In the same way the vast majority of men prefer the accumulation of wealth compared to its destruction, the vast majority of men prefer peace to violence?
Some of you may get where I'm coming from in the above. I'm thinking of the application of praxeology to human interaction, what could be called "ethics". Sort of inspired by Adam Knott (I haven't digested it entirely, Adam).
I'm not sure if this will come across correctly, but what I'm trying to say is we don't need a "natural law" to tell us to be "moral" and not aggress against other individuals just as we don't need a "natural law" to tell us to create and accumulate wealth.
Hope it makes sense, and is not infantile, lol.
tacoface:what I'm trying to say is we don't need a "natural law" to tell us to be "moral" and not aggress against other individuals just as we don't need a "natural law" to tell us to create and accumulate wealth.
+1
It seems obvious, as the majority of citizens of the US aren't police officers!
Empathy and common sense are naturally occurring, shared traits among most people, due to our evolution from social animals.
These commonality two traits (among others) imply that the majority of individuals will naturally cooperate, rather than fight, to attain their ends.
tacoface: In the same way the vast majority of men prefer the accumulation of wealth compared to its destruction, the vast majority of men prefer peace to violence?
This statement is true, now where does it lead us?
Jackson LaRose: Empathy and common sense are naturally occurring, shared traits among most people, due to our evolution from social animals. These commonality two traits (among others) imply that the majority of individuals will naturally cooperate, rather than fight, to attain their ends.
This sounds a lot like natural law to me. Barring the part that this behavior or ethic is biologically ingrained in us, there is nothing new or praxeological about an ethic drawn from the action of the majority.
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
tacoface: In the same way the vast majority of men prefer the accumulation of wealth compared to its destruction, the vast majority of men prefer peace to violence? Some of you may get where I'm coming from in the above. I'm thinking of the application of praxeology to human interaction, what could be called "ethics". Sort of inspired by Adam Knott (I haven't digested it entirely, Adam). I'm not sure if this will come across correctly, but what I'm trying to say is we don't need a "natural law" to tell us to be "moral" and not aggress against other individuals just as we don't need a "natural law" to tell us to create and accumulate wealth. Hope it makes sense, and is not infantile, lol.
The "natural law" is just the manifestation of those realizations, either conscious or unconscious, as a set of rules. But the problem is that, in modern times, that set of rules became quite perverted.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
mikachusetts:This sounds a lot like natural law to me.
No, no my friend, physics is a natural law. It can be denied, but it cannot be defied.
My post was merely an assurance that without objective, universal, and absolute ethical codes, people would still, by and large, interact peacefully (enough to prevent absolute chaos, at least), leaving the psychotic minority marginalized to insignificance, or dead, as determined by the market.
Jackson LaRose: mikachusetts:This sounds a lot like natural law to me. No, no my friend, physics is a natural law. It can be denied, but it cannot be defied. My post was merely an assurance that without objective, universal, and absolute ethical codes, people would still, by and large, interact peacefully (enough to prevent absolute chaos, at least), leaving the psychotic minority marginalized to insignificance, or dead, as determined by the market.
We agree that peaceful and cooperative behavior occur naturally without imposed codes, but I would still call it (perhaps wrongfully) natural law. In science (as I understand it) laws exist only because they have yet to be disproved. There is enough evidence to push it beyond theory, but because of the nature of empiricism, laws must continually be subject to falsification.
mikachusetts:We agree that peaceful and cooperative behavior occur naturally without imposed codes, but I would still call it (perhaps wrongfully) natural law.
This is probably just semantics, but I tend to shy away from the word "law" in general, as for me it implies statement in absolute terms. I'd call it "statement of preferences". Of course, no matter what they call it, most people on this forum probably agree
mikachusetts:that peaceful and cooperative behavior occur naturally without imposed codes,
otherwise, I couldn't imagine how you could couple that with anarchistic desire... unless you were one of the psychopaths.
mikachusetts:In science (as I understand it) laws exist only because they have yet to be disproved. There is enough evidence to push it beyond theory, but because of the nature of empiricism, laws must continually be subject to falsification.
That's true, but they are still stated in absolute terms, until they are disproved scientifically. By that meter of "law", natural laws of ethics are being disproved constantly.
