nirgrahamUK: typo
typo
I meant: Generally, can you type?
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
very good. i am exposed.
i cannot type.
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: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.
so you are still demanding impossible level proofs?, even though you dont require them for other things of great import, like science and your knowledge of the world outside of the realm of morality.?
nirgrahamUK: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?
This sounds like praxeology, which I am interested in learning more about.
Why anarchy fails
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: I. Ryan, did you manage to a) describe your political system b) morally justify it ?
I. Ryan, did you manage to a) describe your political system b) morally justify it ?
a) "Nope."b) "Nope."
Juan: perhaps you are just another advocate of might-makes-right ?
perhaps you are just another advocate of might-makes-right ?
Seriously, what the hell are you talking about? When the hell did I imply that I am an "advocate of might-makes-right"? Are you delusional?
Juan: Again it is inferred from previous posts of yours.
Again it is inferred from previous posts of yours.
I am genuinely interested to read that post and an explanation of the alleged implications.
Juan: You can of course easily explain your political position ... I wonder why you refuse ? Obviously you are not interested in honest discussion, only playing the childish skeptical game.
You can of course easily explain your political position ... I wonder why you refuse ? Obviously you are not interested in honest discussion, only playing the childish skeptical game.
What do you want? A label or an entire explanation of my political ideology?
Juan: A label might do. Are you a miniarchist ? A voluntarist ? But If you want to describe your system , go ahead ...
A label might do. Are you a miniarchist ? A voluntarist ? But If you want to describe your system , go ahead ...
I generally avoid labels unless I provide a positive explanation. And, I do not believe that I have a developed a complete enough ideology to provide a positive explanation. If you want to understand the more-developed sections of my ideology, then follow and respond to my posts.
I. Ryan: Juan: A label might do. Are you a miniarchist ? A voluntarist ? But If you want to describe your system , go ahead ... I generally avoid labels unless I provide a positive explanation. And, I do not believe that I have a developed a complete enough ideology to provide a positive explanation. If you want to understand the more-developed sections of my ideology, then follow and respond to my posts.
But you see, you are a new guy, with a Mussolini avatar that is obviously there because you support Mussolini. Worst yet, you disagree with other people, so obviously your arguments must be ridiculed. It's all very logical when you think about it. </sarcasm>
"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
Lilburne: (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!
(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!
I have only just caught up on the recent related series of threads, & I have to say, I also am tending to the so-called "dissidents" in the discussion. Additionally, the entire amount of straw manning occurring against the "dissidents" of natural rights seems to be based more on popularity points than honest discussion, at times. I find it thoroughly embarrassing that healthy questioning can't seem to occur without taking more than a few strolls through a field of oppositional scarecrows.
Nitroadict:But you see, you are a new guy, with a Mussolini avatar that is obviously there because you support Mussolini. Worst yet, you disagree with other people, so obviously your arguments must be ridiculed.
I also am tending to the so-called "dissidents" in the discussion.
Additionally, the entire amount of straw manning occurring against the "dissidents" of natural rights seems to be based more on popularity points than honest discussion, at times.
Juan:I asked I. Ryan what's his position at least 4 times, even before knowing who the guy in his avatar was. He just keeps on evading. He must think I'm retarded. You think a straight answer from him is asking too much ?
Juan:Maybe he's choosing not to respond to a possible troll? It wouldn't be entirely inaccurate. If by dissidents you mean the amoralists, they may be 'dissidents' but they surely are the majority.
Juan:cry me a river.
Maybe he's choosing not to respond to a possible troll? It wouldn't be entirely inaccurate.
Juan:Maybe he's choosing not to respond to a possible troll? It wouldn't be entirely inaccurate. Or maybe he lacks the guts ?
Hrmm, which is most likely given your past behavior?
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
Nitroadict:Maybe he sees you as a possible troll, who would like nothing more than some label to ascribe to him for easier future ridicule (gotta say, not entirely unreasonable)?
I don't know why you are taking it personally though, as if everyone needs to check with you with their labels and/or name cards.
But I forgot the new rule here too: if you do not label yourself, you are automatically assumed to be a Statist, or someone worth trolling. Fantastic.
zefreak:Hrmm, which is most likely given your past behavior?
Juan: If by dissidents you mean the amoralists
Juan,
You yourself recognized that people have an inner sense of morality. You dismiss it for being "not rational enough", but you've acknowledged its existence. I have repeatedly expressed that I believe in such a sense, and that I believe it is extremely important. I've also repeatedly expressed my own deep moral revulsion against state aggression. So why do you insist on lying by, twice now, referring to me as an amoralist? Did your ethical syllogism spit out as a logical conclusion that there's nothing wrong with lying? I guess that wouldn't be too bad, considering that others have concluded from such syllogisms that it would be wrong to interfere with a father's right to brutally torture his child.
Lilburne:You yourself recognized that people have an inner sense of morality. You dismiss it for being "not rational enough", but you've acknowledged its existence.
I've also repeatedly expressed my own deep moral revulsion against state aggression. So why do you insist on lying by, twice now, referring to me as an amoralist ?
