Lilburne: hashem: ROTHBARD PROVES NATURAL LAW; REFUTES HUME: Nature: "If apples and stones and roses... A Natural Law Alternative to Rothbardian Ethics
hashem: ROTHBARD PROVES NATURAL LAW; REFUTES HUME: Nature: "If apples and stones and roses...
Nature: "If apples and stones and roses...
A Natural Law Alternative to Rothbardian Ethics
Lilburne, that same post of hashem's posted Hume agreeing with natural law in the case of justice. I'm not up to speed on the Rothbard - Hume debate but it seemed Hume abandoned or meant something else that in his later writing on justice Hume had to accept the natural law that he first objected to.
hashem: You're so lost I don't even feel like answering your worthless objections any more. They have all been covered in MES and TEoL. Again, EVERY OBJECTION ANY PUNY BRAIN IN THESE FORUMS CAN COME UP WITH HAS ALREADY BEEN COVERED. All actions are purposeful. They are chosen, whether under the threat of force or not. Then you are wrong again, but I'm used to it. YOU are the one confused. Specifically, you are confusing will with power. Every human is free to will that he fly like superman, but that doesn't mean they have the power to do so. Again, another lame objection that's already been covered in The Ethics of Liberty, but you refuse to educate yourself so you will continue to bring up pointless objections which have already been refuted or preempted. Quit fighting it, go learn something. Go read Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market, and read The Ethics of Liberty. EVERY POSSIBLE OBJECTION YOUR BRAIN CAN IMAGINE HAS ALREADY BEEN COVERED. If you REALLY WANT to know the answers, then go study and learn them. If you just want to argue and waste your brain cells, then keep asking questions which have already been answered in those books. They don't break natural laws. That's why they are laws. What are you talking about? You admit that they cannot break natural laws in the same post! ---> "Governments also cannot decide that hydrogen+oxygen no longer make water." Seriously.
You're so lost I don't even feel like answering your worthless objections any more. They have all been covered in MES and TEoL. Again, EVERY OBJECTION ANY PUNY BRAIN IN THESE FORUMS CAN COME UP WITH HAS ALREADY BEEN COVERED. All actions are purposeful. They are chosen, whether under the threat of force or not.
Then you are wrong again, but I'm used to it. YOU are the one confused. Specifically, you are confusing will with power. Every human is free to will that he fly like superman, but that doesn't mean they have the power to do so. Again, another lame objection that's already been covered in The Ethics of Liberty, but you refuse to educate yourself so you will continue to bring up pointless objections which have already been refuted or preempted. Quit fighting it, go learn something. Go read Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market, and read The Ethics of Liberty. EVERY POSSIBLE OBJECTION YOUR BRAIN CAN IMAGINE HAS ALREADY BEEN COVERED. If you REALLY WANT to know the answers, then go study and learn them. If you just want to argue and waste your brain cells, then keep asking questions which have already been answered in those books.
They don't break natural laws. That's why they are laws. What are you talking about?
You admit that they cannot break natural laws in the same post! ---> "Governments also cannot decide that hydrogen+oxygen no longer make water."
Seriously.
Lol, you people are so silly. You have your holy text the same way religious fanatics do. I'm not going to read all that nonsense for the same reason I don't read the Bible or Marx's Communist Manifesto: it's all nonsense that works fine on paper but doesn't work in real life. You will never get this anarchy you want because your arguments don't make any damn sense.
Also, if governments cannot break natural laws, then why get rid of governments?
wilderness: Stop giving a healthy plant water and watch it wilt. No longer is that plant flourishing. No longer, by the way, would communism and socialism exist for they need a free market is raid upon.
Stop giving a healthy plant water and watch it wilt. No longer is that plant flourishing. No longer, by the way, would communism and socialism exist for they need a free market is raid upon.
Who is to say a plant that is flourishing should be valued more than a plant in any other state? Do you value bacteria that flourishes as equally as you value a plant that is flourishing?
The analysis breaks down when you look at the material side of things. A plant that is growing and healthy may be valued more than one that is decaying by the agents that value them, but there is nothing objectively good about it. Value is agent-relative. A barren world, in and of itself, without reference to an outside agent, is no more "good" than a flourishing one.
Eudemonia makes a good first principle, but does nothing to "prove" any sort of morality.
edit: If natural law is unrelated to ethics, as Hashem suggests, then all natural law theorists are utilitarian.
edit again: Actually, that is roughly my stance. I agree with Rothbards analysis based on the principle of individual sovereignty, but do so because I value the individual, not because I think it is objective. All first principles or underlying values are, in a sense, irrational. There needs to be the initial occurance of value, from which proper action can be derived.
