hashem: True. But I guess what I said is still a good point for people who think that natural law ethics attempt to bridge the is/ought gap. When a math teacher explains that 1+1=2, he isn't telling you that you should add. When a natural law scientist explains what works and doesn't work for humans, he isn't saying that you should do what works.
True.
But I guess what I said is still a good point for people who think that natural law ethics attempt to bridge the is/ought gap.
When a math teacher explains that 1+1=2, he isn't telling you that you should add. When a natural law scientist explains what works and doesn't work for humans, he isn't saying that you should do what works.
Which is my position with regards to natural law ethics (although it does seem you have changed your position some since the beginning of the thread). This is why I have ceased arguing with you after you clarified your position. It is largely an issue of semantics, as natural law (and natural rights) carry a lot of philosophical baggage.
Hence why I maintained that flourishing is a good first principle, but does not touch the fact/value dichotomy.
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
zefreak: hashem: True. But I guess what I said is still a good point for people who think that natural law ethics attempt to bridge the is/ought gap. When a math teacher explains that 1+1=2, he isn't telling you that you should add. When a natural law scientist explains what works and doesn't work for humans, he isn't saying that you should do what works. Which is my position with regards to natural law ethics (although it does seem you have changed your position some since the beginning of the thread). This is why I have ceased arguing with you after you clarified your position. It is largely an issue of semantics, as natural law (and natural rights) carry a lot of philosophical baggage.
I don't see the baggage, but I guess you have some baggage in your view. Natural law has been about free-will. That position hasn't changed.
I don't see how free-will and natural law are necessarily related, or co-dependant. The baggage I am referring to is the objective ethics that natural law proponents like Juan propogate.
zefreak: I don't see how free-will and natural law are necessarily related, or co-dependant. The baggage I am referring to is the objective ethics that natural law proponents like Juan propogate.
I don't know. I think you bring up clouded issues. Again, to bring up "objective" in the first place before we can even discuss what you're saying, stifles our conversation right off the bat.
Human action is choice aka free-will. That's a natural law of human nature. It's been recently discussed in this thread if you remember.
wilderness: I don't know. I think you bring up clouded issues. Again, to bring up "objective" in the first place before we can even discuss what you're saying, stifles our conversation right off the bat. Human action is choice aka free-will. That's a natural law of human nature. It's been recently discussed in this thread if you remember.
Objective value means that such valuation is found within the thing itself. Objective ethics mean that a system of value, and hence ought statements are found within the thing itself, in this case man and his relations. I reject this. I don't see how I can be clearer. Consistent application of the principles of subjective value lead to such a conclusion. Yet most proponents of natural law ethics believe their system of values to be inherent in nature, which is false. This apparent distinction between natural law as proposed by Hashem and natural law ethics is why he has had so much trouble in getting his point across.
With regards to human action, I concede that it is a natural law, in the sense that Mises used it. Action or inaction are fundamentally equilibriating. However, I don't think this accomplishes what you think it does.
zefreak: wilderness: I don't know. I think you bring up clouded issues. Again, to bring up "objective" in the first place before we can even discuss what you're saying, stifles our conversation right off the bat. Human action is choice aka free-will. That's a natural law of human nature. It's been recently discussed in this thread if you remember. Objective value means that such valuation is found within the thing itself. Objective ethics mean that a system of value, and hence ought statements are found within the thing itself, in this case man and his relations. I reject this. I don't see how I can be clearer.
Objective value means that such valuation is found within the thing itself. Objective ethics mean that a system of value, and hence ought statements are found within the thing itself, in this case man and his relations. I reject this. I don't see how I can be clearer.
I don't understand what you're saying.
For if I act non-aggressively, then you can see this "thing itself", which is a human acting within his nature to be non-aggressive. What is my nature, as a human, can be rationally understood as a principle. So when I act the NAP, then you see the "thing itself" that is of my nature. I acted - you saw.
zefreak: Consistent application of the principles of subjective value lead to such a conclusion. Yet most proponents of natural law ethics believe their system of values to be inherent in nature, which is false.
Consistent application of the principles of subjective value lead to such a conclusion. Yet most proponents of natural law ethics believe their system of values to be inherent in nature, which is false.
