J. Grayson Lilburne: wilderness: liberty student:First, everyone is a utilitarian. lol. Imposing your values...lol The part of what LS wrote immediately after what you quoted is crucial: liberty student: First, everyone is a utilitarian. You can't claim to understand the action axiom, and then deny that utilitarianism isn't involved in every human action, including those concerning ethics. Obviously LS is not talking about Benthamite utilitarianism (I don't see Liberty Student ever volunteering to man the panopticon), much less is he seeking to impose any such Benthamite values on others. He's making the praxeological observation that all men, from business tycoons to missionaries, from philosophers to joe six-pack, from fratboy hedonists to ascetic monks, and from Rothbardian libertarians to Hegelian etatists, by definition, seek to maximize utility.
wilderness: liberty student:First, everyone is a utilitarian. lol. Imposing your values...lol
liberty student:First, everyone is a utilitarian.
lol. Imposing your values...lol
The part of what LS wrote immediately after what you quoted is crucial:
liberty student: First, everyone is a utilitarian. You can't claim to understand the action axiom, and then deny that utilitarianism isn't involved in every human action, including those concerning ethics.
First, everyone is a utilitarian. You can't claim to understand the action axiom, and then deny that utilitarianism isn't involved in every human action, including those concerning ethics.
Obviously LS is not talking about Benthamite utilitarianism (I don't see Liberty Student ever volunteering to man the panopticon), much less is he seeking to impose any such Benthamite values on others. He's making the praxeological observation that all men, from business tycoons to missionaries, from philosophers to joe six-pack, from fratboy hedonists to ascetic monks, and from Rothbardian libertarians to Hegelian etatists, by definition, seek to maximize utility.
so much for not imposing your values on others...lol
J. Grayson Lilburne:This is EXACTLY how I feel about discourse with wilderness.
And yet I feel that you're a snob Lilburne who always thinks he's right and everybody else in the world is wrong. But of course what's that have to do with anything - na-da, except a way to bash me more. So much for you're high-road ideology Lilburne.
liberty student: Juan: LS: J: Anyone who consistently 'believes' in common sense morality is a libertarian. Name names ? What for ? Are you making a blacklist or something ? No, I am questioning your sincerity. LOL. So you are calling me dishonest ? Maybe a moderator should ban you for insulting me. Lilburne please ? Btw, what does sincerity mean to you ? Isn't sincerity a moral concept and so, basically, just a subjective opinion ? You dodged answering the question again Juan. I think it's obvious what that says about your arguments. There is nothing behind them. You make claims you won't support, and then if questioned on the support for your claims, evade, evade, evade. Thanks for making my point again.
Juan: LS: J: Anyone who consistently 'believes' in common sense morality is a libertarian. Name names ? What for ? Are you making a blacklist or something ? No, I am questioning your sincerity. LOL. So you are calling me dishonest ? Maybe a moderator should ban you for insulting me. Lilburne please ? Btw, what does sincerity mean to you ? Isn't sincerity a moral concept and so, basically, just a subjective opinion ?
LS: J: Anyone who consistently 'believes' in common sense morality is a libertarian. Name names ? What for ? Are you making a blacklist or something ? No, I am questioning your sincerity.
J: Anyone who consistently 'believes' in common sense morality is a libertarian. Name names ? What for ? Are you making a blacklist or something ?
You dodged answering the question again Juan.
I think it's obvious what that says about your arguments. There is nothing behind them. You make claims you won't support, and then if questioned on the support for your claims, evade, evade, evade.
Thanks for making my point again.
LS,
You're whole ideology is built around evade. Because it's all subjective right? So don't blame Juan for something you do. Practice what you preach.
wilderness:And your totally wrong. But you'll never believe your wrong. And you'll simply say that's your subjective navel gazing.
See, this is where I knew it was headed.
wilderness:Ethics is a science.
I don't believe it is. And I'm not sure you can make that case. Can you?