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
If natural law has nothing to do with ethics why is it in Ethics of Liberty?
wilderness: hashem: Why is everyone so focused on ethics here? I thought this was a topic on natural law. Natural law doesn't necessarily need ethics to be understood, at least I don't think so, but I'm not sure. Law is anchored in morals and ethics. Justice is an ethical question. I understand there are different ways of understanding morals. Some people denote religion or something from it. I don't. When I look at morality I see good. I replace the word morality with good and I understand it the same way. This good is not completely defined. It is teleological. Thus why billions of people will uniquely define what is good their whole lives. Natural law, thus, natural rights are the only moral values (preferences) that I understand to conflate into interpersonal relations. There are numerous moral values that are individualized and no law or rights need to be established to minimize conflict in society. One person may not have the courage to withstand a constant bombardment while leading troops, say, during D-Day. Yet another person may have the creativity and business savvy open a store that is profitable. I think natural law can be valued or not due to criminals obviously don't value a harmonious society. And some people in this thread, "don't give a damn about liberty". This is why self-defense is a legitimate right in my eyes since it's obvious some people would walk all over other people and maximize conflict. They are irrational. What do you think?
hashem: Why is everyone so focused on ethics here? I thought this was a topic on natural law.
Why is everyone so focused on ethics here? I thought this was a topic on natural law.
Natural law doesn't necessarily need ethics to be understood, at least I don't think so, but I'm not sure. Law is anchored in morals and ethics. Justice is an ethical question. I understand there are different ways of understanding morals. Some people denote religion or something from it. I don't. When I look at morality I see good. I replace the word morality with good and I understand it the same way. This good is not completely defined. It is teleological. Thus why billions of people will uniquely define what is good their whole lives. Natural law, thus, natural rights are the only moral values (preferences) that I understand to conflate into interpersonal relations. There are numerous moral values that are individualized and no law or rights need to be established to minimize conflict in society. One person may not have the courage to withstand a constant bombardment while leading troops, say, during D-Day. Yet another person may have the creativity and business savvy open a store that is profitable. I think natural law can be valued or not due to criminals obviously don't value a harmonious society. And some people in this thread, "don't give a damn about liberty". This is why self-defense is a legitimate right in my eyes since it's obvious some people would walk all over other people and maximize conflict. They are irrational.
What do you think?
Interesting, no doubt. But remember, natural laws are absolute. They cannot be defied. I.E. human act is a natural law that cannot be defied. This is in contrast to human "laws" which can be defied, i.e. "do not murder". Obviously someone can murder. What someone can't do is not act.
Jacob Bloom:blah blah blah
You're so lost.
scineram: If natural law has nothing to do with ethics why is it in Ethics of Liberty?
Fallacy. Nobody said "natural law has nothing to do with ethics." Ethics need natural law. Natural law does not need ethics.
Jacob Bloom:You have your holy text the same way religious fanatics do. I'm not going to read all that nonsense for the same reason I don't read the Bible or Marx's Communist Manifesto: it's all nonsense that works fine on paper but doesn't work in real life. You will never get this anarchy you want because your arguments don't make any damn sense.
You've never read The Communist Manifesto? How do you know it is nonsense if you have never read it?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
You're clueless, the latter is an attempt to provide a proof of the former. Although, this seems like a good summary of my point, even if individuals do have a natural end, it certainly is not "moral" for them to pursue it.
wilderness:I have. There are sources to help clarify. But you don't try to understand and have your own way, so, why should I even try with you. See ya.
The thing is, I'd accept this sort of response if I hadn't checked my sources, I've read up on natural law from quite a few different sources (Veatch, Aristotle, Den Uyl & Rasmussen and Dr Plauche) I'm just not convinced, if you wish to assert these things you're going to have to back them up. Saying you've proved it before when you've not is a cop out.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Anarchist Cain: Jacob Bloom:You have your holy text the same way religious fanatics do. I'm not going to read all that nonsense for the same reason I don't read the Bible or Marx's Communist Manifesto: it's all nonsense that works fine on paper but doesn't work in real life. You will never get this anarchy you want because your arguments don't make any damn sense. You've never read The Communist Manifesto? How do you know it is nonsense if you have never read it?
So is the Manifesto nonsense? Should I learn about communism now?
zefreak: wilderness: Stop giving a healthy plant water and watch it wilt. No longer is that plant flourishing. No longer, by the way, would communism and socialism exist for they need a free market is raid upon. Who is to say a plant that is flourishing should be valued more than a plant in any other state? Do you value bacteria that flourishes as equally as you value a plant that is flourishing?
