AJ: nirgrahamUK:2) you ought do it because to do otherwise would be wrong, regardless of your personal subjective goals. even if your goal is to be wrong, you 'should' frustrate your goal and not be wrong. (this is peculiar, but it captures the distinctive sense of what morality is) What's your definition of "wrong"?
nirgrahamUK:2) you ought do it because to do otherwise would be wrong, regardless of your personal subjective goals. even if your goal is to be wrong, you 'should' frustrate your goal and not be wrong. (this is peculiar, but it captures the distinctive sense of what morality is)
What's your definition of "wrong"?
I believe that nirgraham has used 'ought' in a different sense than AJ. I believe AJ has defined 'ought' as an 'end' grounded by 'values', 'passions', 'preferences,' and 'desires'. Nirgraham has defined 'ought' as a 'means' to reach a goal.
Life is filled with misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and prodigal folklore.
zefreak: Stephen Forde: I'm not sure what you think an "ought" is. I'm pretty sure it's just an expression of valuing one action over another, in which case, I'm right. Also, I think you are assuming that it is only the content of your arguments that is under dispute. It is actually what is implied by the fact that you are arguing that makes the difference. As per my previous post.. —used to express obligation <ought to pay our debts>, advisability <ought to take care of yourself>, natural expectation <ought to be here by now>, or logical consequence <the result ought to be infinity> The first one is the one relevant to the discussion. This is a topic regarding morality, after all. The second one is what you are referring to, and, as advice or opinion, does not require bridging the is-ought gap.
Stephen Forde: I'm not sure what you think an "ought" is. I'm pretty sure it's just an expression of valuing one action over another, in which case, I'm right. Also, I think you are assuming that it is only the content of your arguments that is under dispute. It is actually what is implied by the fact that you are arguing that makes the difference.
I'm not sure what you think an "ought" is. I'm pretty sure it's just an expression of valuing one action over another, in which case, I'm right. Also, I think you are assuming that it is only the content of your arguments that is under dispute. It is actually what is implied by the fact that you are arguing that makes the difference.
As per my previous post..
—used to express obligation <ought to pay our debts>, advisability <ought to take care of yourself>, natural expectation <ought to be here by now>, or logical consequence <the result ought to be infinity>
The first one is the one relevant to the discussion. This is a topic regarding morality, after all. The second one is what you are referring to, and, as advice or opinion, does not require bridging the is-ought gap.
If, it is advise that you are offering, it comes with an imperative tone that you can't define away.
You can deductively arrive at natural law quite easily, as shown in the Rassmusen: Groundwork for Rights (JLS) thread in the Mises Community Natural Rights Group. Dr. Rassmusen proves that one should follow natural law in his Journal of Libertarian Studies article entitled Groundwork for Rights: Man's Natural End.
The argument for natural law is rather simple:
1. Any being having a nature ought to act in accordance with its nature.2. Man has a nature.3. Hence, man ought to act in accordance with his nature.
But why should one act in accordance with one's nature? Because...
1. All beings must act in accordance with their nature in order to survive.2. Survival (life) is a prerequisite for action.3. Thus, any action taken against one's own survival is logically contradictory.4. Thus, any being having a nature ought to act in accordance with its nature.
That is, of course, my own summary. Rassmusen proves natural law more formally:
1.Y is an object of choice.2.X is necessary for the existence of Y as a value." X makes Y'sexistence as a value possible.3.If P chooses (values) Y, P must choose (value) what is necessary forP's valuation of Y.4.P chooses (values) Y.5.Thus, P chooses (values) X.6.X is man's life qua man, man's natural end.7.Thus, P chooses (values) man's life qua man in choosing (valuing) Y.
In the above, "Y" is any action you take and "X" is your life, which is necessary for you in order to take any action "Y." "P" is essentially any living being, who must act to preserve their own life in order to act. One must act in accordance with natural law in order to survive.
Political Atheists Blog
I have discovered a flaw in Rasmussen's argument here. Note that my argument represents Rasmussen's, but explicates his implicit 'ought-assumptions'. Rasmussen still has not bridged the 'is-ought gap' in a sense.
krazy kaju:1. All beings must act in accordance with their nature in order to survive.