"inherent of nature" is vague. Where else are ethics applied here if this here is not nature? In other words, where are we then according to you?
zefreak: This apparent distinction between natural law as proposed by Hashem and natural law ethics is why he has had so much trouble in getting his point across.
This apparent distinction between natural law as proposed by Hashem and natural law ethics is why he has had so much trouble in getting his point across.
I see no trouble in him getting his point across. I understand what he is saying quite easily. It's not troubling at all.
zefreak: With regards to human action, I concede that it is a natural law, in the sense that Mises used it. Action or inaction are fundamentally equilibriating. However, I don't think this accomplishes what you think it does.
And what's this that I'm thinking?
zefreak:Consistent application of the principles of subjective value lead to such a conclusion.
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: zefreak:Consistent application of the principles of subjective value lead to such a conclusion. As I said at the beginning of the thread...'subjective' value in economics is not necessarily related to, nor supports your moral sophisms or nihilism. Consistent application of your general subjectivism leads to rationally mocking any assertion you bother to make. Too bad if you refuse to admit that human beings are moral agents which posses free will and that there can be no justification for agent A to rule over agent B. Go ahead, repeat the fully nonsensical dictum "A doesn't rule A".
Subjective value is subjective value. An ontological fact is not a value, and does not fall under subjective value. I am an ontological realist, and believe there is an objective reality. Your complete lack of comprehensionmakes arguing with you an utter waste of time.
zefreak:Subjective value is subjective value.
An ontological fact is not a value, and does not fall under subjective value.
I am an ontological realist, and believe there is an objective reality.
Your complete lack of comprehension makes arguing with you an utter waste of time.
wilderness: I don't understand what you're saying.
That much is obvious.
wilderness: For if I act non-aggressively, then you can see this "thing itself", which is a human acting within his nature to be non-aggressive. What is my nature, as a human, can be rationally understood as a principle. So when I act the NAP, then you see the "thing itself" that is of my nature. I acted - you saw.
If you act non-aggressively, then I see only the physical action. You choose to act according to your nature. All this means is that you value non-aggression. Non-aggression is not categorically good or bad. There is no value inherent in aggressive and non-aggressive relations; they are only subjectively valued by agents who use them as means to further ends or as ends in themselves. A chair has no value in and of itself, but only as its use as a means or end to an agent. Likewise for actions, relationships, structures, or patterns.
wilderness: "Consistent application of the principles of subjective value lead to such a conclusion. Yet most proponents of natural law ethics believe their system of values to be inherent in nature, which is false." "inherent of nature" is vague. Where else are ethics applied here if this here is not nature? In other words, where are we then according to you?
"Consistent application of the principles of subjective value lead to such a conclusion. Yet most proponents of natural law ethics believe their system of values to be inherent in nature, which is false."
It's almost like we are speaking a different language.
wilderness: I see no trouble in him getting his point across. I understand what he is saying quite easily. It's not troubling at all.
Obviously not, because he is not postulating natural law ethics, or any sort of objective ethic (so far as I can see).
zefreak:If you act non-aggressively, then I see only the physical action. You choose to act according to your nature. All this means is that you value non-aggression. Non-aggression is not categorically good or bad. There is no value inherent in aggressive and non-aggressive relations; they are only subjectively valued by agents who use them as means to further ends or as ends in themselves. A chair has no value in and of itself, but only as its use as a means or end to an agent. Likewise for actions, relationships, structures, or patterns.
Well I think there needs to be clarification as to what aggressive relationships are. Are we discussing violence? Or mere exuberance?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Juan:And a cat is a cat. And subjective value in economics is not the same thing as cheap moral nihilism.
Pure assertion. In what ways are subjective value inapplicable to ethics, and why? I am beginning to pick up on your style of argumentation now. Nihilism, sophism, skepticism are not magic words to call upon when you can't reason effectively.
Juan:"An ontological fact is not a value, and does not fall under subjective value." I don't know what you're saying....and I'm confident you don't know what you're saying either. Maybe you're saying that "the car existing over there is not a value" ?
I don't know what you're saying....and I'm confident you don't know what you're saying either. Maybe you're saying that "the car existing over there is not a value" ?