What bacteria? To the plant it dies and doesn't flourish.
flourish: dictionary:
flourish |ˈfləri sh |verb1 [ intrans. ] (of a person, animal, or other living organism) grow ordevelop in a healthy or vigorous way, esp. as the result of aparticularly favorable environment : wild plants flourish on the banks of the lake.
2• develop rapidly and successfully : the organization has continued to flourish.• [with adverbial ]
3(of a person) be working or at the height of one's career during a specified period : the caricaturist and wit who flourished in the early years of this century.
There's more source materials if you need the definition.
zefreak: The analysis breaks down when you look at the material side of things. A plant that is growing and healthy may be valued more than one that is decaying by the agents that value them, but there is nothing objectively good about it. Value is agent-relative. A barren world, in and of itself, without reference to an outside agent, is no more "good" than a flourishing one.
Yeah and? That says nothing about said plant. If time dictates no plants on earth, then that's the way it is. I had this discussion in this thread already. I'm not going to repeat myself. Good is teleological, contextual, and so is flourishing.
zefreak: Eudemonia makes a good first principle, but does nothing to "prove" any sort of morality.
It is good to live. I say it, I live it. I've put that hypothesis into action. It's an experimental success.
zefreak: All first principles or underlying values are, in a sense, irrational. There needs to be the initial occurance of value, from which proper action can be derived.
All first principles or underlying values are, in a sense, irrational. There needs to be the initial occurance of value, from which proper action can be derived.
There needs to be irrational action ("occurrence") before "proper action". I don't know what you mean.
hashem: Jacob Bloom:blah blah blah You're so lost.
I think it's you guys who are totally lost. Off the deep end even.
hashem: wilderness: hashem: Why is everyone so focused on ethics here? I thought this was a topic on natural law. Natural law doesn't necessarily need ethics to be understood, at least I don't think so, but I'm not sure. Law is anchored in morals and ethics. Justice is an ethical question. I understand there are different ways of understanding morals. Some people denote religion or something from it. I don't. When I look at morality I see good. I replace the word morality with good and I understand it the same way. This good is not completely defined. It is teleological. Thus why billions of people will uniquely define what is good their whole lives. Natural law, thus, natural rights are the only moral values (preferences) that I understand to conflate into interpersonal relations. There are numerous moral values that are individualized and no law or rights need to be established to minimize conflict in society. One person may not have the courage to withstand a constant bombardment while leading troops, say, during D-Day. Yet another person may have the creativity and business savvy open a store that is profitable. I think natural law can be valued or not due to criminals obviously don't value a harmonious society. And some people in this thread, "don't give a damn about liberty". This is why self-defense is a legitimate right in my eyes since it's obvious some people would walk all over other people and maximize conflict. They are irrational. What do you think? Interesting, no doubt. But remember, natural laws are absolute. They cannot be defied. I.E. human act is a natural law that cannot be defied. This is in contrast to human "laws" which can be defied, i.e. "do not murder". Obviously someone can murder. What someone can't do is not act.
I'm thinking natural rights derive from natural laws. The "do not murder" is a liberty and life stance (natural rights). Natural rights can be transgressed but their derivation from natural law is something I'm not, admittedly, well versed in. If natural laws are what can't be defied I still see them being valued or not. Good or not. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
GilesStratton: hashem: Why is everyone so focused on ethics here? I thought this was a topic on natural law. You're clueless, the latter is an attempt to provide a proof of the former. Although, this seems like a good summary of my point, even if individuals do have a natural end, it certainly is not "moral" for them to pursue it. wilderness:I have. There are sources to help clarify. But you don't try to understand and have your own way, so, why should I even try with you. See ya. The thing is, I'd accept this sort of response if I hadn't checked my sources, I've read up on natural law from quite a few different sources (Veatch, Aristotle, Den Uyl & Rasmussen and Dr Plauche) I'm just not convinced, if you wish to assert these things you're going to have to back them up. Saying you've proved it before when you've not is a cop out.
