Jackson LaRose:I hold a positivist stance on my perception of reality. Is that close enough?
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: what kind of pain are you asking about?
what kind of pain are you asking about?
Any kind. What I wanted to get at is this:
Normally falling into error is undesirable because, eventually, there is some unpleasant consequence that could result (other than simply being in error). It's clear why it's undesirable to be in error about whether a thermos contains antifreeze or KoolAid. It's also clear, after a fashion, why I'd want to avoid being in error about what 2 plus 2 equals. What's not clear to me is why being in error about "hard points of objective morality" is undesirable.
What material or psychic detriment is there? Being conflicted or contradicted is only usually undesirable because it has the clear potential to negatively influence my happiness. But this case of objective morality seems unique in that it isn't clear what actual undesirable consequences there could be.
Why anarchy fails
How is that blind faith? I am skeptical toward my own perception. AJ, I can see how anguish could result from seeing the ideas you once clung so tightly to melt away... I personally found the experience extremely refreshing and liberating, like taking a huge dump.
Jackson, thanks for your comment, but I'm not sure what you're referring to exactly. Could you clarify?
Jackson LaRose: How is that blind faith? I am skeptical toward my own perception. AJ, I can see how anguish could result from seeing the ideas you once clung so tightly to melt away... I personally found the experience extremely refreshing and liberating, like taking a huge dump.
You've got spunk, kid. Welcome to the forums.
"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
AJ:Any kind. What I wanted to get at is this: Normally falling into error is undesirable because, eventually, there is some unpleasant consequence that could result (other than simply being in error). It's clear why it's undesirable to be in error about whether a thermos contains antifreeze or KoolAid. It's also clear, after a fashion, why I'd want to avoid being in error about what 2 plus 2 equals. What's not clear to me is why being in error about "hard points of objective morality" is undesirable. What material or psychic detriment is there? Being conflicted or contradicted is only usually undesirable because it has the clear potential to negatively influence my happiness. But this case of objective morality seems unique in that it isn't clear what actual undesirable consequences there could be.
I don't feel particularly motivated to imagine bogeymen to help motivate your caring about the truth or falsity of some claim X.
if you don't care about X being true or false, just let me discuss it with people who do care.
Jackson LaRose:How is that blind faith? I am skeptical toward my own perception.
Are you skeptical about positivism? how might reality demonstrate that positivism was flawed? please imagine a way it could be falsified.
A way we might know that NOT 'All swans are white' is if we could find a black swan.
what is a way that we might know that NOT 'positivism is true'?
I join nitroaddict in welcoming you to the forums
Well, I'm curious why you care about being in error about objective morality. (No need to answer if you don't want to.)
Nitroadict: What about if you're in the wild & fighting off an endangered species? They have a right to exist (state or stateless society, via government or the market, endangered species would most likely have some sort of agreed upon protection in allotted areas, by those interested in conservation...), but so do you, but if you kill it, others may persecute you for being a murderer, when you were defending yourself in a life or death situation.
What about if you're in the wild & fighting off an endangered species? They have a right to exist (state or stateless society, via government or the market, endangered species would most likely have some sort of agreed upon protection in allotted areas, by those interested in conservation...), but so do you, but if you kill it, others may persecute you for being a murderer, when you were defending yourself in a life or death situation.
Mate, endangered species can KMA!
Thanks for the question, BTW. I love it when I get to reply with something redneck-like.
One can use the tools and might of language and reason to understand the nature and tendency of things better. One may even try to use the might of them to put them above another type of power (physical strength, the individual, superstition, habit, etc), in fact in this day it can be used quite succefully to trick a fool to bow to the god of reason. One can use the might of reason to establish their morality on others, and one can be weak enough, give up their power, and claim to KNOW the true morality of that person. It's happend countless times.
However if I am a 300 pound man and you are a 100 pound boy who tries to make a boxer play a chess match, don't be too suprised if I used the power more suited for my build (and presumably the circumstance) to win the day MY way. The only way I would lose is if I willingly gave up a power that would give me what I wanted to suite your power. This will always be part of the nature of things so long as it is possible. If you apply the wrong tool (ex: reason and language) in the wrong situation you will fail if someone has the power to call you out on it.
So long that a person has the power he makes his own law. That may sound a bit harsh, but I think upon evaluation it isn't at all, it seems a lot more sane and civil than anything else I can think of.