Let's say ethics is a science. Is all science ethics? If not, then what is the difference?
liberty student: wilderness:And your totally wrong. But you'll never believe your wrong. And you'll simply say that's your subjective navel gazing. See, this is where I knew it was headed.
dude. you started it by saying I was mocking you - when I wasn't. You simply made it up. Why? so much for you trying to be positive. Here's a suggestion. When you are trying to be positive with somebody. Don't be negative towards them.
liberty student: wilderness:Ethics is a science. I don't believe it is. And I'm not sure you can make that case. Can you? Let's say ethics is a science. Is all science ethics? If not, then what is the difference?
I'm not going to discuss this with you because you are already have pre-conceived notions. You said you don't believe it is. And in the subjectivist world that's like saying it's written in stone. I'm not wasting my time. I'll give you a hint and then go from there yourself. I'm not your guru especially in the current context. hint: property rights and scarcity.
J. Grayson Lilburne:He's making the praxeological observation that all men, from business tycoons to missionaries, from philosophers to joe six-pack, from fratboy hedonists to ascetic monks, and from Rothbardian libertarians to Hegelian etatists, by definition, seek to maximize utility.
It is not clear how one can make the distinction between the objective view and the subjective view.
By "seek to maximize utility" I'm sure you are referring to self-interest. We know that if man does not "seek to maximize utility" he is no longer a human being. If he is deprived of "seeking his maximum utility", he cannot survive on his own behalf. We know all this by applying objective reasoning and not subjective reasoning. Therefore, doesn't this imply that the goals of libertarianism are in fact grounded on objectivity and not subjectivity?
wilderness:I'm not going to discuss this with you because you are already have pre-conceived notions. You said you don't believe it is. And in the subjectivist world that's like saying it's written in stone. I'm not wasting my time. I'll give you a hint and then go from there yourself. I'm not your guru especially in the current context. hint: property rights and scarcity.
This is the exactly what you accuse me of, evasion. And yet I do not back down from proofing my claims, I only back away when the discussion is no longer about ideas and instead about hurt feelings.
You made a claim about ethics being a science. I laid out a logical train of inquiry for that. It should be simple for you to answer if you truly believe what you claimed. What I believe is irrelevant in this context, because you only have to satisfy logic, not me. Will you substantiate your claim about ethics being a science? And if not, does this mean you cannot?
As far as wasting your time, I assure you, you like me, enjoy wasting time in these debates which is why we are doing it. I think we'd both like to not waste time in these debates, but you may agree with me, that is easier said than done.
So. Ethics as science. Let's have at it shall we?
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."
liberty student:The latter is post-Objectivist absolutist moral stuff that is incompatible with voluntarism and market anarchy.
I never concluded that Rothbardian Anarchism could be even Post-Oist (as I am an Post-Oist myself) for one critical reason: Post-Objectivists like myself (including David Kelley) do not see philosophy as a closed system. That premise is key to why a Post-Objectivist cannot be said to be rooted in any form of absolutism whether it's pure Randite/Rothbardian political theory or any other absolutist theory of rights and politics.
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
DD5: It is not clear how one can make the distinction between the objective view and the subjective view.
Hot diggy dog!! Somebody else in this forum actually thinks the way I do about this!!!! praise jesus.
liberty student: wilderness:I'm not going to discuss this with you because you are already have pre-conceived notions. You said you don't believe it is. And in the subjectivist world that's like saying it's written in stone. I'm not wasting my time. I'll give you a hint and then go from there yourself. I'm not your guru especially in the current context. hint: property rights and scarcity. This is the exactly what you accuse me of, evasion.
This is the exactly what you accuse me of, evasion.
No I didn't. I said, "we're cool". I woke up this morning and the next post you respond to me is 'see this is why I can't talk with you'. Ok. So I go to sleep last night thinking "we're cool", and wake up with you telling me that you think I'm mocking you. I never said you are evading until you posted that response to Juan. So don't throw up these red herrings detracting from your negativity.
liberty student:And yet I do not back down from proofing my claims, I only back away when the discussion is no longer about ideas and instead about hurt feelings.
