, by definition, tries to maximize their own utility. Benthamite utilitarianism ought to have been called something more specific, like "social utilitarianism".
I don't know if that's what LS meant, but if it is, I agree with him.