nirgrahamUK: I'm afraid your question is a little unclear and open to interpretation. can you ask it more precisely? Perhaps you are asking me to explain that when you do an immoral act, it remains an immoral act. the fact of the acts morality is beyond being affected by your actualizing or failure to actualize the act.
I'm afraid your question is a little unclear and open to interpretation. can you ask it more precisely?
Perhaps you are asking me to explain that when you do an immoral act, it remains an immoral act. the fact of the acts morality is beyond being affected by your actualizing or failure to actualize the act.
But there is a distinction between laws that be denied yet not defied, and "laws" that can be both denied and defied.
Jackson LaRose:I could remove my eyelids, or kill myself. Sorry brainstem.
Removing your eyelids or killing yourself wouldn't be the ego overcoming the impulses though, it would just be physical destruction. It has lost.
Jackson LaRose:But there is a distinction between laws that be denied yet not defied, and "laws" that can be both denied and defied.
yes but how do you defy that you are in epistemic error when you both deny property rights or act to violate them? you can't. its immoral to murder innocents; murdering them will not change that. its silly to state that A!=A, stating it doesn't change that A=A despite what you 'state'. A will continue to be A.... and immoral murder will continue to be immoral murder.
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
Angurse:Removing your eyelids or killing yourself wouldn't be the ego overcoming the impulses though
But it would prevent the impulse from being enacted via an act of conscious will. So which is more important?
The impulse for males to spread their DNA as far and wide as possible. A vasectomy defeats that impulse, due to the recipient of the procedure deciding "I no longer want to obey this impulse".
But of what use is the distinction of external right and wrong if it ultimately has no control of interactions in the real world?
It's like saying "God exists, but does not influence the world in any way".
If so, so what?
here's a practical effect. when you make an epistemic error i can notice it and tell you about it.
this seems to upset you.
Hoppe:
He ... asks me in turn “So what? Why should an a
priori proof of the libertarian property theory make any difference?
Why not engage in aggression anyway?” Why indeed?! But then, why
should the proof that 1+1=2 make any difference? One certainly can
still act on the belief that 1+1=3. The obvious answer is “because a
propositional justification exists for doing one thing, but not for
doing another.” But why should we be reasonable, is the next come-
back. Again, the answer is obvious. For one, because it would be
impossible to argue against it; and further, because the proponent
raising this question would already affirm the use of reason in his act
of questioning it. This still might not suffice and everyone knows that
it would not, for even if the libertarian ethic and argumentative rea-
soning must be regarded as ultimately justified, this still does not pre-
clude that people will act on the basis of unjustified beliefs either
because they don’t know, they don’t care, or they prefer not to know.
I fail to see why this should be surprising or make the proof somehow
defective. More than this cannot be done by propositional argument.
But again, Hoppe's argument is incorrect, because he is comparing apples to oranges with the two laws.
One is of the deniable, not defiable category (math)
The other is of the deniable, and defiable category (objective ethics)
no its not defiable. if you claim that you defy it you perform a contradiction.
Ha!
How?
The ten commandments are the true laws of morality. Simply a meaningless statement of my belief.
You may believe the logical conclusions you or your prophets come to are true for everyone, but any assertion that is both deniable and defiable requires just that, belief, to be of any use.
I'm in contradiction, so what?
Jackson LaRose:I'm in contradiction, so what?
sort of hurting your own argument arent you?
Well, it was more of a rhetorical claim, but still, you haven't yet provided a reason for me to care about these external ethics. Without enforcement, they remain essentially meaningless.
I go on these forums to challenge my presuppositions, to see if they are sound against criticism. Not to pointlessly argue my ossified dogma.
Jackson LaRose: But it would prevent the impulse from being enacted via an act of conscious will. So which is more important? The impulse for males to spread their DNA as far and wide as possible. A vasectomy defeats that impulse, due to the recipient of the procedure deciding "I no longer want to obey this impulse".
The impulse isn't defeated, it is still just as present as before. The recipient isn't deciding "I no longer want to obey this impulse" he's saying "the consequences of this impulse are too great, I'll just have to severe my genitals." If he had free will he wouldn't need physical destruction to overcome his impulses. The vasectomy clearly demonstrates that he doesn't.
Jackson LaRose:Without enforcement, they remain essentially meaningless.
To Flic:
But to me, it seems the distinction is meaningless. We have the will to alter the consequence of the impulse, to render it impotent, if you will (couldn't help it)
nirgrahamUK:what are you conceding with the word 'essentially' ? lol
Nothing.
They are of no value unless you convert me, or coerce me, into following them.
I enjoy recognising your epistemic errors. deal with it.
I also enjoy yours.
How can you deal with the objective when you have no capacity to observe or conceive anything objectively?
Jackson LaRose:How can you deal with the objective when you have no capacity to observe or conceive anything objectively?
Explain.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
sure i do. does subjectivism presuppose the concept of subject? the truth of that statement is formal and is an objective truth.
