Ever read Human Action, or Theory, and History? No? Oh well then. In both Mises states quite clearly the philosophy of utilitarianism, and its advantages over natural law.
In both Mises states quite clearly the philosophy of utilitarianism, and its advantages over natural law.
No, Mises is not the originator of utilitarianism nor its only exponent, and also, Mises was not familiar with either Rasmussen or den Uyl's work precisely because the postdate him (or Long's or Henry Veatch's or Fred Miller's), and so his comprehension of libertarian natural law theory is circumscribed. Rothbard took utilitarianism apart adequately in TEOL IMO, and Roderick Long further does so with regards to rule-utilitarianism in one of his works. So no, it isn't as clear-cut as merely reading those works (esp Human Action which I have read...)?
It is a terrible metaphor since our understanding of the laws of nature are at best hypothetical, there is absolutely no reason, or sense in declaring either the law of universal gravitation, or general relativity "natural laws" since it is kind of embarassing when it is found nature does not obey the law man declared she did.
They are then laws of what? An amorphous blob? I fail to see wherein calling something "natural" consists in a claim of incorrigibility. If you believe that I think your understanding of natural law is even worse than I had thought originally. I think this boils down to you having some sort of "Issue" with the word "natural". Aversion to the word is reminiscent of the fear positivists have of the words "a priori" used in any context other than mere linguistic conventions...
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
wilderness: JonBostwick: Long: But this is the wrong way to think about natural rights. A natural right isn't a legal right, it's a normative right. To claim that natural rights don't protect anything is to miss the point; natural rights are supposed to receive protection, not to provide it. Likewise, the function of Natural Law is not to protect any claims, but rather to tell us which claims deserve protection. As normative concepts, natural rights provide guidance for people's conduct. Blaming natural rights for not protecting us is like blaming a cookbook for not making dinner. Cookbooks don't make dinner for us; their purpose is to teach us how to make dinner for ourselves. Likewise, Natural Law doesn't lead our lives for us; its purpose is to guide us in the living of our own lives.3 I honestly have no idea why people wouldn't know what Long is talking about in the first place. Why does a "Long" need to come along and explain this? Two answers. One logical positivists (and utilitarianism following in the positivists footsteps it appears as well as Keynesianism) have tried to rewrite history by throwing out value and individuality, thus, it's easy how they are baffled by natural rights and why they end up if taken to the extremes of policy making in the government or in the streets it's easy to see how natural rights are thereby ignored and eroded away by such people.
JonBostwick: Long: But this is the wrong way to think about natural rights. A natural right isn't a legal right, it's a normative right. To claim that natural rights don't protect anything is to miss the point; natural rights are supposed to receive protection, not to provide it. Likewise, the function of Natural Law is not to protect any claims, but rather to tell us which claims deserve protection. As normative concepts, natural rights provide guidance for people's conduct. Blaming natural rights for not protecting us is like blaming a cookbook for not making dinner. Cookbooks don't make dinner for us; their purpose is to teach us how to make dinner for ourselves. Likewise, Natural Law doesn't lead our lives for us; its purpose is to guide us in the living of our own lives.3
wilderness: Cause they don't see them so they walk all over them. Taken to the further extreme it's why some can't figure out why protecting somebody's natural rights is in each individuals best interest.
wilderness: It's why somebody comes along and states, they "don't give a damn about liberty"... it's sickening.
So, natural lawyers can offer all of the normative prescriptions they want but in the end, law will be a market where consumers and suppliers will have to trade.
Charles Anthony: wilderness:I honestly have no idea why people wouldn't know what Long is talking about in the first place. Why does a "Long" need to come along and explain this? Two answers. One logical positivists (and utilitarianism following in the positivists footsteps it appears as well as Keynesianism) have tried to rewrite history by throwing out value and individuality, thus, it's easy how they are baffled by natural rights and why they end up if taken to the extremes of policy making in the government or in the streets it's easy to see how natural rights are thereby ignored and eroded away by such people. It is not so much that they are baffled, but rather they reject positive obligations which you are presenting as if they were logical conclusions in your next statements: wilderness: Cause they don't see them so they walk all over them. Taken to the further extreme it's why some can't figure out why protecting somebody's natural rights is in each individuals best interest. That is incorrect. It is NOT in everybody's interest to protect somebody else's rights. You can not prove that it is always and everywhere in everybody's interest to do so.
wilderness:I honestly have no idea why people wouldn't know what Long is talking about in the first place. Why does a "Long" need to come along and explain this? Two answers. One logical positivists (and utilitarianism following in the positivists footsteps it appears as well as Keynesianism) have tried to rewrite history by throwing out value and individuality, thus, it's easy how they are baffled by natural rights and why they end up if taken to the extremes of policy making in the government or in the streets it's easy to see how natural rights are thereby ignored and eroded away by such people.