OK, back in the saddle again. Thanks for welcoming me to the forum everyone. AJ, I was talking about the psychic pain that could be inflicted on oneself when they realize they are in epistemological error. Nigraham, I think you are getting wrapped up in the "truth" aspect the argument too much. I'm not confident that perception equates to actual reality (if there is an actual reality at all). It is illogical to think that an objective, universal "truth" or "right" could even be observed by any of us, because simply by the act of observation we distort whatever we are observing. Say I look at a red chair, and say "it is true the chair is red". Now, another guy looks at the same chair and says "it is true the chair is blue". Which is correct? Of course, you can spew some gobbledegook like "the fabric of the chair reflect the visible light spectrum of 700 nm, so it must be red!" Of course, you have no way of knowing what that individuals brain does with the raw information his optic nerve sends it. Maybe he has a condition that makes 700nm look like what most would consider "blue", of course now you can say "See? This person simply has a problem. He can't perceive the true reality, as the majority perceives it!" Well, frankly, who made the majority the boss of reality? Haven't you ever seen "The Matrix"? This is also a slippery slope into authoritarianism, because once you are convinced that right and wrong applies to everyone, you can start to conceptualize superiority over the "wrong". And confidentially, those you consider to be wrong won't become right until you impress your will upon them (even in something as innocent as a debate) that might begin to violate NAP...
Hey Dondoolee!, It's great to have another egoist aboard!
Marko: Nitroadict: What about if you're in the wild & fighting off an endangered species? They have a right to exist (state or stateless society, via government or the market, endangered species would most likely have some sort of agreed upon protection in allotted areas, by those interested in conservation...), but so do you, but if you kill it, others may persecute you for being a murderer, when you were defending yourself in a life or death situation. Mate, endangered species can KMA! Thanks for the question, BTW. I love it when I get to reply with something redneck-like.
You might want to choose which redneck you are trying to emulate: "Mate" isn't used by American "red-necks", although the British red-necks (Australia, I'm assuming) do.
"Boy", or "Shiiii", or Also, thanks for not really answer the questions I posed, but I suppose it's enough that you acknowledge them. Maybe when you answer them, others can take your position more seriously.
Jackson LaRose: OK, back in the saddle again. Thanks for welcoming me to the forum everyone. AJ, I was talking about the psychic pain that could be inflicted on oneself when they realize they are in epistemological error. Nigraham, I think you are getting wrapped up in the "truth" aspect the argument too much. I'm not confident that perception equates to actual reality (if there is an actual reality at all). It is illogical to think that an objective, universal "truth" or "right" could even be observed by any of us, because simply by the act of observation we distort whatever we are observing. Say I look at a red chair, and say "it is true the chair is red". Now, another guy looks at the same chair and says "it is true the chair is blue". Which is correct? Of course, you can spew some gobbledegook like "the fabric of the chair reflect the visible light spectrum of 700 nm, so it must be red!" Of course, you have no way of knowing what that individuals brain does with the raw information his optic nerve sends it. Maybe he has a condition that makes 700nm look like what most would consider "blue", of course now you can say "See? This person simply has a problem. He can't perceive the true reality, as the majority perceives it!" Well, frankly, who made the majority the boss of reality? Haven't you ever seen "The Matrix"? This is also a slippery slope into authoritarianism, because once you are convinced that right and wrong applies to everyone, you can start to conceptualize superiority over the "wrong". And confidentially, those you consider to be wrong won't become right until you impress your will upon them (even in something as innocent as a debate) that might begin to violate NAP... Hey Dondoolee!, It's great to have another egoist aboard!
A voice in your head whispers, Should I use paragraphs?
Egoist response: writing structure is merely a construct!
Nitroadict: Also, thanks for not really answer the questions I posed, but I suppose it's enough that you acknowledge them. Maybe when you answer them, others can take your position more seriously.
Also, thanks for not really answer the questions I posed, but I suppose it's enough that you acknowledge them. Maybe when you answer them, others can take your position more seriously.
I didn't know you speak for others besides yourself? How many people do you speak for exactly?
AJ: Zavoi:How do you reconcile these statements? Does or does not a common moral sensibility exist across cultures? There are probably some aspects of our moral sense that nearly everyone or every culture shares, or that humans have evolved a hardwired tendency toward (Clayton's post, although I don't think nakedness is necessarily the best example), but not all of them (Marko's post).
