Morality is how law develops. This isn't some Rousseauian fantasy where the great legislator can make up laws and people atune their moral value to it after.
Not only is this outright nonsense (there is no 'morality' with which to develop law), it is glaringly ahistorical. Legal systems arise out of the actual arbitration and power of the people involved in legal disputes; they are nothing more than a means to serve the interest of those involved in legal disputes. The 'function' of society (in the mechanical and not the teleological sense) - and the order and jurisprudence which underly it - is to improve the efficiency with which people may exploit one another from their own perspectives, and within their own framework of ideas and aims.
All other views are romantic nonsense, any society based on anything other than power and self-interest would instantly collapse for want of coordination and sustainability.
“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre
'By expressing your ultimate ends and then, through economics and other sciences, proving that the existence of "the state" is means to not achieving those ends.'
And why should people care about your ultimate ends without somehow adding in a sense of universal justice?
'Why should I want a claim over "any sense of universal justice"?'
Because you are failing to see that if ethics is just a matter of personal preference then implicitly there is no right/wrong ethical system. It becomes normative, in the sense that all is equal. Let us say you happen upon a thief. He prefers to steal your wallet, you prefer to keep it. You cannot lay claim that his preference are wrong. How could you praxeologically resist his actions without establish a normative statement of values which center around a universal sense of justice in which you are no longer being praxeological?
'And the major flaw of the market is that it is not in a state of "perfect competition". What I mean is that, whether or not reality conforms to a model, like what you are saying, the "perfect competition" model, or whatever, is not relevant to whether or not it is true, at least not directly. What I am saying might be uncomfortable to hold; but that does not impair its validity and soundness. If you want to try to disprove that it make sense, do it; but just appealing to your model of what you would like the situation to be and then blaming reality for not conforming to it is not helpful.'
I'm not saying there is such a thing as 'perfect justice.' However, the market has a normative guide implicit throughout its development. It has a goalpoint which would indicate positives like property property, non-violence, voluntarism. I'm not expecting justice to catch every criminal or right every wrong but there is a sense of what justice should always be irrespective of what it is now.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
'
All other views are romantic nonsense, any society based on anything other than power and self-interest would instantly collapse for want of coordination and sustainability.'
Show examples of societies developing law and people atuning their moral judgement concerning that law after it is established. Either that or stop your trite soapboxing about power addiction.
Your views on both morality and law are hysterically naive. You'd be laughed out of court, so to speak, by anyone with a background in philosophy or law.
Is theft illegal because we all think it's immoral or because we all want to be protected from thieves? I don't have to think something is morally wrong to want it to be illegal, I simply have to think that I'd be better of if there was a rule against behavior that I didn't value.
A better question: if the law is about what is and is not moral, do you consider every law in existence today to be moral? If not, how can these immoral laws possibly be tolerated by people?
Andrew, I'm pretty sure de Sotto addresses this on page 20 of Money Banking Credit and Business Cycle.
THE DISCOVERY BY ROMAN LEGAL EXPERTS OF THE GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE MONETARY IRREGULAR-DEPOSIT CONTRACT THE EMERGENCE OF TRADITIONAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES ACCORDING TO MENGER, HAYEK, AND LEONI
http://mises.org/books/desoto.pdf
Read until you have something to write...Write until you have nothing to write...when you have nothing to write, read...read until you have something to write...Jeremiah
Liberté: Like I said, talking to you people is pointless. It's like you've never read ANY philosophy outside of the raving crankery on Mises.org or Rand novels.
Like I said, talking to you people is pointless. It's like you've never read ANY philosophy outside of the raving crankery on Mises.org or Rand novels.
Liberte, Do yourself a favor and stop banging your head against the wall. Some ideas are fixed in stone.
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
well...this isn't going to go any further.
The so-called preachers of praxeology around here need a fire lit under their metaphorical arse because they preach praxeologic but don't practice praxeologic. It is an opinion. And they are arguing against it. It MY scientific opinion that I possess a life, liberty, and private property.
please stop. you're embarrassing those of us who hold natural rights as a reality.