Jackson LaRose: That's true, but they are still stated in absolute terms, until they are disproved scientifically. By that meter of "law", natural laws of ethics are being disproved constantly.
Good call. There is no doubt that the non aggression axiom is broken more often than say, gravity. The beauty of libertarian theory, in my opinion, is that it constantly justified for so many reasons (natural law, utilitarianism, consequentialism).
mikachusetts:The beauty of libertarian theory, in my opinion, is that it constantly justified for so many reasons (natural law, utilitarianism, consequentialism).
Yeah, the pluralism resulting from freedom of ideas is pretty sweet.
Jackson LaRose: My post was merely an assurance that without objective, universal, and absolute ethical codes, people would still, by and large, interact peacefully (enough to prevent absolute chaos, at least), leaving the psychotic minority marginalized to insignificance, or dead, as determined by the market.
Seems naive to me.
Tacoface:
Here is the best critique of natural-law I am aware of in libertarian literature:
http://mises.org/journals/jls/7_1/7_1_4.pdf
If you haven't read O'Neil's article, it is probably required reading for anyone interested in natural law, pro or con.
Here is one of the key passages on page 94/95:
(apologies to those who have seen this before)
"....let us assume thatthe ultimate value of a particular ethical system could he proven,what could be made of conscious, deliberate defiance of it?
We come upon a man committing some act grossly violative of his nature: letus say that he was engaged in a theft. We apprehend him, and while we have himin custody we question him about the nature of the act we caught him performing.We fmd he is an extremely knowledgeable fellow, familiar with all the argumentsof the natural law school. In fact, he has read Rasmussen's article and was con-vinced that the proposition that a man ought to act in accord with his nature iscorrect, logically. "Well," we ask him, "if you know that to steal is to act againstyour nature, and you know that you ought to act according to your nature, howcould you bring yourself to commit your felonious act?" "I chose not to act inaccord with correct ethical principles," our philosophical burglar might answer.
My story, I trust, illustrates the problem. To deny an ultimate value and todefy an ultimate value are not at all the same activity, and it is the latter whichprovides the stronger suppolt of the is-ought dichotomy. One can deny a fact, butone cannot defy one. You can deny the law of gravity is operative in the world,but your denial will have no effect on what will happen when you step off aprecipice. The law of gravity operates no matter which course of action youpursue-if you accept the existence of the operation of the law and hold yourselfback from the edge of the cliff, or if you reject the truth of the law of gravityand step over the ledge, or if you accept the truth of the law, but wish to fall (letus say as a means of suicide), in all three cases the operation of the law of gravityis unaffected.
Moral law does not work in this way, however. One can admit the intellectualcorrectness of a proposition of moral law (even of its ultimate value), and yetdeliberately defy it. This being the case, we must question what moral law means:If one could not, by any means whatsoever, defy moral law, great difficulty wouldarise over the appropriateness of the use of "ought"-for we do not normally usethat word to command actions which in any event cannot be avoided. If, on theother hand, one can and does defy the imperative of a moral law, how is one stillseen as bound by it? Punishment or other ill consequences do not suffice to makemoral law objective, for if the person committing the violation of the maxim(s)prefers the object of his illicit action, even when coupled with punitive or otherunfortunate consequences, that seems to mean that there is no apparent reason whyhe should not act contrary to that moral law.
Any reason offered for why one should not act contrary to moral law musteither be a fact or a value. If a fact, it will need to he made relevant by the accep-tance (envaluation; not epistemological acceptance) of that fact by the individual'swill, which condition, in turn, renders it subjective. If a value, it, in its turn, willrequire an answer why it may not be defied, and so ad injnitum."
"It would be preposterous to assert apodictically that science will never succeed in developing a praxeological aprioristic doctrine of political organization..." (Mises, UF, p.98)
Jackson LaRose:By that meter of "law", natural laws of ethics are being disproved constantly.
You're misunderstanding what natural law is. See this.
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
bloomj31:Seems naive to me.
Why? Hitler and th SA were weenies, I bet the Bloods, or the Mormons could take them out any day.
It also begs the question, if you had free reign, how many people would tolerate your anti-social behavior towards them before you were strung up.
There is evidence of this sort of naturally occuring cooperation throughout history. The wild west, for one.
Sage:You're misunderstanding what natural law is.