Zavoi:How do you reconcile these statements? Does or does not a common moral sensibility exist across cultures?
There are probably some aspects of our moral sense that nearly everyone or every culture shares, or that humans have evolved a hardwired tendency toward (Clayton's post, although I don't think nakedness is necessarily the best example), but not all of them (Marko's post).
I am not sure what post of mine are you referring to.
I think it is exceedingly rare for any entity to have its sense of morality perfectly aligned with true morality. I think there exists a true morality. I am not saying anybody actually adheres to it. However I am saying it is knowable. We have the ability to figure it out. But it is perfectly possible to feel righteous indignation over what is a perceived injustice, but is not an injustice in truth, which is something all of us do to one extent or another.
Simply because we can not but not abhor wrong (anti-justice) behaviour, does not necessarily mean we actually know a great deal about what qualifies as wrong behaviour. Consequentially a culture can have very warped moral sensibilities.
Marko: I am not sure what post of mine are you referring to. I think it is exceedingly rare for any entity to have its sense of morality perfectly aligned with true morality. I think there exists a true morality. I am not saying anybody actually adheres to it. However I am saying it is knowable. We have the ability to figure it out. But it is perfectly possible to feel righteous indignation over what is a perceived injustice, but is not an injustice in truth, which is something all of us do to one extent or another. Simply because we can not but not abhor wrong (anti-justice) behaviour, does not necessarily mean we actually know a great deal about what qualifies as wrong behaviour. Consequentially a culture can have very warped moral sensibilities.
A little editing can do wonders:
I think it is exceedingly rare for any entity to have its sense of Santa Claus perfectly aligned with the real Santa Claus. I think there exists a real Santa Claus. I am not saying anybody actually understands him. However I am saying he is knowable. We have the ability to discover him.
The rest is too silly to even ridicule (plus I was having a tough time shoehorning it into the Santa analogy). If you don't like something, or want something to happen, prevent it! Don't lean on an unknown "true morality". And if your contention that this "true morality" is constantly violated, what purpose does it serve? How would you discover this true morality? Empirical research? Polls? Reading the Bible? If you do some soul-searching, and realize the set of guidelines that you will live your life by, that is a personal morality! Not mine, not everybody's, yours! If you convince me of its virtue, and I convert, it's only through you impressing your will, your force, your perception of morality, upon me! We did not come to the ultimate, logical conclusion independently. I mean, what are the odds that we would?
What would/could this set of guiding rules consist of? One, ten, one hundred, one thousand, commandments? Who would decide whether a rule would be accepted into the canon of "true morality"? What would the "righteous" believers of true morality do to the unconvinced, or unenlightened? Accept them as "separate yet equal", avoid them, convert them, kill them? I'm telling you, this is a dangerous road to begin to walk down... beware the fixed idea, beware faith!
True morality is discovered by the means of reasoning.
I would further implore you to desist from making assumptions about my position.
What if certain individuals are unreasonable? Will you Vulcan mind meld with them to "show them the light"?
What assumptions?
Here is a thought exercise I'd like to get some opinions on here... I thought about it when I was trudging through some Hoppe last night (gag)
Jim and Bill are in a room with one chair. Jim is sitting in the chair, Bill is standing. Jim gets up to get a drink at the water fountain across the room. Before he leaves, he puts a note on the chair reading:
"Jim's chair, do not sit!"
Bill disregards the note, and sits in the chair. Jim, upon returning from across the room, notices this violation of his property rights.
"Get up!" Jim exclaims.
"No way. You weren't using this resource, so I homesteaded it. The chair is now mine." Bill replies.
Jim pulls out his trusty revolver, shoot Bill in the chest, pulls his corpse off the chair, and has a seat.
Now according to your reasoning, who was right, and who was wrong? Explanations would also be helpful.
Jackson LaRose:AJ, I was talking about the psychic pain that could be inflicted on oneself when they realize they are in epistemological error.
The idea is that people rejecting libertarian ethics might somehow feel pain from the supposed "contradiction." I don't think this is true, both because I don't think there is any such contradiction (I reject objective ethics of all stripes), but that is what I was asking about.
That's a really good point. Say these objective ethics exist. If so, so what? They are meaningless unless they are enforced by coercive means. Much like the laws the church or the state proposes. If there were no police, or no inquisitors, they wouldn't mean a damn, because people would behave the way they want, "right" or "wrong".