I've proved it. I live it. You're "not convinced" and you "don't give a damn about liberty" - oh well.
wilderness: zefreak: wilderness: Stop giving a healthy plant water and watch it wilt. No longer is that plant flourishing. No longer, by the way, would communism and socialism exist for they need a free market is raid upon. Who is to say a plant that is flourishing should be valued more than a plant in any other state? Do you value bacteria that flourishes as equally as you value a plant that is flourishing? What bacteria? To the plant it dies and doesn't flourish. flourish: dictionary: flourish |ˈfləri sh |verb1 [ intrans. ] (of a person, animal, or other living organism) grow ordevelop in a healthy or vigorous way, esp. as the result of aparticularly favorable environment : wild plants flourish on the banks of the lake. 2• develop rapidly and successfully : the organization has continued to flourish.• [with adverbial ] 3(of a person) be working or at the height of one's career during a specified period : the caricaturist and wit who flourished in the early years of this century. There's more source materials if you need the definition. zefreak: The analysis breaks down when you look at the material side of things. A plant that is growing and healthy may be valued more than one that is decaying by the agents that value them, but there is nothing objectively good about it. Value is agent-relative. A barren world, in and of itself, without reference to an outside agent, is no more "good" than a flourishing one. Yeah and? That says nothing about said plant. If time dictates no plants on earth, then that's the way it is. I had this discussion in this thread already. I'm not going to repeat myself. Good is teleological, contextual, and so is flourishing. zefreak: Eudemonia makes a good first principle, but does nothing to "prove" any sort of morality. It is good to live. I say it, I live it. I've put that hypothesis into action. It's an experimental success. zefreak: All first principles or underlying values are, in a sense, irrational. There needs to be the initial occurance of value, from which proper action can be derived. There needs to be irrational action ("occurrence") before "proper action". I don't know what you mean.
You missed my point. Flourishing can say nothing in and of itself about whether it is good or not. Saying I should value or pursue any given action or arrangement based on my propensity to flourish assumes that to do so is my end. Whether something should or should not flourish is a valid question, and one that you cannot answer.
Jacob Bloom: So is the Manifesto nonsense? Should I learn about communism now?
I think you should actually read something before you call it nonsense. That is usually the action of an intelligent individual. Concerning whither you should learn communism, you obviously want to refute it though you would find it difficult to dispute something you don't know.
zefreak: You missed my point.
You missed my point.
Maybe I did.
zefreak: Flourishing can say nothing in and of itself about whether it is good or not.
Flourishing can say nothing in and of itself about whether it is good or not.
A flourishing person can. And I can assign labels to plants as well. This one is decaying that one is not, thus, it is flourishing. It is a healthy robust plant.
zefreak: Saying I should value or pursue any given action or arrangement based on my propensity to flourish assumes that to do so is my end. Whether something should or should not flourish is a valid question, and one that you cannot answer.
Saying I should value or pursue any given action or arrangement based on my propensity to flourish assumes that to do so is my end. Whether something should or should not flourish is a valid question, and one that you cannot answer.
Yes I can. I value life more than this rock mentality you propose. Are you about blank mind all of a sudden? Are thoughts in a human named Bob's life? I mean you suggest otherwise.
You can value anything you wish. Value is subjective. Morals, which are based on value, is subjective. There is no objective value, hence no objective morality. Is that clear enough?
what kind of truth is it that 'morals are subjective', is it objectively true or subjectively so?
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
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
hashem:Why is everyone so focused on ethics here? I thought this was a topic on natural law.
The original post, which should always guide the discussion, stated "I contend that Natural Law proves the illegitimacy of the state"
Questions of legitimacy are questions of ethics.
zefreak: You can value anything you wish. Value is subjective. Morals, which are based on value, is subjective. There is no objective value, hence no objective morality. Is that clear enough?
As UK pointed out. You cannot escape objectivity. If there is no objectivity in the world...then that itself is an objective statement.
My value is fact. It is objective. I live it. It is subjective, meaning, it is my individual choice in what I value and what I think is good. It is fact and objective when you see me put it into action.
Do you guys not understand what value means? I said that value is subjective. To conclude that I am an ontological subjectivist is a total strawman.
Anarchist Cain: zefreak: You can value anything you wish. Value is subjective. Morals, which are based on value, is subjective. There is no objective value, hence no objective morality. Is that clear enough? As UK pointed out. You cannot escape objectivity. If there is no objectivity in the world...then that itself is an objective statement.
Can you bold the part of the quoted statement that makes you think I don't believe in objectivity?
zefreak: Do you guys not understand what value means? I said that value is subjective. To conclude that I am an ontological subjectivist is a total strawman.
I totally understand what value is. Do you?
wilderness: zefreak: You can value anything you wish. Value is subjective. Morals, which are based on value, is subjective. There is no objective value, hence no objective morality. Is that clear enough? My value is fact. It is objective. I live it. It is subjective, meaning, it is my individual choice in what I value and what I think is good. It is fact and objective when you see me put it into action.