And yet I said, "we're cool" and you think that means I'm hurting your feelings. See what the hell is your problem?
liberty student:You made a claim about ethics being a science. I laid out a logical train of inquiry for that. It should be simple for you to answer if you truly believe what you claimed. What I believe is irrelevant in this context, because you only have to satisfy logic, not me. Will you substantiate your claim about ethics being a science? And if not, does this mean you cannot?
First off, science means knowledge. So it's not about logic. It's epistemolgy. That is the meaning of the word epistem(ology: study of).
liberty student:As far as wasting your time, I assure you, you like me, enjoy wasting time in these debates which is why we are doing it. I think we'd both like to not waste time in these debates, but you may agree with me, that is easier said than done. So. Ethics as science. Let's have at it shall we?
I don't know what there is to get. Episteme means knowledge. Science is another word for knowledge. This is semantics that dates back to at least Aristotle. Property rights are about scarcity. Do the economics on what is logically flawed when it comes to economics and without that basis in recogition of property rights there is no economy. I already gave you a hint. If you can't search the Mises Institute on learning what property is or economics then I don't know what to say. I tire of your game.
good day.
Juan:[linky-link]False Claims -|- Exposed[/linky-link]LOL. Now LS' evasions when dealing with me have been promoted to signature-level! That's something.Funny how you never answered my questions yet you fancy you 'exposed' some 'false claims'.So that's how it works, subjectivists can claim X is not true, but when pushed hard enough they just whine that everything is subjective. No point in wasting time with them.
That's so wrong he has a signature of that now. Where's his moderator respectability. I mean it is all subjective right?
ladyattis: liberty student:The latter is post-Objectivist absolutist moral stuff that is incompatible with voluntarism and market anarchy. I never concluded that Rothbardian Anarchism could be even Post-Oist (as I am an Post-Oist myself) for one critical reason: Post-Objectivists like myself (including David Kelley) do not see philosophy as a closed system. That premise is key to why a Post-Objectivist cannot be said to be rooted in any form of absolutism whether it's pure Randite/Rothbardian political theory or any other absolutist theory of rights and politics.
Somebody else that GETS IT. Thanks ladyattis.
Juan:Maybe I should take it as a compliments of sorts =P I'm important enough to be part of LS' signature =]
no. i think it's really pathetic that somebody did that. i remember hashem had a signature about moderators not following the rules of the forum and he was banned, I believe for having such a signature, but I do know. I do know so many people got on him for that. but it is all subjective. subjectivists are tryannts. cause they don't even pretend to base their absolutness on 'the public good' or some kind of reason. They get a stamp from some god-like belief system that declares what's law. It's like the Pope during the Inquistion. He said it was God's will and gave time off purgatory to anybody that would fight in his army. And if they died fighting for him, he said they would reach instant salvation.
Wilderness, here are the questions I asked which you have avoided.
Is all science ethics? If not, what is the difference between science that is ethics, and science that is not ethics?
liberty student: liberty student: wilderness:Ethics is a science. I don't believe it is. And I'm not sure you can make that case. Can you? Let's say ethics is a science. Is all science ethics? If not, then what is the difference? Wilderness, here are the questions I asked which you have avoided. Is all science ethics? If not, what is the difference between science that is ethics, and science that is not ethics?
wow. i already answered your question twice now. are you smokin' pot or what? <----- and that's a serious question.
ladyattis:I never concluded that Rothbardian Anarchism could be even Post-Oist (as I am an Post-Oist myself) for one critical reason: Post-Objectivists like myself (including David Kelley) do not see philosophy as a closed system.
Perhaps I am misusing the term, but I see Rothbard as a post-Objectivist. Someone who breaks out of the closed system of "What Rand said" but still employs the absolutism of objective ethicism.
ladyattis:That premise is key to why a Post-Objectivist cannot be said to be rooted in any form of absolutism whether it's pure Randite/Rothbardian political theory or any other absolutist theory of rights and politics.