Took a very quick look at the link. I've had this discussion before, and I fairly certain what you natty rights are stating is:
"the principles of objectively good interaction can be deduced using logic"
To which I say:
"Great, sounds like a pretty rock solid way to formulate a set of ethics for you to live your life by, but don't come preaching to me"
Objectivity is unattainable for a (non-omniscient) human, so it's impossible to say that these are "laws", and even less metaphysically, I'm sure there are plenty of people who are just fine being in epistemic error, so the theory is useless unless you voluntarily submit to its guidelines.
Jackson LaRose:Objectivity is unattainable for a (non-omniscient) human
Are you rejecting the idea of objective truth?
Sage:Are you rejecting the idea of objective truth?
I'll answer that question, but first you have to tell me how to objectively observe anything, without the distortions and limitations of individual perception.
Jackson LaRose:No, no my friend, physics is a natural law. It can be denied, but it cannot be defied.
This is a common mistake (which I've made several times) on "natural law," it obviously doesn't mean governing people independently of their will like those of physics and biology as there wouldn't be a need for ethics at all. Its rather acknowledged as a way to view behaviour.
Jackson LaRose:Objectivity is unattainable for a (non-omniscient) human, so it's impossible to say that these are "laws", and even less metaphysically,
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
Jackson LaRose:I'll answer that question, but first you have to tell me how to objectively observe anything, without the distortions and limitations of individual perception.
It seems the burden of proof would rest with you, since in our ordinary practices we can objectively observe things perfectly well.
nirgrahamUK:surely you mean that you "Don't know whether objectivity is attainable or not for a human, so it could be possible or impossible to say that these are 'Laws'"?
Right, so Jackson is saying "it is objectively true that humans cannot obtain objectivity." The argument from self-contradiction strikes again!
Sage: Jackson LaRose:By that meter of "law", natural laws of ethics are being disproved constantly. You're misunderstanding what natural law is. See this.
Thanks for the link Sage. This is exactly what I thought natural law meant.
If you read what I said before the twatty, knee-jerk reaction, you'd realize that's why I bothered to add (non-omniscient) to that statement.
"If there were an omniscient human, then they'd be able to objectively state the laws of morality" would roughly be the logical inverse of the statement, and I can agree with it, you sped.
Sage: It seems the burden of proof would rest with you, since in our ordinary practices we can objectively observe things perfectly well.
How are you so certian that your perception of the world is flawless?
Sage: Right, so Jackson is saying "it is objectively true that humans cannot obtain objectivity." The argument from self-contradiction strikes again!
When did I state that? If a human (or a god, really) could transcend the physical limitations of the human body/mind, and perceive pure, untainted reality, than they could obtain pure objective perception of the world. That totally makes sense. I just doubt you guys have gotten that far, otherwise you probably wouldn't be wasting your time bickering on an online forum with knuckle-draggers such as us mere mortals!
Jackson LaRose: nirgrahamUK:surely you mean that you "Don't know whether objectivity is attainable or not for a human, so it could be possible or impossible to say that these are 'Laws'"?If you read what I said before the twatty, knee-jerk reaction, you'd realize that's why I bothered to add (non-omniscient) to that statement. "If there were an omniscient human, then they'd be able to objectively state the laws of morality" would roughly be the logical inverse of the statement, and I can agree with it, you sped.
I read what you said Jackson,
lets try again "I don't know whether or not if there were an omniscient human, that they'd be able to objectively state the laws of morality or not'
proper subjectivist like.
whats a sped?
i don't know. perhaps you dont know?
nirgrahamUK: lets try again "I don't know whether or not if there were an omniscient human, that they'd be able to objectively state the laws of morality or not' proper subjectivist like. whats a sped?
It's an unnecessary qualifier. I can wholehartedly believe in my deduction, I just don't 100% know it's correct in the objective sense, because believe it or not, I am unable to observe the world outside my perception.
So, let's try again:
"I think that it's logically impossible for a non-omniscient being to construct an objective set of rules about anything."
"Although, if a being were to obtain observation outside their natural/mortal limitations, it makes sense to me that they would gain perfect perspective, thus allowing them to apply perfect logic to make perfect desicions that would be eternally correct, regardless of circumstances."