I know what I am saying. You think that "moral nihilism" implies that any statement, even those regarding ontological fact, are subjective. Such are the results of mixing ignorance with hubris.
Juan: zefreak: And a cat is a cat. And subjective value in economics is not the same thing as cheap moral nihilism. Pure assertion.
zefreak: And a cat is a cat. And subjective value in economics is not the same thing as cheap moral nihilism.
I am beginning to pick up on your style of argumentation now. Nihilism, sophism, skepticism are not magic words to call upon when you can't reason effectively.
You think that "moral nihilism" implies that any statement, even those regarding ontological fact, are subjective.
Juan: zefreak: I am an ontological realist, and believe there is an objective reality. So ? Has anybody denied that ? Now, what place do human beings have in that 'objective' reality of yours ? I take it we're some sort of chemical robots, or ?
zefreak: I am an ontological realist, and believe there is an objective reality.
How is it relevant? Regardless, I have no vested interest in either the materialist or dualist camp.
So you can't have a discussion without resorting to illegitimate labels (you have called me a sophist without demonstrating any fallacious reasoning on my part) or baseless assertions regarding my intent? You don't know what I have or haven't read. I am getting tired of attacks on my credibility or character. Discuss the ideas or nothing at all.
zefreak:So you can't have a discussion without resorting to illegitimate labels
...baseless assertions regarding my intent?
You don't know what I have or haven't read.
Discuss the ideas or nothing at all.
I wouldn't consider myself an amoralist, I just believe value, hence morality is subjective. I value the NAP, honesty, integrity, and reason. I value consistency within beliefs, as well as the pursuit of knowledge. Does this mean these things are inherently valuable? Without an agent to dispense valuation, would they hold some disembodied value? I think not.
Sophism implies misleading and or illogical reasoning. If you can provide evidence of me doing so, then the label is legitimate. I do not think you will be able to make the charge stick.
I have read much on economics and philosophy. I am currently reading QED by Feynman and The Ego Tunnel by Metzinger, a book regarding consciousness as a function of biology, developed through neurology (edit: to be clear, the theory is developed using neurology.). I do not dismiss materialism out of hand, but neither am I completely persuaded. That is hardly avoiding the question.
" Your ideas, get this, have no value. And I discussed them anyway. It's funny that you don't like the way I discuss your ideas but surely you're are not going to complain about that ? I mean, what objective basis do you have to complain ?"
You think my ideas have no value. That is too bad. I think they do. Irregardless, I complain about your behavior because I value discourse and reason. Why do you assume I require objectivity to act? I admit I have no objective basis for my values, and yet I adhere to them just the same. At least I have the intellectual honesty to admit it.
I have discovered twenty or so different definitions of moral nihilism. So please, resolve your terminology before you falsely convict each other of trolling. Both sides in this debate are non-malicious. However, each side falsely interpret another's writing as malicious, so they strawmen each other with hundreds of posts.
Ever heard of the dictum "don't talk to the police?" The police officers will always misinterpret your words with malicious intent. Even if you are completely honest, they will still obscurely misinterpret your words as an "obvious lie" when it's actually not. This is what zefreak and Juan are doing. They accuse each other as "criminal trolls" by misinterpreting each other.
However, it's not your fault in your misinterpretations. We all have a fundamental attribution error that assumes that any "wrong" action performed by another is motivated by malicious intent, without taking any account of the surronding circumntances. Juan and zebreak failed to take account of the surronding circumstances--ambiguous words--so they assumed each other as malicious trolls. It's our instinct to be paranoid that others are malicious. It's an evolved instinct.
So Juan, you both are still being vague. Even if you define your words, these definitions themselves has hundreds of different interpretations. Without my help, you will probably define your terminology circularly.
The sad thing is that they do not notice what words are misinterpreted on each side. So I will list them here:
I have no time to define each of the above words every different context that each side uses. Each definition within a specific context would take pages to define. So I must write 100 or so pages to define all these above terms in all contexts non-ambiguously.
And don't misinterpret me. I am not arguing that this controversey is purely terminological. I am arguing that terminology makes this debate expand to hundreds of posts and this terminological confusion in itself constitutes 95% or so of the controversey itself.
Although I did not resolve this debate, I believe that my post will make this debate more logical without the personal attacks. I am posting this to cool down this debate.
