Lilburne: 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?
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 ?
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?
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."
AJ: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.
well, then, lets wrap this up, i forego formal positive proofs for natural law, just as a i forego formal positive proofs for natural science, . yet my ethics are not matters of faith, anymore so than my knowlegde of science and of the human world.
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
AJ: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.
Juan:Are you saying I shouldn't be 'annoying' ?
Are you saying you should be?
as a footnote to my last comment, just as when i feel confident to say 'gravity will smack you to the ground" to any of you thinking of jumping out of airplanes, i will say 'killing people is wrong' when you tell me you have a murder in mind.
I. Ryan: Juan, What is your native language?
Juan,
What is your native language?
Oh don't be an ass.
existence is elsewhere
AJ: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.
Actually the burden of proof is on you to establish why our values that we hold to be true are in fact false.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Juan: I. Ryan, I think you are a statist who believes in killing people who don't accept your system of government. Do you mind providing a moral justification for your system ? Or any justification at all ? Do you think your system is 'right' ?
I. Ryan, I think you are a statist who believes in killing people who don't accept your system of government. Do you mind providing a moral justification for your system ? Or any justification at all ?
Do you think your system is 'right' ?
What "system of government"?
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
Wilmot of Rochester: Oh don't be an ass.
I was merely responding to his definitional requests.
LS: Juan: Are you saying I shouldn't be 'annoying' ? Are you saying you should be?
Juan: Are you saying I shouldn't be 'annoying' ?
I Ryan:What "system of government"?
Juan: So called miniarchism - the one you support.
So called miniarchism - the one you support.
When did I say that I support minarchism?
nirgrahamUK: as a footnote to my last comment, just as when i feel confident to say 'gravity will smack you to the ground" to any of you thinking of jumping out of airplanes, i will say 'killing people is wrong' when you tell me you have a murder in mind.
Yes, consequentialist definitions of "ought" allow the crossing of the is/ought divide, so it appears we agree.
Why anarchy fails
Juan:On the other hand, given the annoying skepticism of the moral subjectivists, I don't see why I can't be annoying as well.
You find their skepticism annoying because you are intolerant and not a bridge builder. Reacting in a tit for tat manner does nothing to solve their "annoying skepticism" (whoever thought a libertarian would call skepticism "annoying"?) but just poisons the discussion.
Juan:Are they above the (non-existent) law or something ?
I don't believe so. I find your reciprocity to be contradictory to your own established values.
Just to annoy you further, I am also leaning towards the position of Zefreak and lilburne. I don't think the is-ought gap has been crossed. As soon as it is, I will get on board. But to pretend it is, when I know it isn't, smacks of intellectual dishonesty.
Anarchist Cain: AJ: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. Actually the burden of proof is on you to establish why our values that we hold to be true are in fact false.
Did I mention values?
do we? you dont seem capable/ or desirious (i dont know which) of making moral statements or debating whether something in particular is moral or not...unless you have abandoned moral skepticism?
Juan: You never denied it when asked, and it can be inferred by other things you said. At any rate, do you mind describing what political system you support and why you think it is justified ?
You never denied it when asked, and it can be inferred by other things you said. At any rate, do you mind describing what political system you support and why you think it is justified ?
Firstly, provide examples and explanations of the alleged minarchistic implications.
nirgrahamUK: do we? you dont seem capable/ or desirious (i dont know which) of making moral statements or debating whether something in particular is moral or not...unless you have abandoned moral skepticism?
How do you propose we define "moral"? It's hardly a term with an agreed-upon definition.
I. Ryan: Juan: You never denied it when asked, and it can be inferred by other things you said. At any rate, do you mind describing what political system you support and why you think it is justified ? Firstly, provide examples and explanations of the alleged minarchistic implications.
Ignoring someone can be a more effective answer than a written one.
LS:You find their skepticism annoying because you are intolerant and not a bridge builder. Reacting in a tit for tat manner does nothing to solve their "annoying skepticism" (whoever thought a libertarian would call skepticism "annoying"?) but just poisons the discussion.
I just find your reciprocity to be contradictory to your own established values.
Just to annoy you further, I am also leaning towards the position of Zefreak and lilburne.
I don't think the is-ought gap has been crossed.
i have no desire to spend a lifetime defining the word jumping off word, 'moral', with you - just so that we can get started on discovering moral knowledge in depth and clarity through moral debate.
I. Ryan:Firstly, provide examples and explanations of the alleged minarchistic implications.
AJ: Anarchist Cain: AJ: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. Actually the burden of proof is on you to establish why our values that we hold to be true are in fact false. Did I mention values?
Obviously you value skepticism towards natural law more then natural law itself. Yet my claim still stands, the burden of proof is on you to show that what we deem to be true is actually false for it would be absurd to claim that we need to suppose something is false until we can prove it is true to you.