On the other hand, I can accept the laws* of physics as a limitation, because I can't not abide by them. If I jump off of a skyscraper building naked, I will begin to accelerate towards the center of the Earth until I reach terminal velocity due to the friction of the air, and am stopped by the strength of the electromagnetic bonds of the concrete. I can't just ignore them. The "laws" of morality (still haven't seen em yet) can be ignored with absolutely no direct consequence, therefore, they aren't "laws".
*larger than Planck scale
Jackson LaRose: What assumptions?
One, you are assuming it is a great concern of mine what people's position on this is.
Two, you are assuming I do not hold the NAP to be a part (the corner stone actually) of objectively true morality.
In fact so far you have done nothing but strawmaned me with your hysterical barrage of loaded questions built on faulty assumptions.
O.K., I'll interact with no presuppositions. Your claim is that there is an objective morality that is universally true, and it can be deduced by reasoning. Convince me. I'll consider any example. I'd especially like to hear what you deduce about the scenario I posted above.
Jackson LaRose: Egoist response: writing structure is merely a construct!
:puffs on pipe & adjusts monocle, then sips brandy from his glass: Indeed.
Nice to have you aboard as well. If you would like some links to some reading material, let me know I'll PM them to you
Yeah definitely. I've only read what Stirner has to say, would like to get a hold of some Tucker.
I left a bunch of links on your "comments" section let me know if you recieved them
Sweet, thanks man.
OK, got them. Thanks again.
Ok, I'm sorry but I don't want to look through an entire page of long and complicated posts. So I'd like to see if anyone could attempt to convince me of non theistic based ethics. I don't even really understand exactly what morality is even supposed to mean anymore.
So my basic idea on morality: Man acts to alleviate his discomfort. As anyone who has ever heard of praxeology knows this is the only given. Where does this concept of "Ethics" or morality come into the realm of human existence? It is merely a throwback from a concept thousands of years old based upon religious sentiments, if one does not believe in a Deity or the divine then what can compel him to do anything? The answer is the same thing that makes you believe in objective ethics, their reason and their desires.
This, in my opinion, is where morality falls apart. Even if you can say that something is moral what necessitates that one should value morality? Value and worth are inherently and by their very nature subjective entities. So indeed one can prove the existence of self ownership, individuals own and have control over themselves, but so what? Why must one value this ownership in any but themselves? Rothbard began talking in absolute terms about how invalidating one invalidates all. But once more this is simply throwing in the absolute in order to ensure that the theory of natural rights is not overcome. As Mises sated (paraphrasing here from human action): A man does not choose over all of X over all of Y, only a specified amount of X over a specified amount of Y.
Man does not choose over invalidating (whatever that means) the right of self ownership for all, merely that for others, those against whom he would indeed choose to, say, steal from. So where does this leave us? In the dark pit of nihilism? No, because the nihilist misses the point entirely. We can go back to where objective morality was destroyed, to the realm of VALUE. What do we value and what are we willing to do to see it achieved? Do we value democracy? Do we value the king? Do we value universal property rights? It comes down to a single thing, the individual.
In a word, existentialism.
From there each individual should attempt to do his best to see his ethics realized. The most accepted way to do this is through logic, what is the most logical? From here we must employ intense reasoning and other studies, particularly economics, in order to understand the best ethics for X or Y.
I myself, understanding the above value a single thing in principal more than any other, consensual human action. I believe this is the most rational, and universally acceptable belief out there and the study of Austrian economics has lead me to believe that an anarchist society would be the best way to see this achieved.
Thoughts?
Seems well thought out, and as long as you aren't trying to tell me how to live, more power to you!
I'll throw in my two cents here. I think critical thinking about every fixed idea one holds leads to their eventual dissolution up to, and eventually (after some truly deep self-examination/meditation) including the ego itself, dissolving the illusory separation between subject and observer, i.e. the self and the universe, which in turn creates compassion for all, since the self and the rest are just facets of the same whole. I think the Buddhists call it Rigpa.
Inevitably all men, to some extent, tell other men how to live. If by your statement you mean am I trying to control large aspects of your life, then no, never. If you are saying that I will hapilly allow you to do that which you please, to indulge in involuntary behavior which is not provoked, then yes I am telling you how to live, just as if I were to come and steal from you and you stopped me, you would be telling me how to live.