A SPED is an american pejorative term implying that the recipient is a SPecial EDucation student.
Jackson LaRose:"I think that it's logically impossible for a non-omniscient being to construct an objective set of rules about anything."
What about this statement? Is this statement objectively true?
If it is objectively true, then your position is self-refuting. If it isn't objectively true, then it's just an arbitrary statement that we have no reason to take seriously.
Either relativism is self-contradictory or it is nothing.
duplicate post....see below
Sage: Jackson LaRose:"I think that it's logically impossible for a non-omniscient being to construct an objective set of rules about anything." What about this statement? Is this statement objectively true? If it is objectively true, then your position is self-refuting. If it isn't objectively true, then it's just an arbitrary statement that we have no reason to take seriously. Either relativism is self-contradictory or it is nothing.
Sage:
Jackson wrote:
You wrote:
"Either relativism is self-contradictory or it is nothing."
Human purpose has been removed or omitted from your statement. We are no longer talking about human choice or human action.
Jackson's statement referred to human purpose: "I think" (an act)
Thus, with respect to Jackson's statement:
Either relativism is self-contradictory or it is nothing,.....or, it is an act of the individual concerned.....
Sage:What about this statement? Is this statement objectively true?
Well, I'm not sure, since I'm not enlightened, but it makes sense to me.
Sage:If it is objectively true, then your position is self-refuting.
Well, it's a good thing I qualified as a theory with the words "I think". They're right at the beginning, so you don't miss them this time.
Sage:If it isn't objectively true, then it's just an arbitrary statement that we have no reason to take seriously.
I'd buy that for a nickel. That's all any (non-omniscient ones) of us are capable of. That's why I think objective morals are hogwash, and you think they aren't. Get it?
Sage:Either relativism is self-contradictory or it is nothing.
Ah, yes. The sweet embrace of nihilism. Don't be afraid to not have any objective legs to stand on, it's really not that bad. Think what you want. Act how you want. That's all you are going to do anyways, no need to convince people you are "justified" for it.
According to libertarian natural-law scholars, a significant part of natural-law exists perpetually in texts just beyond the text currently being read:
1. Long:
"A full-scale defense of Natural Law theory, however, is a task beyond the scope of this article..."
(the article is entitled "The Nature of Natural Law.")
2. Rothbard:
"It is not the intention of this book to expound or defend at length the philosophy of natural law, or to elaborate a natural-law ethic for the personal morality of man." (EOL, p.25)
"Hence [this book] does not try to prove or establish the ethics or ontology of natural law, which provide the groundwork for the political theory set forth in this book. Natural law has been ably expounded and defended elsewhere by ethical philosophers." (EOL, p.xlviii)
(Rothbard's entire book is based on natural law)
3. Rasmussen:
"We will not get into the sticky process of arguing for a certain conception of natural rights from this position, for we have already indicated what we believe this to look like elsewhere."
(This is written in an article entitled "A Groundwork for Rights: Man's Natural End" p.66)
4. Plauche:
"I cannot provide a thorough defense of my own Aristotelian-liberal conception of human flourishing here."
"So in what then does human flourishing consist? I will make no attempt here to provide an exhaustive list."
(Dissertation, pages 99 and 107)
It is the common consensus among libertarian natural law scholars that the results of natural law theory exist in texts other than the one presently being read.
Jackson LaRose:That's all any (non-omniscient ones) of us are capable of.
But that's just your subjective opinion, not an objective truth. And if it's just your subjective opinion, then you haven't proven that objective truth is logically impossible.
Sage:And if it's just your subjective opinion, then you haven't proven that objective truth is logically impossible.
You're right. I'm not capable of being aware enough about reality to prove it one way or the other. I'm working on it though, if it makes you feel any better.
NigrahamUK is rather fond of mocking me for not being (or presuming to be) aware enough to claim an absolute position. You might want to ask him to be your spiritual leader, if you are troubled by uncertainty.
Jackson LaRose: I am unable to observe the world outside my perception.
lets try again again. "I don't know whether or not I do think that its logically impossible for a non-omniscient being to construct an objective set of rules about anything"
Jackson LaRose:A SPED is an american pejorative term implying that the recipient is a SPecial EDucation student.
nirgrahamUK: Jackson LaRose: I am unable to observe the world outside my perception. you don't know that, do you?