This is true. Wilderness also seems to have an infatuation with classical Greek philosophy and Aristotle. May I recommend trying some contemporary analytic philosophy? Oh wait, they are all positivists, right? (It's funny; there is more truth in Language Truth and Logic than the collected works of most classical philosophers, and I think Mises would agree)
What's terrible is that they are preaching an imaginary version of Greek philosophy. I consider myself something of a Neo-Aristotilian of a doxastic slant, and I've done a fair amount of reading in classical philosophy and logic. I think there is quite a bit wrong with much of modern analytics and positivism (which some philosophers, such as Jaako Hintikaa, would agree with). However, these forum pseudo-classicists fail to understand two fundamental points:
1) That in the Greek 'ethics' has a much less pretentious meaning, and it merely implies contingent formulas for finding modes of successful action given general, empirical human traits. The majority of Greek philosophers were no more trying to prove prescriptive morality or monistic 'human nature' than a financial adviser is trying to say he knows how to use your money better than you do. They are in fact regurgitating a Christian, Renaissance and Rationalist butchering of classical doctrines which is as absurd as it is inaccurate.
2) Classical teleology was generally mechanistic (function as what things actually produce), and was not intended to be normative in any sense. Indeed, whether one agrees with Aristotle's concept of 'telos', the idea that something could act against its telos (given sufficient conditions) was logically impossible. In an Aristotilian system natural law can not be violated. If it happens it is in strict accord with identity and necessity. If a man has behaved a certain way, no alternative existed. To say his action was 'a violation of natural law' is sheer gibberish.
"Your views on both morality and law are hysterically naive. You'd be laughed out of court, so to speak, by anyone with a background in philosophy or law."
Just bs dismissals.. with a side of an "appeal to popularity" & "authority" to boot.
Pathetic.
If law is just a matter of behavior that establishes an environment in which goals are more easily obtained then why listen to law when your goals aren't in tune with it? Why don't we storm the halls of Congress and put policitians up against the wall? We desire the elimination of the current state do we not? What better way to eliminate them? Why follow the law of non-violence? Our goals seem to have been around for centuries yet we can simply see them come to fruition with a small act. Also why is it that in cultures that did not experience Roman legal theory have laws similar to them? It is not as if murder was legal in Eastern cultures that were largely isolated from the West until the West opened them up. Also my comment was that morality comes before law, not law before morality. So engaging in and establishment of moral practices is required to discover that this is an environment in which goals are more easily obtained.
'Just bs dismissals.. with a side of an "appeal to popularity" & "authority" to boot.
Pathetic.'
It really is.
I think I'm in love.
I understand people's need for a security blanket, but I don't understand how people justify saying me shooting somebody (for any reason) is objectively wrong, but a tsunami hitting the coast and killing hundreds of thousands is not. Neither is "wrong", both are probably undesirable to those in the situation, both are caused by nature. It just so happens that the former took a shit load of complex chemicals (and possibly some quantum states if you believe some of the latest theories) to cause one, and it only took one tectonic plate ramming into another under the ocean for the other.
'I understand people's need for a security blanket, but I don't understand how people justify saying me shooting somebody (for any reason) is objectively wrong, but a tsunami hitting the coast and killing hundreds of thousands is not. Neither is "wrong", both are probably undesirable to those in the situation, both are caused by nature'
You shooting someone is not caused by 'Nature.' You shooting someone is caused by you. You act purposely.
Liberté:You don't even say anything interesting.
Pot calling the kettle black.
Liberté:For many people, the pen is more powerful than the sword. But it is all power, and nothing but power.
You and bloom should hook up.
Liberté:I am saying that is the only kind of 'natural rights' and 'natural law' that make any sense.
And Malthus has the most convincing defense of private property, right?
Liberté:I am not 'against' the state, except wherein the state is 'against' me/
The state is always "against you." Your interests directly conflict the interests of the state, whether you know this or not. This is why the state requires a monopoly on force.
"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."
You act purposely.