Did your ethical syllogism spit out as a logical conclusion that there's nothing wrong with lying ?
I guess that wouldn't be too bad, considering that others have concluded from such syllogisms that it would be wrong to interfere with a father's right to brutally torture his child.
Juan: He did ask me a series of 'personal' questions on a different thread which I answered.
He did ask me a series of 'personal' questions on a different thread which I answered.
Where?
Juan:I didn't exactly dismiss it, I pointed out that sometimes people have the wrong moral intuitions.
"Wrong" can mean factually incorrect, contrary to purpose, or illicit. Which do you mean? The first would be nonsense. The second would be consequentialism, which as I explained is not properly called morality and even if called so cannot be considered universal. If the last, then how do you determine cosmic/objective illicitness?
Juan:He can go ahead and do X anyway or he can be a nice guy.
Nice according to whom/what?
Juan:I wasn't referring to you in particular this time
Don't assume that zefreak, AJ, and others are amoralists either. You do a lot of assuming, as with your blithely calling Ryan a minarchist. In doing so, you risk lending truth to Giles' depiction of the average Rothbardian as a thoughtless, reactionary purist.
Juan:you don't seem to believe that coercion is really wrong. You are saying that your subjective evaluation of coercion is negative
You seem to conflate "really" with "objectively".
A note regarding the accusations of "extreme skepticism"...
It would be one thing if people were asserting the existence of something for which there was clear evidence, and we were insisting on perfect proof beyond that evidence.
But with objective natural rights that derive "ought" from "is", people are asserting something which may not even make logical sense, let alone be actually true.
Bringing what is potentially complete incoherence into the light of day is not extreme skepticism.
Lilburne:"Wrong" can mean factually incorrect, contrary to purpose, or illicit. Which do you mean? The first would be nonsense. The second would be consequentialism, which as I explained is not properly called morality and even if called so cannot be considered universal. If the last, then how do you determine cosmic/objective illicitness?
Nice according to whom/what ?
Don't assume that zefreak, AJ, and others are amoralists either.
You do a lot of assuming, as with your blithely calling Ryan a minarchist.
In doing so, you risk lending truth to Giles' depiction of the average Rothbardian as a thoughtless, reactionary purist.
Juan: You're right, after all Ryan is a genius who has created a new amoral system he can't even describe. Too bad.
You're right, after all Ryan is a genius who has created a new amoral system he can't even describe. Too bad.
What the hell are you talking about? When did I claim that I created a system? And, when did I imply that I am an amoralist?
Juan: You seem to conflate "really" with "objectively". whatever. what do you mean by really ? by conflating ?
The terms 'objective', 'subjective', 'is', 'ought', 'fact', and 'value' are ambiguous. I suggest stating what you mean by 'objectivism' in your own words instead of using the term itself.
Other people have labeled me as a 'moral subjectivist', 'moral relativist', 'moral nihilist', 'emotivist', 'amoralist', 'moral skeptic', 'post-modernist', 'post-structuralist', and 'logical positivist'. However, I, myself, do not label myself with any of the above. All of the controversies in 'ethics' stem from the usage of those ambiguous labels. People equivocate the different meanings of each of those terms and misinterpret what others mean by those labels. For example, I have already identified around ten different meanings for 'moral subjectivism'. Same thing with the terms 'moral objectivism', 'moral relativism', 'moral absolutism', 'moral nihilism', etc.
Even a proponent of 'moral subjectivism' himself can easily equivocate his own meanings of 'subjectivism'. He can use 'subjectivism' in some sense, and the next minute, he will use 'subjectivism' in a different sense. I have identified around ten different meanings of 'subjectivism' that people commonly equivocate. I will briefly list some of the meanings below:'Subjects' are 'objects' in the sense that the human mind is itself an 'object'. Human desires are also coded in 'objective' genes and nature.'Objects'' are 'subjective' in the sense that objects require the 'subject' to perceive.'Objective' can mean a 'universal prescription', in the sense that 'ethics' should not only apply to one person, everyone should have the same moral codes.'Subjective' can mean a 'non-universal prescription'. For example, do not punish people for your moral opinions, 'legalize rape', 'legalize murder', 'tolerate Hitler'.'Objective' can mean 'descriptive monocentrism' in the sense that everyone believes in the same moral code.'Subjective' can mean 'descriptive polycentrism' in the sense that not everyone believes in the same moral code.
'Subjective' can mean either:
'Objective' can mean either:
'Subjective' can mean personal 'preferences' and 'opinions', opposed to 'truths' and 'facts'.However, the words 'preferences' and 'opinions' vs. 'truth' and' facts' themselves are ambiguous, and can change meaning in different contexts. For example, 'objective' in 'truth' and 'facts' can mean either 'deontology', the categorical imperative, that god prescribes it, 'nature' prescribes it, or human desires coded in 'objective' genes and 'nature'. 'Subjective' can mean 'ethical' 'preferences' and 'opinions' (evolutionary desires) or Berkeley-ian 'idealism' (imperfect senses).'Objective' can mean in a 'factual' or 'descriptive' point of view.'Subjective' can mean an 'opinionated' pointed of view.'Objective' can mean ethics deduced by the same methodology as the categorical imperative, argumentation ethics, or Molyneuvian UPB.'Subjective' can mean ethics not deduced in the fashion as in categorical imperative, argumentation ethics, and Molyneuvian UPB.'Objective' can mean 'absolute certainty'.'Subjective' can mean anything except 'absolute certainty'.'Objective' can mean in the development of stuff by reason and understanding, objective as 'reason' or the 'laws of logic'. The Objectivists, Post-Objectivists, and Molyneuvians use the term 'objectivity' in this sense.'Subjective' can mean anything opposed reason, but biased by personal interest.