Juan: Nope. Describe the system you support and explain why it is justified or else stop making objections to natural law.
Nope. Describe the system you support and explain why it is justified or else stop making objections to natural law.
"Nope."
I was going to quote you, and then remembered you are posting from a Commodore64
Juan:Skepticism is a dogmatic belief in the impossibility of knowing any sort of truth.
Well, we're both dogmatic in our own ways.
Juan:Why shouldn't skeptics be given their own medicine ?
Eye for an eye, and the whole world goes blind.
Juan:Well, that wouldn't annoy me much because you sometimes seem to be holding position X and position non-X...simultaneously.
I'm a delusional hypocritical skeptic. Or I'm a genius. You decide.
Juan:There's no is-ought gap. That's just an article of faith of the skeptical church.
Juan:who's the guy in your avatar ?
I wanna know that too. He looks constipated.
So, it's generally accepted is-ought are definitionally distinct? And that in terms of using them in 'linguistic logic' it's not possible to merge them without making a stealth moral imperative? If so, then what other threads do you think we should start up on the nature of ethics then? Objectivity vs subjectivity in ethics? Intentionalism vs "rationalism" in ethics?
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
Juan: who's the guy in your avatar ?
who's the guy in your avatar ?
liberty student: I wanna know that too. He looks constipated.
Benito Mussolini.
nirgrahamUK: i have no desire to spend a lifetime defining the word jumping off word, 'moral', with you - just so that we can get started on discovering moral knowledge in depth and clarity through moral debate.
Hard to get started in any debate about precise concepts unless people are willing to define their terms precisely.
Anarchist Cain: AJ: Anarchist Cain: AJ: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. Actually the burden of proof is on you to establish why our values that we hold to be true are in fact false. Did I mention values? Obviously you value skepticism towards natural law more then natural law itself. Yet my claim still stands, the burden of proof is on you to show that what we deem to be true is actually false for it would be absurd to claim that we need to suppose something is false until we can prove it is true to you.
People have stated natural law has been proven. Either they back up that assertion or they back away from it. If and only if they back away from that assertion, I would have no need to assert or prove anything and would gladly drop this.
To AJ, can anyone prove that causality is purely incidental? Or more properly, can anyone show the non-incidental nature in causality in terms of humans?
Juan: Pointless to talk to logical positivist trolls.
Pointless to talk to logical positivist trolls.
Who?
ladyattis: To AJ, can anyone prove that causality is purely incidental? Or more properly, can anyone show the non-incidental nature in causality in terms of humans?
Why does this matter when we haven't even gotten over the issue of what natural rights proponents mean by the words "ought," "right," "wrong," etc.? I suggest that we cannot meaningfully proceed with any discussion related to the OP until such terms are rigorously defined. For those that think this is sticklerish or annoying, hey, I am not the one making the claim that natural rights theories can be logically "proven."
but you know what moral oughts mean, they mean you are obliged to do them, that you would be wrong to not do them.
it can hardly be reduced further.
im not sure what you even want to discuss, logically foolproofedly proving whole systems is impossible, we can only do our pure deductions in pure hypotheticals,. if we are to say anything substantive , meaningful, insightful about the universe or ourselves, we need to combine deductions with empricism and introduce the possibility of making errors in our conclusions. we adopt tactics to fight off, to minimize error.
are you still wanting to go on about the proving of the system?, or are you willing to adopt the moral project and try to reduce whatever errors might be in it,out of it?
nirgrahamUK: but you know what moral oughts mean, they mean you are obliged to do them, that you would be wrong to not do them. it can hardly be reduced further. im not sure what you even want to discuss, logically foolproofedly proving whole systems is impossible, we can only do our pure deductions in pure hypotheticals,. if we are to say anything substantive , meaningful, insightful about the universe or ourselves, we need to combine deductions with empricism and introduce the possibility of making errors in our conclusions. we adopt tactics to fight off, to minimize error. are you still wanting to go on about the proving of the system?, or are you willing to adopt the moral project and try to reduce whatever errors might be in it,out of it?
What the hell? Can you not type? And, yes, I plan to pove the system.
typo
nirgrahamUK:but you know what moral oughts mean, they means you are obliged to do them, that you would be wrong to not do them.
I don't understand what those who say they can prove natural rights/law mean by "obliged" and "wrong." Just because meanings for such words exist and I know all the meanings, doesn't mean I know which meaning they intend to imply.
If they were serious about making a logical argument, I think we would see more effort at precision, similar to how mathematicians take pains to define what they mean. Even mathematicians may not be able to do so 100%, but at least they make a hearty effort to define their terms with enough precision for whatever they are trying to prove.
The issue I have with natural rights "proofs" is that I am not seeing essential terms defined with nearly enough precision to be useful in logically proving what the proponents seek to logically prove.