Charles, why bring this to the level of criminals? Why advocate and stand up for those that violate liberty? You prove my point.
Charles Anthony: wilderness: It's why somebody comes along and states, they "don't give a damn about liberty"... it's sickening. I agree, it is sickening but there is no objective reason why people SHOULD give a damn about the liberty of other people. Furthermore, an individual is not ABLE, in any meaningful sense, to give a damn about everybody else's liberty either.
I give a damn, and I therefore make it a fact and objective by my demonstrating such. You on the other hand in this post...hmmm. Yes and let's not forget to cook dinner. But of course you'll say what about those people that want a cold sandwich for dinner or what about the ants that may pick up crumbs or what about the people that would rather eat fruit, or drink maple syrup, or what about or what about that or... silly.
Charles Anthony: So, natural lawyers can offer all of the normative prescriptions they want but in the end, law will be a market where consumers and suppliers will have to trade.
Law will be a market? Where they HAVE to trade? You forgot to use your logic that you used above. According to you they don't HAVE to trade, so, what happened here with your reasoning?
Juan:The point remains. Despite our limited knowledge of the laws of nature, nature works regularly, not randomly
Yes, but it is sheer hubris to declare, in the case of the laws of nature, to declare that these natural laws are known, maybe they'll be known in the future, mabye not but as of know man does not.
Juan: It's too bad that the term "natural law(s)" seems to upset laminustacitus, tho.
The term doesn't upset me as much as Hashem's use of it, and then declaring that we qua man know the natural laws, as Hashem uses the term.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
Jon Irenicus: It is a terrible metaphor since our understanding of the laws of nature are at best hypothetical, there is absolutely no reason, or sense in declaring either the law of universal gravitation, or general relativity "natural laws" since it is kind of embarassing when it is found nature does not obey the law man declared she did. They are then laws of what? An amorphous blob? I fail to see wherein calling something "natural" consists in a claim of incorrigibility. If you believe that I think your understanding of natural law is even worse than I had thought originally. I think this boils down to you having some sort of "Issue" with the word "natural". Aversion to the word is reminiscent of the fear positivists have of the words "a priori" used in any context other than mere linguistic conventions...
Again, you can not admit human limitations in the realm of knowledge, esspecially in regard to the "natural laws". In addition, I am not speaking of the laws themselves, but our human understanding of them.
Sigh, I didn't want to do this.
hashem:1. That natural law ELUCIDATES ethics. ETHICS ARE MADE VISIBLE THROUGH the laws of nature. "The natural law, then, elucidates what is best for man"
No it does not, our understanding of the laws of nature always varries, and along with that variety comes changes in how we intepret it.; for instance, contrast Newton's world machine with the Copehagan interpretation of quantum physics. All of our understanding of the laws of nature are in the forms of problematic judgements, hypothoses, that, though they are not perfect, do give an explanation that is better than other hypotheses at our disposal. We cannot infer ethics from hypothoses: the natural law of Newton, and the natural law of Heisenberg would elucidate two entirely different systems of naturalistic ethics.
So tell me, upon which hypothoses are you basing your system of natural law?
wilderness: Charles, why bring this to the level of criminals?
wilderness: Why advocate and stand up for those that violate liberty? You prove my point.
wilderness: I give a damn, and I therefore make it a fact and objective by my demonstrating such.
If you want to say that you care, I hear you and I respect you for that but to "give a damn" is different for everybody. I could display my action of "give a damn" by praying for the victims of violence and praying for the conversion of aggressors. You could display your action of "give a damn" by violent retaliation or defense. A third person could do both. A fourth person could seize the opportunity to sell his services as a mercenary to the highest bidder and you may not know the difference.
wilderness:You on the other hand in this post...hmmm. Yes and let's not forget to cook dinner. But of course you'll say what about those people that want a cold sandwich for dinner or what about the ants that may pick up crumbs or what about the people that would rather eat fruit, or drink maple syrup, or what about or what about that or... silly.
wilderness: Charles Anthony: So, natural lawyers can offer all of the normative prescriptions they want but in the end, law will be a market where consumers and suppliers will have to trade. Law will be a market? Where they HAVE to trade? You forgot to use your logic that you used above. According to you they don't HAVE to trade, so, what happened here with your reasoning?