Your value is fact. If you are indeed an acting being, any action on your part implies value. That is an uncontroversial statement. You are arguing against a position I do not hold.
zefreak: wilderness: zefreak: You can value anything you wish. Value is subjective. Morals, which are based on value, is subjective. There is no objective value, hence no objective morality. Is that clear enough? My value is fact. It is objective. I live it. It is subjective, meaning, it is my individual choice in what I value and what I think is good. It is fact and objective when you see me put it into action. Your value is fact. If you are indeed an acting being, any action on your part implies value. That is an uncontroversial statement. You are arguing against a position I do not hold.
ok, then why bring it up? I guess we agree.
zefreak: You can value anything you wish Value is subjective. Morals, which are based on value, is subjective. There is no objective value, hence no objective morality. Is that clear enough?
wilderness: ok, then why bring it up?
My arguement, and what you think my arguement is, are two very different things. To put in terms you will understand, your "objective" values, that you demonstrate through action, may be different than my "objective" values, that I demonstrate through action. Neither value holds priority over the other. They can be incompatable, yet equally viable. Hence, value is subjective, or agent relative. I am not arguing that value does not exist.
nirgrahamUK: zefreak: You can value anything you wish Value is subjective. Morals, which are based on value, is subjective. There is no objective value, hence no objective morality. Is that clear enough? objectively speaking you can subjectively value any objective or subjective thing you wish. Value is subjective. Objective Morals, which are objectively based on subjective values (about which objective statements can be made), are subjective. Objectively speaking, there is no objective value, hence no objective morality. thats clear enough.
Fine, I do not disagree with your analysis.
it seems to me number 3 is the most interesting, and not so easy to be decisive about.
Lilburne: hashem:Why is everyone so focused on ethics here? I thought this was a topic on natural law. The original post, which should always guide the discussion, stated "I contend that Natural Law proves the illegitimacy of the state" Questions of legitimacy are questions of ethics.
It is this sort of reasoning that I am arguing against. Within an ethical system, you can prove the illegitimacy of the state. For example, given individual sovereignty, it logically follows that the State is illegitimate. However, given an amoral being, or someone whos primary value is something other than individual sovereignty or human "flourishing", such an argument will be unpersuasive.
nirgrahamUK: it seems to me number 3 is the most interesting, and not so easy to be decisive about.
Why? An "objective" moral code, by which I assume you mean one that is logically derived from the principle value and consistent in its application, is still based on ones subjective value. At root, it is subjective. Hence why someone who makes the pain and suffering of others his principle value can derive a system of morality based on that value, and consistently apply it. That system of morality would be objective in the sense of the word you use.
It is this sort of reasoning that I am arguing against.
Within an ethical system, you can prove the illegitimacy of the state.
However, given an amoral being, or someone whos primary value is something other than individual sovereignty
zefreak: wilderness: ok, then why bring it up? My arguement, and what you think my arguement is, are two very different things. To put in terms you will understand, your "objective" values, that you demonstrate through action, may be different than my "objective" values, that I demonstrate through action.
My arguement, and what you think my arguement is, are two very different things. To put in terms you will understand, your "objective" values, that you demonstrate through action, may be different than my "objective" values, that I demonstrate through action.
yes, that's the telos of pursuit of happiness. I've been discussing a philosophy that recognizes the individual.
zefreak: Neither value holds priority over the other.
Neither value holds priority over the other.
I would say oriented by liberty this can hold true. I value justice if liberty is violate (somebody holding a priority over mine to the point of initiating aggression is something I have a strong distaste for).
zefreak: They can be incompatable, yet equally viable. Hence, value is subjective, or agent relative. I am not arguing that value does not exist.
They can be incompatable, yet equally viable. Hence, value is subjective, or agent relative. I am not arguing that value does not exist.
ok, but I see how they are objective to you, and mine to me. And if you notice mine, then mine are objective to you too and vice versa. I really don't like this objective and subjective effort, but I think we may understand each other.
Hence why someone who makes the pain and suffering of others his principle value can derive a system of morality based on that value, and consistently apply it.
If you don't care, then don't respond. Maybe the OP should be "Rothbard proves the illegitimacy of the State if you accept these underlying principles".
zefreak: Lilburne: hashem:Why is everyone so focused on ethics here? I thought this was a topic on natural law. The original post, which should always guide the discussion, stated "I contend that Natural Law proves the illegitimacy of the state" Questions of legitimacy are questions of ethics. It is this sort of reasoning that I am arguing against. Within an ethical system, you can prove the illegitimacy of the state. For example, given individual sovereignty, it logically follows that the State is illegitimate. However, given an amoral being, or someone whos primary value is something other than individual sovereignty or human "flourishing", such an argument will be unpersuasive.
And statist love to kill, oh well. You can't make anybody agree on anything, not even gravity. Free-will.