Prove it. Or in other words, prove that my brain isn't working based on chemistry and mechanics which is to say, on different principles than the earthquake and tsunami.
Edit: I'm not denying that I have goals, nor that I act to achieve them, I'm denying that the goals I have are picked differently than how an earthquake picks the time that it occurs.
'or in other words' doesn't work. They are not mutually exclusive. Your brain is evolved, it is part of nature, there are causal chains there like in geology. This does not mean that there is no 'agency'. Do you deny that you posted with any purpose? Do you think it makes sense to verbally challenge a rock or tsunami to 'prove something' ?
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
Your edit has you supposing that earthquakes have 'goals'. That's quite anthropomorphic of you
You have goals, earthquakes don't. You choose amongst incompatible means and aim at specific ends; earthquakes don't.
you act purposely Prove it.
Prove it.
You just did.
Esuric: Edit: I'm not denying that I have goals, nor that I act to achieve them, I'm denying that the goals I have are picked differently than how an earthquake picks the time that it occurs. You have goals, earthquakes don't. You choose amongst incompatible means and aim at specific ends; earthquakes don't. you act purposely Prove it. You just did.
"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
If so, then choosing is a mere by-product of our physical bodies operating. I realize some people around here might hate neurophilosophy, but I don't think it should be entirely ignored.
It should be entirely ignored. It's nonsense. The fact that people act purposefully is axiomatic; it is true by definition. Now whether purposeful action is caused by the soul, or because of complicated chemical stimuli and reactions, is another question entirely. If he wants to say that it's the latter, then he needs to make his case, and actually provide proof. Which chemical or set of chemicals is causing me to type this right now? How come the chemicals didn't cause me to type something else?
What is "agency" other than a term for saying my actions are separate from the stimulus and genetics and chemicals that go into and are part of my brain and body?
No, I've actually said that "goals" and the time that an earthquake occurs are 'picked' by the same fundamental processes, which is to say the strong, weak, electromagnetic, gravitational and what ever other forces there are out there. It's just matter's of scale and complexity that give rise to the illusion.
It should be entirely ignored. It's nonsense. The fact that people act purposefully is axiomatic; it is true by definition. Now whether purposeful action is caused by the soul, or because of complicated chemical stimuli and reactions, is another question entirely. If he wants to say that it's the latter, then he needs to make his case, and actually provide proof. Which chemical or set of chemicals is causing me to type this right now?
I was putting it in contrast with an earthquake, since we were discussing natural occurrences. He stated something was wrong but not the other even though the two were of vastly different scales of the same consequence. I specifically stated that by purpose, I did not mean having goals and acting on them. That's not the way he was using it. The way he was using it was as if nature wasn't the cause of those goals, but rather some mystical "me" who picked it, that wasn't related to nature. By the way, we have evidence to suggest that the brain's "agency" really is caused by chemicals. We have products based on that entire idea (which is the real test of any theory). Drugs can have very serious consequences on "agency". Drugs are chemicals. So the onus is on those who say goals and actions aren't based on chemicals in the brain.
By the way, we have evidence to suggest that the brain's "agency" really is caused by chemicals. We have products based on that entire idea (which is the real test of any theory). Drugs can have very serious consequences on "agency". Drugs are chemicals. So the onus is on those who say goals and actions aren't based on chemicals in the brain.
My chemicals think that this is an idiotic position, and they're forcing me to say this. My chemicals also demand solid proof; i.e., you need to validate your materialist nonsense. Furthermore, my chemicals tell me that other chemicals can affect my perception, but that that doesn't necessarily mean that my actions and consciousness are entirely determined by the interaction of purely physical stimuli.
I posted on my blog about Natural Law and Natural Rights.
Let's clarify what real 'natural law' and 'natural rights' are: Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan is as good as any other, if we consider 'preserving his life' to be a more subjective value, i.e. satisfaction in general. Natural law is, "a precept, or general rule, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do, that, which is destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving his life; and to omit, that, by which he thinketh it may best be preserved."