See, I believe in natural laws normatively. I believe that once people market any other laws, they are no longer libertarian. However, I recognize that it is a mistake to say that it is to the advantage of everybody including non-libertarians to respect natural laws.
I have refuted Roderick Long critique of "natural law."
Life is filled with misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and prodigal folklore.
Charles Anthony: wilderness: Charles, why bring this to the level of criminals? -- because criminals act and sometimes they get away with crime. Sometimes crime pays for criminals.
-- because criminals act and sometimes they get away with crime. Sometimes crime pays for criminals.
Since you speak and defend criminals I know which side you are on.
Charles Anthony: wilderness: Why advocate and stand up for those that violate liberty? You prove my point. I am not advocating for them. I am offering their behavior as evidence that sometimes crime pays and I am right: if they get away with their crimes, they are better off. Therefore, your contention that respecting natural laws are good for everybody is false.
I am not advocating for them. I am offering their behavior as evidence that sometimes crime pays and I am right: if they get away with their crimes, they are better off. Therefore, your contention that respecting natural laws are good for everybody is false.
No. It's not false for good people to seek justice. Do you even understand somebody that advocates natural rights? Free-choice is paramount. And since you stand up for criminals I know who's side you are on.
Charles Anthony: wilderness: I give a damn, and I therefore make it a fact and objective by my demonstrating such. Saying you "give a damn" is meaningless. There is no observable action associated with it and what constitutes "a damn" is variable. You think you have an objective rule but you do not.
Saying you "give a damn" is meaningless. There is no observable action associated with it and what constitutes "a damn" is variable. You think you have an objective rule but you do not.
It is meaningful to me, a person who loves liberty. But since you like to tear down liberty and can't see a person that acts in such a way it's obvious you advocate to erase natural rights.
Charles Anthony: If you want to say that you care, I hear you and I respect you for that but to "give a damn" is different for everybody. I could display my action of "give a damn" by praying for the victims of violence and praying for the conversion of aggressors. You could display your action of "give a damn" by violent retaliation or defense. A third person could do both. A fourth person could seize the opportunity to sell his services as a mercenary to the highest bidder and you may not know the difference.
And natural rights respect the individual so again you say nothing new. Somebody who doesn't give a damn about liberty is not for liberty or of liberty. They advocate criminality.
Charles Anthony: wilderness:You on the other hand in this post...hmmm. Yes and let's not forget to cook dinner. But of course you'll say what about those people that want a cold sandwich for dinner or what about the ants that may pick up crumbs or what about the people that would rather eat fruit, or drink maple syrup, or what about or what about that or... silly. I think you are having trouble accepting that crime sometimes pays for criminals.
I think you are having trouble accepting that crime sometimes pays for criminals.
And I think your having trouble defending liberty. I on the other hand speak of liberty.
Charles Anthony: wilderness: Law will be a market? Where they HAVE to trade? You forgot to use your logic that you used above. According to you they don't HAVE to trade, so, what happened here with your reasoning? You are right. I should have been more specific. Let me rephrase: In Libertariania, law will be a market where consumers and suppliers will have to trade. If consumers do not want natural law, the natural lawyers (suppliers) will be out of business.
wilderness: Law will be a market? Where they HAVE to trade? You forgot to use your logic that you used above. According to you they don't HAVE to trade, so, what happened here with your reasoning?
You are right. I should have been more specific. Let me rephrase: In Libertariania, law will be a market where consumers and suppliers will have to trade. If consumers do not want natural law, the natural lawyers (suppliers) will be out of business.
of course
Charles Anthony and wilderness, I think you two are just talking past each other now.
There are no "rights", but there should be "rights". Yes, in a free society, there would still be "criminals" or those who would do things to others without getting consent. However, if they do not submit themselves to a neutral court, they would be opening themselves up to vigilante justice. "Crimes" are not black and white. If someone steals something from me, and I steal it back, I have not really stolen anything. If I open up an office to perform abortions, well, some crazy person may kill me anyways, regardless of whether or not the law says I can practice it.