...only to some degree. Of course a complete revolt against ones own nature would generally lead to self-destruction. But obviously a complete accordance is not necessary for survival. Natural laws regarding man are Aristotelean laws of tendency, not Keplerian laws of necessity.
krazy kaju:2. Survival (life) is a prerequisite for action.3. Thus, any action taken against one's own survival is logically contradictory.
This ignores the time-structure of action. Action taken against one's own survival precludes future action, but the anti-survival action is not contradictory to itself.
krazy kaju:4. Thus, any being having a nature ought to act in accordance with its nature.
Even if (3) were established (which it is not), its assertion of logical contradiction would prove that all beings necessarily act in accordance with their natures, not that they ought to.
Lilburne: krazy kaju:2. Survival (life) is a prerequisite for action.3. Thus, any action taken against one's own survival is logically contradictory. This ignores the time-structure of action. Action taken against one's own survival precludes future action, but the anti-survival action is not contradictory to itself. Excellent. I always got that feeling when I heard the arguement, but wasn't sure how to put it. “Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken | Post Points: 20
Excellent. I always got that feeling when I heard the arguement, but wasn't sure how to put it.
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
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."
Anarcho-Mercantilist: AJ: nirgrahamUK:2) you ought do it because to do otherwise would be wrong, regardless of your personal subjective goals. even if your goal is to be wrong, you 'should' frustrate your goal and not be wrong. (this is peculiar, but it captures the distinctive sense of what morality is) What's your definition of "wrong"? I believe that nirgraham has used 'ought' in a different sense than AJ. I believe AJ has defined 'ought' as an 'end' grounded by 'values', 'passions', 'preferences,' and 'desires'. Nirgraham has defined 'ought' as a 'means' to reach a goal.
I haven't defined "ought," but merely ask for a definition of "ought" and other ambiguous terms like "right" and "wrong" if natural law and natural rights proponents claim their theories to be logically proven. There can be no logical proof until all the terms used therein are unambiguously defined.
Why anarchy fails
krazy kaju: The argument for natural law is rather simple: 1. Any being having a nature ought to act in accordance with its nature.
1. Any being having a nature ought to act in accordance with its nature.
How can a reader even be expected to proceed beyond the very first premise without a precise the definition of the highly ill-defined word "ought"? [Edit: I missed that that was just your summary. I take on Rasmussen below.]
krazy kaju:1.Y is an object of choice.2.X is necessary for the existence of Y as a value." X makes Y'sexistence as a value possible.3.If P chooses (values) Y, P must choose (value) what is necessary forP's valuation of Y.4.P chooses (values) Y.5.Thus, P chooses (values) X.6.X is man's life qua man, man's natural end.7.Thus, P chooses (values) man's life qua man in choosing (valuing) Y.
First of all, as above, how does Rasmussen expect to be taken seriously without defining the vague notion "man's life qua man"? If, as you say it simply means "staying alive," then all that has been even conceivably been proven here is
"If P values a particular action or choice, P must also value staying alive."
Secondly, I must question with Lilburne when P values the choice/action vs. when P values staying alive. At any given point in time, P may not be valuing staying alive over another particular end - such as getting to work on time by running a red light.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:I believe that nirgraham has used 'ought' in a different sense than AJ. I believe AJ has defined 'ought' as an 'end' grounded by 'values', 'passions', 'preferences,' and 'desires'. Nirgraham has defined 'ought' as a 'means' to reach a goal.
how could you get that from what i wrote. oughts are not ends , oughts are not 'means' . rather they are obligations.
AJ:merely ask for a definition of "ought" and other ambiguous terms like "right" and "wrong" if natural law and natural rights proponents claim their theories to be logically proven.
AJ:There can be no logical proof until all the terms used therein are unambiguously defined.
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
nirgrahamUK: AJ:merely ask for a definition of "ought" and other ambiguous terms like "right" and "wrong" if natural law and natural rights proponents claim their theories to be logically proven. right and wrong can't be reduced down. they are atomic concepts.
right and wrong can't be reduced down. they are atomic concepts.
Then there is no proof, but you do concede the same below.
nirgrahamUK: AJ:There can be no logical proof until all the terms used therein are unambiguously defined. in my opinion looking for a 'pure airtight proof' of the justification of the moral project will be just as elusive as would be the search for a 'pure airtight proof' of the justification for the science project. science advances justifications (not certain ones, just ones of growing confidence) and its benefits are clear to see. similarly those engaged in moral discource and studying morality, can refine their thinking and grow in confidence with regards to it, and I claim that libertarian morality has benefits as clear to see as those of science.