Jackson LaRose:But to me, it seems the distinction is meaningless. We have the will to alter the consequence of the impulse, to render it impotent, if you will (couldn't help it)
Being able to "cut it off at the knees" still leaves the source, the impulse, intact, your ego, your free will simply is not capable of winning. The distinction between involuntary and voluntary is still present and the fact that you cannot stop breathing without killing yourself (therefore destroying the you, the ego) should show how important the distinction is.
Flic?
I'm not saying the conception of the self is objective (i don't believe it is)
Angurse:The distinction between involuntary and voluntary is still present and the fact that you cannot stop breathing without killing yourself (therefore destroying the you, the ego)
Don't beleive in a soul, eh?
My bad dude, amazing what a difference 180 degrees and a goofy smiley face make.
Jackson LaRose:Don't beleive in a soul, eh?
Heavens no.
Angurse:Being able to "cut it off at the knees" still leaves the source, the impulse, intact, your ego, your free will simply is not capable of winning. The distinction between involuntary and voluntary is still present and the fact that you cannot stop breathing without killing yourself (therefore destroying the you, the ego) should show how important the distinction is.
OK, I suppose this jibes fairly well with what I've been butting heads with nigraham about
Biologic function is the example of a law that can be denied, but not defied.
Objective means, not the bias of a subjectt. it doesn't mean that the person who know the truth is not a subject. for a subject is a subject. . the appreciation that a subject is a subject is indeed a good example of an objective truth. something that a subject knows, that is not 'decided' by bias.the truth might only be knowable by you because of certain things about you, the knowing subject, like the fact that you can think at all, but it would be true for anyone other than you,(i.e. it is not biased to you, thinkers know it) and we can say that without knowing particulars about them. i.e. it is not biased. it is objective
This is my understanding, perhaps other people can give superior formal definitions which I eagerly await.
nirgrahamUK:the appreciation that a subject is a subject is indeed a good example of an objective truth.
I think you are presupposing a duality between subject and observer there, which would be considered a bias. Right?
Jackson LaRose: OK, I suppose this jibes fairly well with what I've been butting heads with nigraham about Biologic function is the example of a law that can be denied, but not defied.
Sure, there are laws at play. Believe in them or not, you shall obey.
Well, not that it pisses me off, but why construct more laws for yourself? You know, the ones that can be denied, and defied!
Jackson LaRose:I think you are presupposing a duality between subject and observer there, which would be considered a bias. Right?
There is a distinction (are you calling it a duality?) between the two things that are different from each other. (one is the concept of subject the other the concept of objective). I don't see how thus far any bias is introduced........
Jackson LaRose:Well, not that it pisses me off, but why construct more laws for yourself? You know, the ones that can be denied, and defied!
That's liking blaming Newton for constructing the three laws of motion. There isn't any construction, only discovery.
nirgrahamUK:There is a distinction (are you calling it a duality?) between the two things that are different from each other.
Yes, the distinction between subject and observer. That is a bias on your part. The buddhists tell us the duality is an illusion (dzogchen).
So, let's say the buddhists' empirical observation on the true nature of our consciousness is bull. Even if the act of observation is a concession to the objectivity of the observer, I don't really remember saying I'm against the existence of laws, just one's that are meaningless.
I would agree the law of an objective observer is deniable, but not logically defiable. Just like gravity. But this still doesn't help you case about ethics, because that is an example of a "law" that is deniable and defiable.
Angurse:That's liking blaming Newton for constructing the three laws of motion. There isn't any construction, only discovery.
Sorry Charlie, that's apples and oranges.
Jackson LaRose:Yes, the distinction between subject and observer. That is a bias on your part.
its a formal distinction between two actually different things.
you say one of them is real. the other is not real. you assert they are not the same. hence it is performing a contradiction to chide me from considering them as two different things as if it was just my petty bias, and not down to the fact that they are two different things( which you have conceded!).
I'm saying we are both wrong, I'm just willing to admit my perceptual limitations.
Jackson LaRose:I'm saying we are both wrong,
Deep, man. Deep
Jackson LaRose:Sorry Charlie, that's apples and oranges.
Wall different forms of laws they still follow the classic cause/effect. They all fall in line. You've already admitted to biology and the existence of involuntary impulses, you can see the orange, I don't know why you won't just eat it.
Because in calling something a law, the implication is that said "law" can't be disobeyed without consequences. Besides being "wrong", what is the consequence?
Here's a thought I just came up with:
I think we agree!
Without omniscience, no one can be assured that their logical conclusions are going to remain the same as new considerations present themselves over time.
Therefore perfect logic is theoretically possible, yet practically impossible, because a consideration of everything simultaneously is necessary to deduce it.
That's why I was arguing for polylogism earlier, because everbody's collections of the totality of knowing varies, so the considerations towards their logic also vary.
No. In calling natural phenomena a "law" it means it cannot be disobeyed, hence why F still equals M*A and the urge still exists. Even by "softer" standards of law the obvious consequences are sterility, blindness, and death. (And I never its "wrong" to blind, sterilize, or kill yourself.)