Lastly, there is no real "right to life". If there were, then none of us would ever die unless someone else killed us. But we all die. however, it should not be legal to be killed by someone else, without first granting consent. On the flip side, assisted suicide should be legal. This is why neutral courts are so important, because we need someone to arbitrate disputes. But that should be the only purpose of courts, to arbitrate disputes, not to enforce arbitrary laws made by legislators.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Spideynw: Charles Anthony and wilderness, I think you two are just talking past each other now. There are no "rights", but there should be "rights". Yes, in a free society, there would still be "criminals" or those who would do things to others without getting consent. However, if they do not submit themselves to a neutral court, they would be opening themselves up to vigilante justice. "Crimes" are not black and white. If someone steals something from me, and I steal it back, I have not really stolen anything. If I open up an office to perform abortions, well, some crazy person may kill me anyways, regardless of whether or not the law says I can practice it.
I think it's more about some people forgetting the obvious. Need I write what you wrote here on every post. Some people seem to demand, like zefreak did, and I think others are stating the same, that on every post or maybe my signature ought to be "if you volunteer to do so". Yet this is obvious by anybody that advocates natural rights that free choice is present. So of course there are criminals and of course there are justice seekers. Must we return to the basics on each post?
Spideynw: Lastly, there is no real "right to life". If there were, then none of us would ever die unless someone else killed us. But we all die.
Lastly, there is no real "right to life". If there were, then none of us would ever die unless someone else killed us. But we all die.
Natural death is - natural. The natural right of life is about justice and liberty while somebody is alive. I'm sure you know this, so, why review the obvious?
Spideynw: ...however, it should not be legal to be killed by someone else, without first granting consent. On the flip side, assisted suicide should be legal. This is why neutral courts are so important, because we need someone to arbitrate disputes. But that should be the only purpose of courts, to arbitrate disputes, not to enforce arbitrary laws made by legislators.
...however, it should not be legal to be killed by someone else, without first granting consent. On the flip side, assisted suicide should be legal. This is why neutral courts are so important, because we need someone to arbitrate disputes. But that should be the only purpose of courts, to arbitrate disputes, not to enforce arbitrary laws made by legislators.
And this seems to be a new interesting topic. For I personally don't know if this would be universally accepted even by a natural rights advocate, the neutral court that is. So that would be an interesting discussion.
thanks
wilderness:Need I write what you wrote here on every post.
You just might. LOL
wilderness:The natural right of life is about justice and liberty while somebody is alive. I'm sure you know this, so, why review the obvious?
I would not be so sure...
Spideynw: wilderness:Need I write what you wrote here on every post. You just might. LOL wilderness:The natural right of life is about justice and liberty while somebody is alive. I'm sure you know this, so, why review the obvious? I would not be so sure...
ok, I'll come up with a signature to remind people for awhile that free-will is alive and well and people can freely choose - if they want to freely choose, but that would take a free choice to decide if they want to freely choose or not, but then again that would involve another freely chosen decision, but then another and another, etc.... lol
Spideynw:Lastly, there is no real "right to life".
It is precisely why I worded it Right of Life, that while you are alive you actively choose everything, and in respect to the right, you do so voluntarily, it really boils down to self ownership, or property ownership, as was resolved in an exchange between (I think) NGUK, and I....
Spideynw:If there were, then none of us would ever die unless someone else killed us.
With that logic there should be no right to property since it could be destroyed by natural effect....
The whole concept was not to promote anti-abortion or anti-assisted Suicide, but rather to promote self ownership, which is where the converstation between NGUK and I came into play...
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
wilderness:ok, I'll come up with a signature to remind people for awhile that free-will is alive and well and people can freely choose - if they want to freely choose, but that would take a free choice to decide if they want to freely choose or not, but then again that would involve another freely chosen decision, but then another and another, etc.... lol
"You are free to choose, but please do not be a douche about it, it makes you ripe for parody."
Harry Felker: Spideynw:Lastly, there is no real "right to life". It is precisely why I worded it Right of Life, that while you are alive you actively choose everything, and in respect to the right, you do so voluntarily, it really boils down to self ownership, or property ownership, as was resolved in an exchange between (I think) NGUK, and I....
I think the word "right" confuses people, which is why I made the clarification. Again, I think people should be able to go to a neutral court to settle disputes.
Harry Felker: Spideynw:If there were, then none of us would ever die unless someone else killed us. With that logic there should be no right to property since it could be destroyed by natural effect.... The whole concept was not to promote anti-abortion or anti-assisted Suicide, but rather to promote self ownership, which is where the converstation between NGUK and I came into play...