And this is pure consequentialism, which natural right proponents seem opposed to.
At the end of the day, all this natural rights business is persuasion, and persuasion can be eloquent and useful, can possibly be supported by scientific findings, can be almost universally appealing. However, the foray into the realm of propositional logic to add weight to the persuasive argument seems to have been an overstep. Logic is unforgiving: it's a "pure airtight proof" or it's nothing. In putting his toe in the water but failing to take the plunge, Rothbard has unwittingly given opponents of liberty an easy target to "prove liberty wrong." A horrendous misstep in my opinion, and Long, Rasmussen and others only multiply the error.
AJ:I haven't defined "ought," but merely ask for a definition of "ought" and other ambiguous terms like "right" and "wrong" if natural law and natural rights proponents claim their theories to be logically proven. There can be no logical proof until all the terms used therein are unambiguously defined.
Juan: AJ, would you be so kind as to define : merely ask definition other ambiguous theories proponents logical therein Also, there are a lot of other words I'd like you to define (so that I really understand what you are saying) but I don't wont to overwhelm you right now.
AJ, would you be so kind as to define :
merely ask definition other ambiguous theories proponents logical therein Also, there are a lot of other words I'd like you to define (so that I really understand what you are saying) but I don't wont to overwhelm you right now.
Are you trying to be annoying? His requests are absolutely legitimate.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
AJ:Then there is no proof, but you do concede the same below.
Are you trying to be annoying?
Juan: No, I'm making a point. edit : Have you asked the semantic trolls like AJ and AM if they are trying to be annoying ?
No, I'm making a point. edit : Have you asked the semantic trolls like AJ and AM if they are trying to be annoying ?
I did not because I believe that their requests are legitimate. In fact, I requested the same definitions in this thread.
His requests are absolutely legitimate.
(Emphasis added)
AJ:However, the foray into the realm of propositional logic to add weight to the persuasive argument seems to have been an overstep. Logic is unforgiving: it's a "pure airtight proof" or it's nothing. In putting his toe in the water but failing to take the plunge, Rothbard has unwittingly given opponents of liberty an easy target to "prove liberty wrong." A horrendous misstep in my opinion, and Long, Rasmussen and others only multiply the error.
Sweet Mary mother of JESUS, that was a good point!
If I was attempting to make formal logical statements, I would precisely define each term. However, I am merely attempting to persuade. It is those who claim to have formally proven something who need to define their terms with precision.
Whenever you hear an "ought," ask "For what purpose?" If none is forthcoming, the "ought" is not logic-based; it is purely persuasive.
Juan:edit : Have you asked the semantic trolls like AJ and AM if they are trying to be annoying ?
Without careful attention to semantics, formal propositions are meaningless. Without formal propositions, your purely rationalist theory of ethics is groundless.
Juan,
What is your native language?
Juan: Do you mind defining : Thenthereisnoproofbutyoudoconcedethesamebelow
Do you mind defining :
Thenthereisnoproofbutyoudoconcedethesamebelow
Juan: AJ, would you be so kind as to define : merely ask definition other ambiguous theories proponents logical therein
AJ, would you be so kind as to define : merely ask definition other ambiguous theories proponents logical therein
Juan:AJ, can you please define Wheneverhearpurposeforthcominglogic-basedpurelypersuasive
can you please define Wheneverhearpurposeforthcominglogic-basedpurelypersuasive
Juan:Are you trying to be annoying? No, I'm making a point.
If you were just making a point, and not trying to be annoying, would you have posted the same bit of inanity three different times?
AJ:And this is pure consequentialism, which natural right proponents seem opposed to.
AJ: Logic is unforgiving: it's a "pure airtight proof" or it's nothing.
be fair, lower your criterion for truth. can you provide a logic airtight proof that you were woman born? no , you cant. so morality is not worse off than other fields of inquiry.
Lilburne:If you were just making a point, and not trying to be annoying, would you have posted the same bit of inanity three different times?
its no more inane than asking what right and wrong mean. you are libertarian ( i thought?)
when we are talking science, what does 'energy' mean? what does 'mass' mean ?
nirgrahamUK:be fair, lower your criterion for truth. can you provide a logic airtight proof that you were woman born? no , you cant. so morality is not worse off than other fields of inquiry.