Life is filled with misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and prodigal folklore.
zefreak:I wouldn't consider myself an amoralist, I just believe value, hence morality is subjective.
See, I can sympathize with this. Now, I don't want to drag this down into a debate about religion, but I think that God is necessary for some of morality. Without God one can't stay true to Misesian subjectivism and avoid moral subjectivism. That's all I'll say about the subject because I don't want this to turn into a debate about religion in any way at all, even if it concerns ethics. I can figure your religious views so I'm sure you do reject my views of morality, but I definately do agree with your views of subjective value.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Anarcho-Mercantilist: I have discovered twenty or so different definitions of moral nihilism. So please, resolve your terminology before you falsely convict each other of trolling. Both sides in this debate are non-malicious. However, each side falsely interpret another's writing as malicious, so they strawmen each other with hundreds of posts. Ever heard of the dictum "don't talk to the police?" The police officers will always misinterpret your words with malicious intent. Even if you are completely honest, they will still obscurely misinterpret your words as an "obvious lie" when it's actually not. This is what zefreak and Juan are doing. They accuse each other as "criminal trolls" by misinterpreting each other. However, it's not your fault in your misinterpretations. We all have a fundamental attribution error that assumes that any "wrong" action performed by another is motivated by malicious intent, without taking any account of the surronding circumntances. Juan and zebreak failed to take account of the surronding circumstances--ambiguous words--so they assumed each other as malicious trolls. It's our instinct to be paranoid that others are malicious. It's an evolved instinct. So Juan, you both are still being vague. Even if you define your words, these definitions themselves has hundreds of different interpretations. Without my help, you will probably define your terminology circularly. The sad thing is that they do not notice what words are misinterpreted on each side. So I will list them here: amoralism moral nihilsm subjectivism objectivism value meaning existence truth I have no time to define each of the above words every different context that each side uses. Each definition within a specific context would take pages to define. So I must write 100 or so pages to define all these above terms in all contexts non-ambiguously. And don't misinterpret me. I am not arguing that this controversey is purely terminological. I am arguing that terminology makes this debate expand to hundreds of posts and this terminological confusion in itself constitutes 95% or so of the controversey itself. Although I did not resolve this debate, I believe that my post will make this debate more logical without the personal attacks. I am posting this to cool down this debate.
Could you explain to me how I have misinterpreted Juan? I have no doubt he has misunderstood me, but I am fairly certain of his position with regards to ethics.
Moral nihilism =/= moral subjectivism. The former denies the existence of moral statements (even argues they're incoherent, and denies them any truth value) and is amoralist, the latter merely renders the ontology of morals subjective, and may still allow for moral statements to be true/false (subjectively, however that works.) I think that's what he meant when he said you're misinterpreting each other.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
zefreak:Yet most proponents of natural law ethics believe their system of values to be inherent in nature, which is false. This apparent distinction between natural law as proposed by Hashem and natural law ethics is why he has had so much trouble in getting his point across.
My view on natural law is consistent with the entire tradition. It comes strictly from The Ethics of Liberty, Economic Thought Before Adam Smith, and The History of Political Philosophy. I think the misunderstanding comes from people who are already opposed to natural law, and who haven't read about (or at least didn't understand) natural law.
See, natural law ethics is not a system of values. It is a series of statements and deductions, very similar to math. I think it is the only system of ethics that is not also a value system, and that's where most people get confused. Most people assume that since it is a an ethical system, it must be value based.
hashem: zefreak:Yet most proponents of natural law ethics believe their system of values to be inherent in nature, which is false. This apparent distinction between natural law as proposed by Hashem and natural law ethics is why he has had so much trouble in getting his point across. My view on natural law is consistent with the entire tradition. It comes strictly from The Ethics of Liberty, Economic Thought Before Adam Smith, and The History of Political Philosophy. I think the misunderstanding comes from people who are already opposed to natural law, and who haven't read about (or at least didn't understand) natural law. See, natural law ethics is not a system of values. It is a series of statements and deductions, very similar to math. I think it is the only system of ethics that is not also a value system, and that's where most people get confused. Most people assume that since it is a an ethical system, it must be value based.