I am just saying a "right to life" is too vague of a phrase.
hashem: 1. That natural law ELUCIDATES ethics. ETHICS ARE MADE VISIBLE THROUGH the laws of nature. "The natural law, then, elucidates what is best for man" 2. His reference to praxeology is contrasting VALUE. He in no way maintains that natural law is opposed to praxeology or vice versa. In praxeology, value is subjective, because we are speaking of value judgments of individuals. In ethics derived from natural law, value is objective, because we are stating what NATURE ELUCIDATES. Try reading the whole chapter genius.
1. That natural law ELUCIDATES ethics. ETHICS ARE MADE VISIBLE THROUGH the laws of nature. "The natural law, then, elucidates what is best for man"
2. His reference to praxeology is contrasting VALUE. He in no way maintains that natural law is opposed to praxeology or vice versa. In praxeology, value is subjective, because we are speaking of value judgments of individuals. In ethics derived from natural law, value is objective, because we are stating what NATURE ELUCIDATES.
Try reading the whole chapter genius.
Oy, I'm not saying your ethics from natural law argument is incorrect. You are still confused.
Read his paper defending Mses' total rejection of natural law, please.
laminustacitus: Juan: Despite our limited knowledge of the laws of nature, nature works regularly, not randomly Yes, but it is sheer hubris to declare, in the case of the laws of nature, to declare that these natural laws are known,
Juan: Despite our limited knowledge of the laws of nature, nature works regularly, not randomly
contrast Newton's world machine with the Copehagan interpretation of quantum physics.
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."
Juan: laminustacitus: Juan: Despite our limited knowledge of the laws of nature, nature works regularly, not randomly Yes, but it is sheer hubris to declare, in the case of the laws of nature, to declare that these natural laws are known, They arepartially known. What is sheer hubris is the attitude of skeptics who believe that the only enlightened position is their own self-refuting nihilism.
At least the skeptics have the humbility to admit that they do not know everything, and that does not imply nihilism, all that it implies is that the skeptic has ackowledged the limits of the human understanding.
Juan:contrast Newton's world machine with the Copehagan interpretation of quantum physics. Oh no, not again.
Did I not say that I didn't want to say it?
laminustacitus:At least the skeptics have the humbility to admit that they do not know everything, and that does not imply nihilism, all that it implies is that the skeptic has ackowledged the limits of the human understanding.
laminustacitus:So tell me, upon which hypothoses are you basing your system of natural law?
Upon nature. Nothing else. For example, "humans act" is a law of nature. It would remain a natural law even if you wrote a hundred pages saying it wasn't. Do you seriously intend to object that "humans act" is indeed NOT a law? You're up against Mises and Rothbard at the very minimum.
Juan: laminustacitus:At least the skeptics have the humbility to admit that they do not know everything, and that does not imply nihilism, all that it implies is that the skeptic has ackowledged the limits of the human understanding. To acknowledge the limits of understanding is agnosticism, not skepticism. The skeptics are the most arrogant people on earth. They think they are above all other philosophies because they confuse their childish nihilism and their own limitations...with...what ? Love for truth ? Well too bad that skepticism denies the existence of truth. What skeptics love is their own fake humility. By the way, how do you combine your regard for limited knowledge with your unfounded beliefs about the so called 'church' and so called 'religion' ? You see, you're willing to preach skepticism when dealing with the universe cause it's 'random' and unknowable but then you believe that your silly fairy tales are absolute truth. I don't think you are humble Lam - not at all.
"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
hashem: laminustacitus:So tell me, upon which hypothoses are you basing your system of natural law? Upon nature. Nothing else.
Upon nature. Nothing else.
You did not answer the question, I will ask it again: upon which hypothoses do you base your ethical system. We understand the laws of nature through hypthoses, not apodictic, and unquestionably true laws; mind telling me which ones you regard as "laws"?
hashem: For example, "humans act" is a law of nature. It would remain a natural law even if you wrote a hundred pages saying it wasn't.
Its not a law of nature, its a synthetic a priori judgment that is true prior to man experiencing any objects.
hashem: Do you seriously intend to object that "humans act" is indeed NOT a law? You're up against Mises and Rothbard at the very minimum.
Again, its a synthetic a priori judgment, not a law of nature. Alas, I'm actually right in the Misean camp right now.