Natural rights theorists establish the criterion for truth when they begin to argue from deduction. If natural rights theories are based on deductive arguments, they must be either apodictically true or entirely false. There are no "degrees of certainy" with deduction as there are with induction.
the fact that i am a human and not a brain in a vat is not provable from pure deduction, and who would claim so ?
if they discuss mans nature then clearly they have an empirical eye on man. as disembodied cartesians know nothing of man, although perhaps they could hyopethesise various possible 'men' and 'worlds' and investigate the moral realm in this way. i dont think they do that.
nirgrahamUK:its no more inane than asking what right and wrong mean. you are libertarian ( i thought?)
I don't have to accept any particular ethical theory to be a libertarian. If natural rights theorists expect others to accept their theories, and their theories are based on deductive arguments, then they need to define their terms.
Lilburne:Without careful attention to semantics, formal propositions are meaningless.
Without formal propositions, your purely rationalist theory of ethics is groundless.
nirgrahamUK: if they discuss mans nature then clearly they have an empirical eye on man. as disembodied cartesians know nothing of man, although perhaps they could hyopethesise various possible 'men' and 'worlds' and investigate the moral realm in this way. i dont think they do that.
The empirical approach only contributes to the premise of man having a certain nature. That is uncontroversial to me. I take issue with the deductive inferences they claim to draw from that premise. Those deductive inferences are either sound or they are not. Again, there is no middle ground for deductive inferences.
Lilburne:I don't have to accept any particular ethical theory to be a libertarian.
Juan: Lilburne:Without careful attention to semantics, formal propositions are meaningless. Proof for that ?
God is love. Love is blind. Therefore, God is blind.
Juan:You see, the skeptical game is easy to play. What is funny is that the skeptics don't seem to like their own medicine.
You are the most eristic person I've ever encountered.
i think its fair to ask someone what their criterion of knowledge is if they are are begging for proof of some debated point. furthermore its worth contrasting that to the standards of 'proof' they accept when doing other inquiry.
Juan: Lilburne:If you were just making a point, and not trying to be annoying, would you have posted the same bit of inanity three different times? I'm emphatically making a point. That's why I made three similar posts. Is there any reason why I should justify my actions to you ?
Is there any reason I should justify my critical questions to you?
nirgrahamUK: AJ:Then there is no proof, but you do concede the same below. the kind of proof you are asking for is impossible. but if you think thats a problem , wait until what happens when you discover that science is inexactly the same epistemological hot water....
I realize that science cannot be proven either, and just like natural rights proponents there are people who claim science can be "proven," but neither claim has been justified. Science, however, has proven itself useful, and property rights have proven themselves useful as well. I have nothing against the notion of "natural rights" as long as it they are presented properly as a potentially useful concept and tool of persuasion rather than a logically proven theory.
nirgrahamUK: AJ:And this is pure consequentialism, which natural right proponents seem opposed to. i see you bolded the least important parts of what i wrote, misunderstood their force, and completely skirted over my main arguments, which is to draw analogy with other fields of knowledge. i.e science. and about your criterion for knowledge.
Then go ahead and rephrase if you didn't mean to imply pure consequentialism. As for the analogy to other fields, see above.
nirgrahamUK: AJ: Logic is unforgiving: it's a "pure airtight proof" or it's nothing. but all it gives you is 'i think therefore i am'. your skepticism over all things not 100% sound, from pure deduction without any empricisim, without risk of epistimological error, traps you. be fair, lower your criterion for truth. can you provide a logic airtight proof that you were woman born? no , you cant. so morality is not worse off than other fields of inquiry.
I'm not the one who claims to have a logical proof. Again, I'm not against the spirit of natural rights, I only contest the notion that they can be logically proven, as some have indeed stated.
nirgrahamUK:i think its fair to ask someone what their criterion of knowledge is if they are are begging for proof of some debated point. furthermore its worth contrasting that to the standards of 'proof' they accept when doing other inquiry.
The natural rights proponents (hashem, Rasmussen, krazy kaju) brought up the issue of "proof." I only point out that the burden falls on them if they wish to continue claiming that natural rights have been proven in the formal logical sense.