The statements at some point down the line are value-laden. There is no such thing as a system of ethics that is not value-laden. The moment you try to use "natural law" to prove an ethical premise, you're combining it with values. Unfortunately, you've misinterpreted the meaning of natural law in a way that defies how literally everyone here uses it, and your continued insistance on using a definition of natural law that no other proponent and opponent alike uses despite the fact that you've been corrected about the matter ad nauseum demonstrates quite a lot of arrogance.
Value-free economics and ethics are two different fields. While there may be some senses in which they can inform eachother in an interdisciplinary sense, they are methodologically distinct. The rigid insistance on such a distinction is made in one of the very books you're repeatedly citing in your favor (TEOL), and hence your claim makes no sense. Praxeology has nothing to say about ethics in the sense that it simply analyzises human action in an agent-relative sense while not casting any formal ethical judgement on the values of the agents in question. The need to formulate a system of ethics separate from value-free economics is precisely why Rothbard wrote that book, and he makes that very clear in it.
hashem: zefreak:Why should someone who's purpose or goal is to describe something as it is be concerned with prescribing something as it should be? What does that have to do with anything? Value judgments are conspicuously absent in the whole of natural law, so you're not talking about natural law. All natural rights are void of value judgments, so you're not talking about natural rights. I can only imagine you are talking about natural law ethics, and the person who explains what is. But he prescribes nothing, you are confused. He states the facts of nature, and what works and doesn't work for humans. When a math teacher explains that 1+1=2, he isn't telling you that you should add.
zefreak:Why should someone who's purpose or goal is to describe something as it is be concerned with prescribing something as it should be?
What does that have to do with anything? Value judgments are conspicuously absent in the whole of natural law, so you're not talking about natural law. All natural rights are void of value judgments, so you're not talking about natural rights.
I can only imagine you are talking about natural law ethics, and the person who explains what is. But he prescribes nothing, you are confused. He states the facts of nature, and what works and doesn't work for humans. When a math teacher explains that 1+1=2, he isn't telling you that you should add.
I can't believe you can't see the obvious is/ought problem with what you're saying, since you're conflating an analytic description of "what is" with an ethical system in itself, when an ethical system cannot be built without some sort of value judgement of "what is". Stating "what works and doesn't work for humans" inherently is question-begging: "works" by what standard, relative to what value? Comparing something like 1+1=2 to ethics makes no friggin' sense. The entire point here is that a statement of facts by itself, without any connection to values, cannot reasonably conflated with ethics. By the very least, you need to show how the leap is made from a particular statement of fact to an ethical value judgement. You've yet to do this, while repeatedly misleadingly acting as if no ethical value judgements are involved at all, while simultaneously nonsensically acting as if one's ethical system is inherently established by analytical facts (with no actual argument presented for the connection).
Brainpolice:Unfortunately, you've misinterpreted the meaning of natural law in a way that defies how literally everyone here uses it...demonstrates quite a lot of arrogance
Then "everyone" here is wrong (with the exceptions of maybe Juan and Wilderness), and I've cited 3 authoritative sources to prove that. "Everyone" here cites their own opinions, yet somehow knows they are right -- doesn't that seem kind of arrogant?
Brainpolice:Value-free economics and ethics are two different fields. While there may be some senses in which they can inform eachother in an interdisciplinary sense, they are methodologically distinct. The rigid insistance on such a distinction is made in one of the very books you're repeatedly citing in your favor (TEOL), and hence your claim makes no sense.
I believe you're referring to this passage, which explicitly presents the distinction between subjective value in praxeology, and what is demonstrated objectively to be good in natural-law ethics:
"In contrast, praxeology or economics, as well as the utilitarian philosophy with which this science has been closely allied, treat "happiness" in the purely formal sense as the fulfillment of those ends which people happen -- for whatever reason -- to place high on their scales of value. Satisfaction of those ends yields to man his "utility" or "satisfaction" or "happiness." Value in the sense of valuation or utility is purely subjective, and decided by each individual. This procedure is perfectly proper for the formal science of praxeology, or economic theory, but not necessarily elsewhere. For in natural-law ethics, ends are demonstrated to be good or bad for man in varying degrees; value here is objective -- determined by the natural law of man's being..."