Nitroadict:To be fair, I agree with you in objecting to Lam's use of "randomness", which seems to an obfuscating term to describe, essentially, things humans do not know currently, or cannot explain in the interm, but given enough time, would eventually further understand (i.e. the dark matter problem 15 years ago versus the dark matter problem in 2009).
You misunderstand me, I used it not about those things that we do not know about not now, but rather the tendancy for man to generalize his experience as a true law of nature without realizing that things can varry. I used weight as a classic example for it was oftten thought to be an apodictic property of ojects qua objects; however, those philosophers were falsly generalizing their experience, leading to a false conclusion for objects do not always have weight.
laminustacitus: Nitroadict:To be fair, I agree with you in objecting to Lam's use of "randomness", which seems to an obfuscating term to describe, essentially, things humans do not know currently, or cannot explain in the interm, but given enough time, would eventually further understand (i.e. the dark matter problem 15 years ago versus the dark matter problem in 2009). You misunderstand me, I used it not about those things that we do not know about not now, but rather the tendancy for man to generalize his experience as a true law of nature without realizing that things can varry. I used weight as a classic example for it was oftten thought to be an apodictic property of ojects qua objects; however, those philosophers were falsly generalizing their experience, leading to a false conclusion for objects do not always have weight.
Ahh, I would've used the term "dynamism" to describe the variation of nature and/or the universe, not "randomness", because "randomness" implies there is not determinism (which humans currently do not know if the universe is deterministic or non-deterministic, methinks).Other than the semantic difference, I agree.
Nitroadict:Ahh, I would've used the term "dynamism" to describe the variation of nature and/or the universe, not "randomness", because "randomness" implies there is not determinism (which humans currently do not know if the universe is deterministic or non-deterministic, methinks).Other than the semantic difference, I agree.
I use randomness because I learned the idea from N.N. Taleb, who uses the term "randomness".
Nitroadict:The scientific process requires a great deal of skepticism & incremental knowledge, because knowledge & understanding can be constantly refined, which is evident by newer theories, abandonment of older theories, yet I do not see them being strawmanned as nihilists.
Also, if skepticism denies truth, how to you explain those who operate in & further science, which seems to require skepticism?
webster : skepticism: 2a. (Metaph.) The doctrine that no fact or principle can be certainly known; the tenet that all knowledge is uncertain; Pyrrohonism; universal doubt; the position that no fact or truth, however worthy of confidence, can be established on philosophical grounds; 2b critical investigation or inquiry, as opposed to the positive assumption or assertion of certain principles.
laminustacitus:Again, its a synthetic a priori judgment, not a law of nature.
It wouldn't matter if you called it a hypertronic spacemodufier. It remains a law as it cannot be defied; and remains in the nature of humans to act. A natural law.
hashem: laminustacitus:So tell me, upon which hypothoses are you basing your system of natural law? Upon nature. Nothing else. For example, "humans act" is a law of nature. It would remain a natural law even if you wrote a hundred pages saying it wasn't. Do you seriously intend to object that "humans act" is indeed NOT a law? You're up against Mises and Rothbard at the very minimum.
So when/ if humans die out, how well will your law of nature hold then?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
What?
Harry Felker: wilderness:ok, I'll come up with a signature to remind people for awhile that free-will is alive and well and people can freely choose - if they want to freely choose, but that would take a free choice to decide if they want to freely choose or not, but then again that would involve another freely chosen decision, but then another and another, etc.... lol "You are free to choose, but please do not be a douche about it, it makes you ripe for parody."
lol
GilesStratton:So when/ if humans die out, how well will your law of nature hold then?
Flawlessly of course. Nature exists in the presence and absence of humans. Laws too, are true regardless of whether humans exist, or whether humans recognize them.
hashem: GilesStratton:So when/ if humans die out, how well will your law of nature hold then? Laws too, are true regardless of whether humans exist, or whether humans recognize them.
Laws too, are true regardless of whether humans exist, or whether humans recognize them.
So if a human is born, the moment they are born, in a coma state, the axiom "humans act" still applies to this individual? Despite the human being thoroughly incapable of consciousness? Despite the human being incapable of voluntary actions? Does the "natural law" of humans act require consciousness? Or does it bundle human acts & humans react as the same thing, despite their being an obvious biological difference between action & reaction? Obviously, this particular human isn't "acting", so how can human acts be a universal natural law?Keep in mind, while this may be a hypothetical, there is no reason that such a condition can occur in the future in light of side-effects from newer technologies or environmental conditions, such as the possible effects of nanotechnology on the mother's womb, possibly inclining the baby to be born into a coma & never recovering from such.Thus this would prevent the newly conceived individual from any acts whatsoever (assuming that medicine, doctors, etc. cannot recover the individual from their ailment).