That's interesting, because if I read that right, you're closer to a subjective ethicist (as I explain it up thread) than the objective ethicists with their appeal to absolute ethics (ethical science). Is that correct?
wilderness: Because it's all subjective right?
Because it's all subjective right?
I do not understand how simply stating "it's all subjective" in a sarcastic tone amounts to an argument (I think this has been brought up before, I haven't been online enough to remember...). Could you elaborate on this?FYI, this thread is getting a bit tangential with the discussion of science as ethics. If no one else minds / does, I might split it off at the appropriate posts so the previous debate on the OP doesn't get buried by other arguments.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
wilderness:wow. i already answered your question twice now. are you smokin' pot or what? <----- and that's a serious question.
I don't smoke pot. I didn't see your answer to that question. I'll go back and look.
Nope, don't see an answer to these two questions.
One, if ethics is science, is all science ethics?
Two, if not, what is the difference between science which is not ethics, and science which is ethics?
Juan:Maybe I should take it as a compliments of sorts
You should. I am placing it there (links to our own words, nothing controversial in my mind) over many other phrases and signature content. Those two links have the highest possible value in my signature.
Nitroadict:FYI, this thread is getting a bit tangential with the discussion of science as ethics. If no one else minds / does, I might split it off at the appropriate posts so the previous debate on the OP doesn't get buried by other arguments.
You might want to lock it first. It is a nightmare splitting a thread when people are still posting to it.
liberty student: That's interesting, because if I read that right, you're closer to a subjective ethicist (as I explain it up thread) than the objective ethicists with their appeal to absolute ethics (ethical science). Is that correct?
From what I've read on Post-Oist (a good abbreviation, btw, LA), this was more or less my understanding: that it is a generally more open interpretation of objectivism ("truth is objective, but it moves", "q is prior to and may outlast a", being the premises that come to mind) that sought to avoid absolutism associated with Objectivism. Admittedly, however, there doesn't seem to be much developed on Post-Oist beyond maybe a few youtube videos & what seems to be one of the initial appearances of it on the web here, so I wouldn't be surprised if I were missing something.
liberty student: Nitroadict:FYI, this thread is getting a bit tangential with the discussion of science as ethics. If no one else minds / does, I might split it off at the appropriate posts so the previous debate on the OP doesn't get buried by other arguments. You might want to lock it first. It is a nightmare splitting a thread when people are still posting to it.
At this point, it's hard to tell, since the tangential arguments do have some slight bearing on the OP (so far). If another page goes on without reference to the OP, it will be mandatory to lock, split, un-lock, etc.
Nitroadict:At this point, it's hard to tell, since the tangential arguments do have some slight bearing on the OP (so far). If another page goes on without reference to the OP, it will be mandatory to lock, split, un-lock, etc.
Well, for what it is worth, I don't have anything left to add. Although I am interested to know more about ladyattis' perspective.
Nitroadict: wilderness: Because it's all subjective right? I do not understand how simply stating "it's all subjective" in a sarcastic tone amounts to an argument (I think this has been brought up before, I haven't been online enough to remember...).
I do not understand how simply stating "it's all subjective" in a sarcastic tone amounts to an argument (I think this has been brought up before, I haven't been online enough to remember...).
I'm not being sarcastic. I mean it's not "all is objective" right? It's all subjective to subjectivists.
liberty student: wilderness:wow. i already answered your question twice now. are you smokin' pot or what? <----- and that's a serious question. I don't smoke pot. I didn't see your answer to that question. I'll go back and look. Nope, don't see an answer to these two questions. One, if ethics is science, is all science ethics? Two, if not, what is the difference between science which is not ethics, and science which is ethics?
One: there's biology
Two: one is about resolving potential conflict issues of scarcity and the other is called the study of life.
wilderness:I mean what the HELL happened!
wilderness:What the hell is a matter with you?
wilderness:There's nothing wrong with walking away when you get angry
wilderness:subjectivists are tryannts. cause they don't even pretend to base their absolutness on 'the public good' or some kind of reason. They get a stamp from some god-like belief system that declares what's law.