Brainpolice:The need to formulate a system of ethics separate from value-free economics is precisely why Rothbard wrote that book
Precisely. Separate from subjective value, as explained by Rothbard in the passage above.
I think we should all get rid of the "natural rights" approach to libertarianism. I think we should always have in mind that our idea of society is entirely individualistic. We strongly reject the idea of a collectivist goal greater that our individual ones, and that's it, it's not that complicated. Given that, we can focus on the consequences of our proposed system, that is, private property, economic progress and individual liberty for everyone, but our end is never that of egalitarianism. Natural law is a nice thought exercise, but I don't think that is is subjetivity-free. We can't build an objective system from our knowledge.
zefreak: wilderness: For if I act non-aggressively, then you can see this "thing itself", which is a human acting within his nature to be non-aggressive. What is my nature, as a human, can be rationally understood as a principle. So when I act the NAP, then you see the "thing itself" that is of my nature. I acted - you saw. If you act non-aggressively, then I see only the physical action. You choose to act according to your nature. All this means is that you value non-aggression.
If you act non-aggressively, then I see only the physical action. You choose to act according to your nature. All this means is that you value non-aggression.
Yes I value NAP.
zefreak: Non-aggression is not categorically good or bad.
Non-aggression is not categorically good or bad.
Taken from here:
"But if every entity in the universe — if hydrogen, oxygen, stone, or cats — can be identified, classified, and its nature examined, then so too can man. Human beings must also have a specific nature with specific properties that can be studied, and from which we can obtain knowledge. Human beings are unique in the universe because they can and do study themselves, as well as the world around them, and try to figure out what goals they should pursue and what means they can employ to achieve them.
The concept of "good" (and therefore of "bad") is only relevant to living entities. Since stones or molecules have no goals or purposes, any idea of what might be "good" for a molecule or stone would properly be considered bizarre. But what might be "good" for an elm tree or a dog makes a great deal of sense: specifically, "the good" is whatever conduces to the life and the flourishing of the living entity. The "bad" is whatever injures such an entity's life or prosperity. Thus, it is possible to develop an "elm tree ethics" by discovering the best conditions: soil, sunshine, climate, etc., for the growth and sustenance of elm trees; and by trying to avoid conditions deemed "bad" for elm trees: elm blight, excessive drought, etc. A similar set of ethical properties can be worked out for various breeds of animals.
Thus, natural law sees ethics as living-entity- (or species-) relative. What is good for cabbages will differ from what is good for rabbits, which in turn will differ from what is good or bad for man. The ethic for each species will differ according to their respective natures.
Man is the only species which can — and indeed must — carve out an ethic for himself. Plants lack consciousness, and therefore cannot choose or act.
The consciousness of animals is narrowly perceptual and lacks the conceptual: the ability to frame concepts and to act upon them. Man, in the famous Aristotelian phrase, is uniquely therational animal — the species that uses reason to adopt values and ethical principles, and that acts to attain these ends. Man acts; that is, he adopts values and purposes, and chooses the ways to achieve them.
Man, therefore, in seeking goals and ways to attain them, must discover and work within the framework of the natural law: the properties of himself and of other entities and the ways in which they may interact."
Especially note: "..."the good" is whatever conduces to the life and the flourishing of the living entity. The "bad" is whatever injures such an entity's life or prosperity."
So are you for liberty or not? If for liberty, then for the flourishing of the natural law of human nature. If not for liberty, then you are for the decaying (the limiting) of the natural law of human nature. Are you for flourishing or limiting human action? It is a question of doing what is good or bad for human nature.
zefreak: There is no value inherent in aggressive and non-aggressive relations; they are only subjectively valued by agents who use them as means to further ends or as ends in themselves.
There is no value inherent in aggressive and non-aggressive relations; they are only subjectively valued by agents who use them as means to further ends or as ends in themselves.
There is "no value inherent" but then you say it is "subjectively valued"... so it's not valued, but it is valued. You contradict yourself.
zefreak: A chair has no value in and of itself, but only as its use as a means or end to an agent. Likewise for actions, relationships, structures, or patterns.
A chair has no value in and of itself, but only as its use as a means or end to an agent. Likewise for actions, relationships, structures, or patterns.