No, I guess I don't. It just doesn't make any sense to me how that could be possible.
nirgrahamUK: Jackson LaRose:"I think that it's logically impossible for a non-omniscient being to construct an objective set of rules about anything."do you have absolute objective knowledge of supposed facts like what it is that you subjectively think?
No, I don't. According to neurologists, and parties interested in contemplative study, our opinions/decisions/awareness are determined by many things, most of which we have no conscious control. I tend to agree with this. Not only that, but this is a stretch, even for you. What do you mean by "objective knowledge of thoughts" anyways? Do I know that my thoughts exist in an absolute sense, external to my mind? Well, no, I don't think my thoughts exist outside my mind at all, nevermind "objectively". This is fun. I feel like Obi-Wan Kenobi when he faces Darth Vader in Star Wars:
"You can't win, Darth. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."
nirgrahamUK:lets try again again. "I don't know whether or not I do think that its logically impossible for a non-omniscient being to construct an objective set of rules about anything"
OK, let's:
nirgrahamUK:I don't know whether or not I do think
I think I know what I think, but then again, it isn't entirely up to me.
Have you ever heard of the tortoise and achilles?
nirgrahamUK: Jackson LaRose:A SPED is an american pejorative term implying that the recipient is a SPecial EDucation student. The lists of things you "don't know about" about keeps growing it seems...
Oh, c'mon guy, don't get all butt-hurt.
Jackson LaRose: It just doesn't make any sense to me how that could be possible.
Jackson LaRose:According to neurologists,
Jackson LaRose:"You can't win, Darth. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."
Jackson LaRose: I think I know what I think, but then again, it isn't entirely up to me.
Jackson LaRose:Have you ever heard of the tortoise and achilles?
Jackson LaRose:Oh, c'mon guy, don't get all butt-hurt upset.
nirgrahamUK: Jackson LaRose: It just doesn't make any sense to me how that could be possible. I don't know of course..... but perhaps... its a possibility that you dont know whether it does or doesnt make any sense to you how that could possibly be.
Good point. I'll have to meditate on that. Although, I think I know it doesn't make any sense to me how that could possibly be.
nirgrahamUK: Jackson LaRose:According to neurologists, do you know that about neurologists?.
I think I know about neurologists.
nirgrahamUK:no you don't. remember , you don't know !
Well, I might. I don't think you can say that with any certitude.
nirgrahamUK: Jackson LaRose:"You can't win, Darth. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine." you don't know that Darth Vader was a character in Star Wars......
Yeah, I guess it's possible I could've dreamt him up, but my dreams aren't usually that cool.
nirgrahamUK: Jackson LaRose: I think I know what I think, but then again, it isn't entirely up to me. no but really, you don't know that you know that you think.
True, but I think that I know that I know that I think.
nirgrahamUK: Jackson LaRose:Have you ever heard of the tortoise and achilles? '" don't know"
That's a shame, I guess that means this will continue for a while...
Thanks for the help on my path to ego dissolution and attaining non-duality. This "conversation" reminds me of the Zen questions:
"What is the sound of one hand clapping?"
"If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is around, does it make a sound?"
Jackson LaRose:Good point. I'll have to meditate on that. Although, I think I know it doesn't make any sense to me how that could possibly be.
oops. i dont know that you dont know its a good point.
whoops. I dont know that i dont know that you dont know its a good point.
oh dear. I dont know that I dont know that i dont know that you dont know its a good point.
darnit! . I dont know that I dont know that I dont know that i dont know that you dont know its a good point.
...... (left as an exercise to the reader.. )
(( or is it !!))
(you don't know !)
((( i don't know that you don't know'...)))
...here we go again.........
..... or do we ?
Exactly.
Potehto, potahto, let's call the whole thing off.
Although I will say, I'm glad you've come around. We can put this whole mess behind us.
Jackson LaRose:We can put this whole mess behind us.
Sage: Jackson LaRose:I'll answer that question, but first you have to tell me how to objectively observe anything, without the distortions and limitations of individual perception. It seems the burden of proof would rest with you, since in our ordinary practices we can objectively observe things perfectly well.
You mean "it seems that we can objectively observe things perfectly well." You could start by providing a definition of "objective."
Why anarchy fails