...and that's the last time I touch that blog.
wilderness, thank you for your reading suggestions and explanations. Still, I feel that pointing out a thing or two about the nature of natural rights is relevant to the topic at hand, given that your theorizing appears to be influenced to a large degree by this philosophy, isn't it?
Esuric:Furthermore, my chemicals tell me that other chemicals can affect my perception, but that that doesn't necessarily mean that my actions and consciousness are entirely determined by the interaction of purely physical stimuli.
In essense, you're saying that some part of your decision-making process behaves above the law of cause and effect. Which basically means you believe that some part of your body behaves outside the laws of the physical world. I would love to know, Esuric, how that is possible.
In essense, you're saying that some part of your decision-making process behaves above the law of cause and effect. Which basically means you believe that some part of your body behaves outside the laws of the physical world.
I believe he's saying that the will is the cause of action while others are trying to say that action (and perhaps even will) is an effect of chemicals being shot out of neruons.
Great, thoughtful responses. I appreciate your intellectual curiosity in knowing what my theory is instead of making ad hoc assumptions as some other posters are doing. And I am very curious as to what your theory is, so, this is moving along in a very thoughful manner in order for me to discover what your theory is.
trulib:OK, bad wording on my part. What I mean is it doesn't matter to you whether he thinks of ethics as an objective or a subjective discipline.
In formulating my theory above in the previous posts I was incorporating both sides in the conflict. My theory involves the conflict and how the two parties are dealing with the conflict. That's why I included what Person-A possibly is thinking and what Person-B is possibly thinking. (I changed the names of the two people involved). Person-A has made a claim sometimes it is ok to steal. Person-B has made a claim that it is never ok to steal. Since A and B are making this claim what is the resolution?
Also, since it doesn't matter whether Person-A thinks of ethics as an objective or subjective discipline then the same goes Person-B. Do you find this last statement to be true or false according to your theory.
trulib:Comparing is what a person does immediately before an argument. When someone comes to this forum claiming "stealing is sometimes OK" you and I both compare that theory against the one that we both hold: "stealing is always wrong". Through the act of comparing, we find that the two theories are different - so either we're correct and he's incorrect (or vice versa), or it's all a matter of opinion with no one correct and no one incorrect.
Oh. I'm glad you answered this because I was thinking of something else. I was thinking of comparing how Person-A and Person-B will find a resolution to their different claims. I wasn't, yet, saying who is correct or incorrect. I was thinking of 'compare' in relation to let's compare A and B and what A and B will do. I was thinking that way.
trulib:You and I, at least, share the same basic theory when it comes to what is ethical/unethical; invasions of property rights are unethical.
That is my theory, yes.
trulib:I am sure we would disagree over what the best film ever made is. If you disagree with my claim that The Godfather is the best film ever made, and I want you (for whatever reason) to agree with my claim, I will pitch the argument a certain way, tailored to your preferences, to try and convince you. If you claim the Earth is flat, it would be a very different kind of argument, I'd refer to science, evidence, and proof. When we argue with statists, we need to know what kind of argument we're having.
This is a difficult question. Could it not be posed that a statist is living a fantasy which implies why some of the problems happen in the external world the way they do because a statist is trying to live out the impossible dream and therefore has a blind spot and plenty of excuses to along with 'why' their way isn't working and their excuses possibly have nothing to do with their theory? The attribute the failings to an act of God (I believe in God but sometimes people, I believe, blame God instead of blaming themselves), act of nature, or they say 'it's reality' and don't inquire any further. There might be other attributes they are blaming certain other events instead of doing some intropection and evaluating their own theory which might actually be the fault. I don't want to write too much here. And I don't know if I fully answer what you were saying above, in fact, I don't think I did. But I wanted to say this first because these are some of the assumptions I hold before I may give what you said above here it's proper attention.