Again you contradict yourself... "no value"... "only as its use (it has value)".
zefreak: wilderness: I see no trouble in him getting his point across. I understand what he is saying quite easily. It's not troubling at all. Obviously not, because he is not postulating natural law ethics, or any sort of objective ethic (so far as I can see).
Well I can only conclude from this statement that YOU therefore have difficulty with natural rights. I don't. I see no trouble with them. I understand what they are quite easily. It's not troubling at all. You are having trouble with them, so, either you would erase them or violate them since they are challenging you. If you are going according to your nature it is like going downhill, but if you are going against your nature it is "troubling" and challenging.
zefreak: I wouldn't consider myself an amoralist, I just believe value, hence morality is subjective. I value the NAP, honesty, integrity, and reason. I value consistency within beliefs, as well as the pursuit of knowledge. Does this mean these things are inherently valuable? Without an agent to dispense valuation, would they hold some disembodied value? I think not.
We are talking about human nature. So they are inherent in human nature, the ability to do or not do cause of free-will. A human can thus value or not value their own nature. Meaning, they can go with or go against their own nature. And how your last question makes sense to you is beyond me as follows:
The ability for a human to value, when that agent that does the valuing is dispensed, can the valuing process still happen? That's like saying if I die does my heart still beat and push blood. Or I value a tree and when I die this valuing of the tree I had remains - what would that valuing of the tree (that was my valuing) look like on this earth when I die zefreak?
zefreak: Sophism implies misleading and or illogical reasoning. If you can provide evidence of me doing so, then the label is legitimate. I do not think you will be able to make the charge stick.
I think the contradictions you made in a previous post may count.
zefreak: Anarcho-Mercantilist: subjectivism objectivism value Could you explain to me how I have misinterpreted Juan? I have no doubt he has misunderstood me, but I am fairly certain of his position with regards to ethics.
Anarcho-Mercantilist: subjectivism objectivism value
I've said repeatedly in numerous threads using those first two terms clouds the issues right off the bat. And then to conflate the third concept with either the first or second only, an either/or, makes it even more cloudy. Unless, of course, we define them first or figure out we are using them the same way. But that usually doesn't happen.
It has value relative to the agent valuing it, but not in and of itself, absent such agent. This should not be a new idea to someone interested in Economics.
There were no contradictions in my examples above. I value the chair I am sitting on, but absent an agent the chair is any arbitrary collection of molecules as value-less as any other. Social forms, patterns and actions are valued relative to each individual agent, with reference to their stated aims and goals, but not in and of themselves. They are like the chair.
wilderness: zefreak: Anarcho-Mercantilist: subjectivism objectivism value Could you explain to me how I have misinterpreted Juan? I have no doubt he has misunderstood me, but I am fairly certain of his position with regards to ethics. I've said repeatedly in numerous threads using those first two terms clouds the issues right off the bat. And then to conflate the third concept with either the first or second only, an either/or, makes it even more cloudy. Unless, of course, we define them first or figure out we are using them the same way. But that usually doesn't happen.
Those terms are clearly defined within the context I am using them. A subject is an observer and an object is a thing observed. From whence then does the value come? It should be obvious.
ivanfoofoo: I think we should all get rid of the "natural rights" approach to libertarianism. I think we should always have in mind that our idea of society is entirely individualistic. We strongly reject the idea of a collectivist goal greater that our individual ones, and that's it, it's not that complicated. Given that, we can focus on the consequences of our proposed system, that is, private property, economic progress and individual liberty for everyone, but our end is never that of egalitarianism. Natural law is a nice thought exercise, but I don't think that is is subjetivity-free. We can't build an objective system from our knowledge.
So you want private property, economic progress, and individual liberty, which are or based on natural rights, but you want to rid natural rights. Sort through that first and then we'll talk.
zefreak: It has value relative to the agent valuing it, but not in and of itself, absent such agent. This should not be a new idea to someone interested in Economics. There were no contradictions in my examples above. I value the chair I am sitting on, but absent an agent the chair is any arbitrary collection of molecules as value-less as any other.
There were no contradictions in my examples above. I value the chair I am sitting on, but absent an agent the chair is any arbitrary collection of molecules as value-less as any other.