Of course individuals impose their will upon some part of the world simply by acting at all, creating karmic waves, as the Hindus say. What bothers me is the pretension of righteousness in action, which is both irritating, and possibly dangerous if you disagree.
Jackson LaRose: Of course individuals impose their will upon some part of the world simply by acting at all, creating karmic waves, as the Hindus say. What bothers me is the pretension of righteousness in action, which is both irritating, and possibly dangerous if you disagree.
Indeed, "righteousness" is little more than a piece of propaganda trying to make you bow to some form of power while increasing the power of something else. But like a demon myth, it is only effective if you are foolish enough to "invite into your house"
Unfortunately, it's also quite effective if the righteous has a gun, and you don't. Hell, that's why I pay tax!
No, that would be the gun that would be effective. The righteous attitude w/ a gun would be like getting shot by Fran Dreshir (sp?), it's bad enough to get shot but do I have to hear that GD voice while it's happening?
The Late Andrew Ryan:So my basic idea on morality: Man acts to alleviate his discomfort. As anyone who has ever heard of praxeology knows this is the only given. Where does this concept of "Ethics" or morality come into the realm of human existence? It is merely a throwback from a concept thousands of years old based upon religious sentiments, if one does not believe in a Deity or the divine then what can compel him to do anything? The answer is the same thing that makes you believe in objective ethics, their reason and their desires.
Morality could just be intuitive, lacking in some, warped in others, but commonly held overall.
Angurse:lacking in some, warped in others, but commonly held overall
Whoa, easy there Chairman Mao! Why don't you go back to the collective farm, have a cup of "The Peoples Blend" fair trade Venezuelan coffee, and think about your next protest march.
Just kidding. On a more serious note, "common interest" does occur in a limited sense, but certainly can't be considered as a basis for a universal moral code of conduct (which might be what you are alluding to at the beginning of that quote there). As shades of libertarians (I assume), we don't approve of a mandate of the majority determining our economic position, why then would we allow "them" to determine the proper ethical position?
Jackson LaRose: Just kidding. On a more serious note, "common interest" does occur in a limited sense, but certainly can't be considered as a basis for a universal moral code of conduct (which might be what you are alluding to at the beginning of that quote there). As shades of libertarians (I assume), we don't approve of a mandate of the majority determining our economic position, why then would we allow "them" to determine the proper ethical position?
No where did I say (or even imply) such an idea, I just gave a possible source of morality other than compounded religious teachings. Perhaps, you've had a bit too much coffee and are over-energetically jumping-the-gun.
Angurse:Morality could just be intuitive, lacking in some, warped in others, but commonly held overall.
I'm sorry, I must've misunderstood. This sentence is then contradicting itself, or is repetitive and essentially superfluous.
Angurse:Morality could just be intuitive
I understood this fragment of the statement as a suggestion of subjective morality based on personal intuition. Seems reasonable enough, but then it gets a little confusing:
Angurse:lacking in some, warped in others
I believe that everyone has some sort of intuition, I think we agree on that. If this intuition is subjective to the individual, and not compared against some external measure, it cannot be considered warped, because that would imply some external standard morality, against which it is compared.
Angurse:but commonly held overall
If we agree that everyone has a subjective intuition (we aren't the Borg, after all), upon which they base their notion of ethics, then ethics are themselves subjective. So this part of the statement is really confusing. You are either repeating yourself and agreeing with The Late Andrew Ryan, or you are contradicting the beginning of your statement.
Jackson LaRose: I believe that everyone has some sort of intuition, I think we agree on that. If this intuition is subjective to the individual, and not compared against some external measure, it cannot be considered warped, because that would imply some external standard morality, against which it is compared.
Actually no, "lacking in some" I don't agree that all even have any moral intuitions. And it can be considered warp in comparison to that which is commonly held (i.e. standard). As we already know people share very similar intuitions. If you want to call that external fine by me. This is no different than saying you have a "warped sense of humour" for laughing when a bus full of puppies crashes. As generally people don't find such an event to be funny at all.
Jackson LaRose:If we agree that everyone has a subjective intuition (we aren't the Borg, after all), upon which they base their notion of ethics, then ethics are themselves subjective. So this part of the statement is really confusing. You are either repeating yourself and agreeing with The Late Andrew Ryan, or you are contradicting the beginning of your statement.
TLAR asked about the source of morality, intuition is a source. But no, I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with him, just giving a possible source besides religious indoctrination.