I think it is very important to go over the assumptions that each person possess during a discussion especially one as complicated as this one that is trying to mull through these volumuous subjects, ie. law, politics, statism, epistemology, etc.... I thank you for your patience as I find this subject to be very intriguing.
trulib:Austrian economics proves these things. Its one step back from that. We first have to agree on whether we ought to adopt "maintain society" as a goal. As a value-free science, economics tells us that if we want to "maintain society" then private property is the best means for acheiving that end. Ethics is about what our ends should be, not what means we should use to acheive our ends.
This is superb. You are reaching into deeper assumptions. I love it.
Would you say that the question of, meaning, coming to the agreement of, not the agreement itself, but the process before finalizing the agreement as to whether "we ought to adopt 'maintain society' as a goal" relates to a deeper question as to if any one single human will always end up connecting or making a relation with another person therefore society. Is this a question of "Are humans social animals?" I am assuming you would say yes, but I don't want to go any further until I know for sure. Yet even knowing that I don't know if I can make the leap to whether "we ought to adopt 'maintain society'". There might be a few more assumptions before we get to that. I will see. I'm not sure, but you're relating an answer to the above question will help in knowing.
trulib:If the objective ethicists are right, there will be a way of objectively proving, using logic, that everyone should adopt libertarianism as an ethic, and anyone who has a different ethic is incorrect, the same way that someone who thinks Madrid is the capital of France is incorrect. Has Hoppe done this with argumentation ethics? I honestly don't know. (If you want to discuss Hoppe's attempt specifically, I will have to remind myself of the arguments made by both sides by looking up old threads.)
I think our discussion is going great thus far and I don't think we need to as of yet parse what you say here. I say that because it appears what you say here might be eventually uncovered by what we are talking about up above this comment of yours. We're getting there.
I. Ryan:He is just expressing his subjective preferences and calling it his "natural law".
Thank you I. Ryan. It is amazing how some posters who preach subjective preferences do not actually apply or see them in others. It is afterall my theory as praxeologically I can only speak of my knowledge. I am happy you understand what I am saying. I enjoy your well-mannered and very effective ways of communicating with others. You are truly a model to be exampled in regards to that.
- thank you.
nirgrahamUK:An interesting video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suO4CIrndw4#t=3m40s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suO4CIrndw4#t=3m40s
That was interesting. Thank you for sharing.
Andrew Cain:Because you are failing to see that if ethics is just a matter of personal preference then implicitly there is no right/wrong ethical system.
Andrew,
I think you might underestimate yourself here. I like moral realism and use objective ethics because they are my subjective preferences and are my subjective ethics.
There are assumptions that need vetted because I adhere to what I. Ryan is saying and to what you are saying due to the underlying assumptions are being related with different terms, but the meaningful substance from which these different terms originate are very similar. Those with the patience to delve into these assumptions instead of continually assuming what the other person means will be able to pull themselves out of what appears to be samsara and actually enjoy a more pleasant experience with each other. The assumptions not queried are making it appear the other poster is in conflict with your position but once those assumptions are investigated and vetted out then that initial appearance may be seen in hindsight as only an illusion.
I'm willing to engage if you are. I would suggest private messaging at first because the brew-ha-ha in the forum sometimes makes it a bit unpleasant to reach into the depths I believe we need to go to get to the bottom of this.
Liberte:Your views on both morality and law are hysterically naive. You'd be laughed out of court, so to speak, by anyone with a background in philosophy or law.
I think you need to start proving that people are "naive" or that they don't read anything outside of the Mises Institute. Just because you appear to not understand other posters doesn't make you correct by default. I agree with some of your underlying assumptions but in my opinion you haven't taken it to the next level. Yes. It is only my opinion and I am not trying to prove what I am saying to you right now. Since you demonstrate the ill-patience to have a long, if necessary, thoughtful discussion in understanding some other posters without you instantly reverting on nearly each post of yours to a 'your naive' assertion, then my insight into this is based on your actual performance. I think being able to have a discussion with other posters without making ones conclusions absolute is a sign of being willing to actually know what other posters mean instead of only relying on what you think they mean.