We are talking about human nature, not the nature of the chair "this should not be a new idea".
zefreak: Social forms, patterns and actions are valued relative to each individual agent, with reference to their stated aims and goals, but not in and of themselves. They are like the chair.
Social forms, patterns and actions are valued relative to each individual agent, with reference to their stated aims and goals, but not in and of themselves. They are like the chair.
Relative to each individual - that's liberty for you. And I don't think they are 'like a chair' for their natures are different.
ivanfoofoo:I think we should all get rid of the "natural rights" approach to libertarianism.
Natural Rights gives us the authority to be individuals....
ivanfoofoo:Given that, we can focus on the consequences of our proposed system, that is, private property, economic progress and individual liberty for everyone, but our end is never that of egalitarianism. Natural law is a nice thought exercise, but I don't think that is is subjetivity-free. We can't build an objective system from our knowledge.
Self Ownership (therefore Property Ownership) is the objective system.....
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
hashem: Brainpolice:Unfortunately, you've misinterpreted the meaning of natural law in a way that defies how literally everyone here uses it...demonstrates quite a lot of arrogance Then "everyone" here is wrong (with the exceptions of maybe Juan and Wilderness), and I've cited 3 authoritative sources to prove that. "Everyone" here cites their own opinions, yet somehow knows they are right -- doesn't that seem kind of arrogant?
Good post. I do understand it. I think your exercise in this thread, hashem, has helped sharpen the insight for me too. I give gratitude when gratitude is due. Thanks.
Harry Felker: ivanfoofoo:I think we should all get rid of the "natural rights" approach to libertarianism. Natural Rights gives us the authority to be individuals.... ivanfoofoo:Given that, we can focus on the consequences of our proposed system, that is, private property, economic progress and individual liberty for everyone, but our end is never that of egalitarianism. Natural law is a nice thought exercise, but I don't think that is is subjetivity-free. We can't build an objective system from our knowledge. Self Ownership (therefore Property Ownership) is the objective system.....
Excellent!
zefreak: Those terms are clearly defined within the context I am using them. A subject is an observer and an object is a thing observed.
Those terms are clearly defined within the context I am using them. A subject is an observer and an object is a thing observed.
And yet you can observe my NAP actions, thereby, they are objective. I can also observe myself and thus my actions are objective to me. In any experiment the more people that see the same actions in the experiment the more validity the experiment has.
zefreak: From whence then does the value come? It should be obvious.
From whence then does the value come? It should be obvious.
To flourish or not to flourish that is the question. It's been obvious that natural rights are based on the individual.
wilderness: Harry Felker: ivanfoofoo:I think we should all get rid of the "natural rights" approach to libertarianism. Natural Rights gives us the authority to be individuals.... ivanfoofoo:Given that, we can focus on the consequences of our proposed system, that is, private property, economic progress and individual liberty for everyone, but our end is never that of egalitarianism. Natural law is a nice thought exercise, but I don't think that is is subjetivity-free. We can't build an objective system from our knowledge. Self Ownership (therefore Property Ownership) is the objective system..... Excellent!
Property ownership implies not just deterministic usage of our bodies but moral exclusivity. Hence, to state Self Ownership as justification of property ownership is merely question begging.
If this is what you consider a summation of your beliefs, wilderness, then I do not think its worth my effort to go in circles with you.
zefreak: Property ownership implies not just deterministic usage of our bodies but moral exclusivity. Hence, to state Self Ownership as justification of property ownership is merely question begging.
I am not me? So you are not zefreak? Who are you then? All these posts directed towards you, one of Anarchist Cain two pages back, and you have no explanations for your own contradictions - I say it's due to some lack of explanatory power that your using.
wilderness: zefreak: Property ownership implies not just deterministic usage of our bodies but moral exclusivity. Hence, to state Self Ownership as justification of property ownership is merely question begging. I am not me? So you are not zefreak? Who are you then? All these posts directed towards you, one of Anarchist Cain two pages back, and you have no explanations for your own contradictions - I say it's due to some lack of explanatory power that your using.
I determine my movement and action. That is a fact. Admitting such does nothing to justify a system of ethics. Do you know what property rights are? Legitimate exclusion. By admitting the ontological fact that I control my actions does not logically presuppose exclusivity. I have explained this several times, as has Brainpolice and others.