Natural Law -- Murray Rothbard, Economic Thought Before Adam Smith
1.1 The natural law
"Natural law rests on the crucial insight that to be necessarily means to be something, that is, some particular thing or entity. There is no Being in the abstract. Everything that is, is some particular thing, whether it be a stone, a cat, or a tree. By empirical fact there is more than one kind of thing in the universe; in fact there are thousands, if not millions of kinds of things. Each thing has its own particular set of properties or attributes, its own nature, which distinguishes it from other kinds of things. A stone, a cat, an elm tree; each has its own particular nature, which man can discover, study and identify. Man studies the world, then, by examining entities, identifying similar kinds of things, and classifying them into categories each with its own properties and nature. If we see a cat walking down the street, we can immediately include it into a set of things, or animals, called 'cats' whose nature we have already discovered and analyzed. If we can discover and learn about the natures of entities X and Y, then we can discover what happens when these two entities interact. Suppose, for example, that when a certain amount of X interacts with a given amount of Y we get a certain quantity of another thing, Z. We can then say that the effect, Z, has been caused by the interaction of X and Y. Thus, chemists may discover that when two molecules of hydrogen interact with one molecule of oxygen, the result is one molecule of a new entity, water. All these entities - hydrogen, oxygen and water - have specific discoverable properties or natureswhich can be identified. We see, then, that the concepts of cause and effect are part and parcel of natural law analysis. Events in the world can be traced back to the interactions of specific entities. Since natures are given and identifiable, the interactions of the various entities will be replicable under the same conditions. The same causes will always yield the same effects. For the Aristotelian philosophers, logic was not a separate and isolated discipline, but an integral part of the natural law. Thus, the basic process of identifying entities led, in 'classical' or Aristotelian logic, to the Law of Identity: a thing is, and cannot be anything other than, what it is: a is a. It follows, then, that an entity cannot be the negation of itself. Or, put another way, we have the Law of Non-Contradiction: a thing cannot be both a and non-a. a is not and cannot be non-a. Finally, in our world of numerous kinds of entities, anything must be either a or it won't be; in short, it will either be a or non-a. Nothing can be both. This gives us the third well-known law of classical logic: the Law of the Excluded Middle: everything in the universe is either a or non-a."
He proceeds to show how both economics and ethics are DERIVED FROM natural law. Thus, it is excruciatingly clear that natural law exists whether or not you believe in ethics or economics.
I find it interesting that the only human act you seem capable of doing is quoting Rothbard every other post. If I wanted to debate Rothbard, I'd bring some study material & sit next to his grave.
Nitroadict:So if a human is born, the moment they are born, in a coma state, the axiom "humans act" still applies to this individual?
Why as soon as they are born? Why not 5 minutes before they are born? Or even while they are still a developing mass of cells?
The point is that babies (and ETA 5 minutes unborn babies; and developing masses of cells) are POTENTIAL human beings.
hashem: Nitroadict:So if a human is born, the moment they are born, in a coma state, the axiom "humans act" still applies to this individual? Why as soon as they are born? Why not 5 minutes before they are born? Or even while they are still a developing mass of cells?
Nitroadict:Why the hell not?
hashem: Why as soon as they are born? Why not 5 minutes before they are born? Or even while they are still a developing mass of cells? The point is that babies (and ETA 5 minutes unborn babies; and developing masses of cells) are POTENTIAL human beings.
"Why the hell not?" Reductio ad absurdum.
Nitroadict: I find it interesting that the only human act you seem capable of doing is quoting Rothbard every other post. If I wanted to debate Rothbard, I'd bring some study material & sit next to his grave.
Then why post in this thread or why read this thread if you don't want to read Rothbard and learn about natural law? Is somebody coercing you?
Nitroadict: So if a human is born, the moment they are born, in a coma state, the axiom "humans act" still applies to this individual?
So if a human is born, the moment they are born, in a coma state, the axiom "humans act" still applies to this individual?
Well that person is obviously not fully living up to the potential of what billions of humans do. It's why we call it a "coma state".