J. Grayson Lilburne:...
yeah. it made me upset. i don't hide that fact. I went to bed saying, "we're cool" and woke up with him saying I'm mocking him. So I do ask, 'What the hell happened? really what the hell?
lol... always thinking you know something when you don't. cause you don't know me. and that's a fact.
Juan: wilderness:subjectivists are tryannts. cause they don't even pretend to base their absolutness on 'the public good' or some kind of reason. They get a stamp from some god-like belief system that declares what's law. Egoism and Anarchy"The natural-rights proponents argued that respect for the inviolability of other people's rights is a sine qua non of anarchism. Even if the egoist respects anarchist boundaries in practice ' something of which the natural-rightsers felt none too confident ' she must nonetheless reserve in principle an entitlement to impose her will on others should she judge doing so to be in her own interest. Hence the egoist must regard others' freedom as a revocable gift from herself to them, rather than an inherent right; but this is to take the attitude of a ruler to her subjects, not of an anarchist to her peers. The consistent anarchist, the natural-rightsers argued, must reject egoism in favour of a universal and binding moral law."
good quote Juan. That's really the heart of subjectivists. They pretend they are above the fray, some kind of uncorrupted diety letting others be saved by their grace. please
DD5: J. Grayson Lilburne:He's making the praxeological observation that all men, from business tycoons to missionaries, from philosophers to joe six-pack, from fratboy hedonists to ascetic monks, and from Rothbardian libertarians to Hegelian etatists, by definition, seek to maximize utility. It is not clear how one can make the distinction between the objective view and the subjective view. By "seek to maximize utility" I'm sure you are referring to self-interest. We know that if man does not "seek to maximize utility" he is no longer a human being. If he is deprived of "seeking his maximum utility", he cannot survive on his own behalf. We know all this by applying objective reasoning and not subjective reasoning. Therefore, doesn't this imply that the goals of libertarianism are in fact grounded on objectivity and not subjectivity?
"A non-acting thing is not a man" and "If a man's actions are circumscribed enough, he cannot survive" are objective statements of fact.
"All men SHOULD not be circumscribed so that they may survive on their own" is a subjective statement of value.
wilderness:lol... always thinking you know something when you don't. cause you don't know me. and that's a fact.
wilderness:That's really the heart of subjectivists.
wilderness:They pretend they are above the fray, some kind of uncorrupted diety letting others be saved by their grace.
I've responded to this in a new thread: The Ancient Chimera of Universal, Absolute, Objective Value.
i don't appreciate you associating my quote with your argument in the other thread, so, take out my quote in the other thread. It's a strawman and currently intellectually dishonest. I await your timely removal.
liberty student:That's interesting, because if I read that right, you're closer to a subjective ethicist (as I explain it up thread) than the objective ethicists with their appeal to absolute ethics (ethical science). Is that correct?
I'm a moral realist, but being objective/real doesn't mean it's (ethics) a static quasi-positivist science to be turned over to dry as bones syllogism. For example, Rand noted emotions seem to be tied to how something is good/evil for a person, such a reference to emotion (perhaps as emotivism) means ethics being a science is a logical impossibility as emotions in this case are rooted in a pre-cognitive function which we as a species inherited from ancestor species (and so forth), outside of the realm of human choice and quite literally outside of the realm of the exacting nature of a purely deductive science.
right. and you know this ladyattis. meaning it's a science, ie. episteme, that recognizes that to be human isn't about being strictly an exclusive animal of reason. humans have hearts and feel. that is within the science of human nature, meaning, to know what a human is. well said.
I hold an original definition of science which simply means knowledge. Thus why I said you know (episteme, science) this. I had defined science this way already in this thread.
good day
ladyattis:I'm a moral realist, but being objective/real doesn't mean it's (ethics) a static quasi-positivist science to be turned over to dry as bones syllogism.
OK, that makes good sense to me. Thanks.