Of course, I would happen to think it depends on what you mean by "moral", I'll explain and provide what I think.
bloomj31:Is theft illegal because we all think it's immoral or because we all want to be protected from thieves? I don't have to think something is morally wrong to want it to be illegal, I simply have to think that I'd be better of if there was a rule against behavior that I didn't value.
To me moral is defined as determining what is good and what is bad. When you say above what I underlined, to me that is a moral statement. I am not saying you think it is a moral statement. I am not even saying you are wrong. You possess your own knowledge as to what moral is or is not. But for me to state what is better, better is grammatically the comparative of good. And what you value as better is a comparative of what is good and for me that is to ask: what is good? Now this is my theory so I am only asserting how I currently understand my theory. Because you don't call that a moral statement doesn't mean you are necessarily wrong. And it doesn't mean I am necessarily right in giving my interpretation. It is simply a matter of understanding what you mean and I am trying to relate to you how I interpret those terms and what I mean. At this point, it is just trying to communicate effectively. Not making judgements as to who is right or wrong in their interpretations.
zefreak:This is true. Wilderness also seems to have an infatuation with classical Greek philosophy and Aristotle. May I recommend trying some contemporary analytic philosophy?
Ah, I'm relaxing and enjoying this blue sky day here...
I am not infatuated with classical Greek philosophy. Prove to everybody that this is true. Prove that it is true that I have not read outside of Classical Greek philosophy and prove that it is true that I have not read any contemporary philosophy. Prove to everybody, since you claim it is true, that you have visited my large library here and the boxes I have in other locations other than my home due to the quantity is too much to fit here for the time being until further arrangements are made.
Spairon:thank you for your reading suggestions and explanations. Still, I feel that pointing out a thing or two about the nature of natural rights is relevant to the topic at hand, given that your theorizing appears to be influenced to a large degree by this philosophy, isn't it?
That is an excellent point. But my theorizing isn't only influenced by natural rights theorists, but you poigantly said "to a large degree", but how to begin to demarcate the range of ordinal 'largeness' would be difficult if not impossible. My theorizing is more specificaly my way of thinking and therefore living. I believe the underlying assumptions would first need to be hashed out before we possibly get anywhere near is/ought gap or rights, etc....
thank you for responding back. I really wasn't trying to cut you off from the discussion. I felt that you were giving some general notions that are a long way off from what I intended this thread to delve into. I think the thread is going somewhat well, but I'm trying to keep the target in focus. This post of yours here does just that. It is on target into getting into the underlying assumptions.
- thank you
Jackson:please stop. you're embarrassing those of us who hold natural rights as a reality.
I might be relating what you are, but I think a discussion with me first would determine if that is true or not. I don't think, since we've never discussed before at least I don't think we have, it is warranted of you to assume what I am saying without first asking me. I consider doing the same to you, and I will not assume what you think.
If law is just a matter of behavior that establishes an environment in which goals are more easily obtained then why listen to law when your goals aren't in tune with it?
There's no reason to, other than fear of reprisals.
Conza88: "Your views on both morality and law are hysterically naive. You'd be laughed out of court, so to speak, by anyone with a background in philosophy or law." Just bs dismissals.. with a side of an "appeal to popularity" & "authority" to boot. Pathetic.
Agreed, thoroughly disappointing.
Sam Armstrong: I think I'm in love. I understand people's need for a security blanket, but I don't understand how people justify saying me shooting somebody (for any reason) is objectively wrong, but a tsunami hitting the coast and killing hundreds of thousands is not. Neither is "wrong", both are probably undesirable to those in the situation, both are caused by nature. It just so happens that the former took a shit load of complex chemicals (and possibly some quantum states if you believe some of the latest theories) to cause one, and it only took one tectonic plate ramming into another under the ocean for the other.
So you compare a tsunami to a human being and make a claim about morality? "Its wrong to objectively shoot someone" is a veiled conditional statement. If my subjective goal is to have a world of non violence, is it objectively true that its wrong to shoot someone? Yes it is.
I appreciate your intellectual curiosity in knowing what my theory is instead of making ad hoc assumptions as some other posters are doing.