Juan seems to define 'subjective' as 'arbitrary whim'. This is not how Lilburne and zefreak defines it.
Life is filled with misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and prodigal folklore.
Juan:I'm simply stating the common sense position that there's right and wrong, contrary to what a bunch of relativists who fancy themselves great philosophers believe.
The common sense position regarding right and wrong is that they are value judgments. And the common sense position regarding value judgments is that they are subjective. What requires "fancy philosophy" (or religion) is the notion that moral values are objective.
Juan:I already addressed the ought-is strawman.
But you do infer that man ought to act a certain way because of the way things "are" (which is a plural tense of "is").
How is it a strawman position if it is one you hold?
Juan: If you don't like something you declare it's potentially incoherent ?
I obviously don't merely dislike the arguments that have been presented for objective natural rights, anymore than I simply "dislike" the statement " 2 + = bear". The derivations of "ought" from "is" just don't make sense.
Lilburne, bears you say?
Honestly, I would still stay the is-ought 'gap' is a non-starter, you can't bridge what are functionally distinct 'operators' in the language as human language in this case is not as neatly symmetrical as say mathematical languages (which are human, but more precise). Does this mean natural law in another sense or use is impossible? No, it simply means you can't say NAP is an irreducible "natural law", you have to start at a simpler proposition, one probably focused on epistemology, to begin the journey to an objective moral standard.
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
Lilburne:The common sense position regarding right and wrong is that they are value judgments. And the common sense position regarding value judgments is that they are subjective.
What requires "fancy philosophy" (or religion) is the notion that moral values are objective.
How is it a strawman position if it is one you hold ?
I obviously don't merely dislike the arguments that have been presented for objective natural rights, anymore than I simply "dislike" the statement " 2 + Coffee = bear". The derivations of "ought" from "is" just don't make sense.
AJ: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.
Actually like I stated, the burden of proof is on you to establish why we [ natural law theorists ] are false to believe in something we think is true for it would be ridiculous to assume that we are false until we can prove to you that what we believe is true.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Lilburne: Juan:I'm simply stating the common sense position that there's right and wrong, contrary to what a bunch of relativists who fancy themselves great philosophers believe. The common sense position regarding right and wrong is that they are value judgments. And the common sense position regarding value judgments is that they are subjective. What requires "fancy philosophy" (or religion) is the notion that moral values are objective.
The assertion "right and wrong are value-judgments" can be interpreted in many ways:
"Right and wrong are not value-judgments" in the sense that determining if an action constitutes as either 'right' or 'wrong' requires human thought and reasoning.
"Right and wrong are value-judgments" in the sense that humans feel positively if they hear the word "right" and react negatively if they hear he word "wrong."
"Right and wrong are not value-judgments" in the sense that 'value-judgments' (in the sense of aesthetics) are unnecessary for the judgment whether if an action confirms or violates the anarchist moral code.
"Right and wrong are value-judgments" in the sense that it requires empathy, which you classify as a 'value-judgment', to determine if an action constitutes 'right' or 'wrong'.
The assertion that "value-judgments are subjective" can also be interpreted in many ways:
"Value-judgments are subjective" in the sense that those judgements require human emotional perception.
"Value-judgments are not subjective" in the sense that emotional perceptions, which you identify as 'subjective', can be identified by 'independently' from the personal feelings itself, such as the assumption that humans feel empathy from evolutionary biology.
"Value-judgments are neither subjective nor objective" in the sense that they we cannot decide the epistemological properties of a judgment.
"Value-judgments are subjective" in the sense that human preferences differ at many times and differ at all contexts.
"Morality is emotive" in the sense that we experience a gut-feeling of grief when Bush had 'murdered' over one million Iraqis.
"Morality is not emotive" in the sense that we do not feel any 'emotions' when some person lied to anther.
"Morality is not emotive" in the sense that we should develop ethical systems based on human reason and science, with accurate standards and sound criteria, rather than develop it from the biased gut-feelings of some random person.
"Morality is emotive" in the sense that the basic fundamental for grounding a moral system stem from human 'intuitions', 'preferences', and 'emotions'.
"Defining 'aggression' is circular" in the sense that the definition of 'aggression' depends on the definition of 'property rights', which, in turn, we define as the "absence of aggression against property."
"Defining 'aggression' is not circular" in the sense that we do not need to define 'aggression' in every case because it takes too much time.
"Defining 'aggression' is not circular" in the sense that 'natural law' based on 'human nature' can deduce an adequate amount cases in which we can accurately determine if an action constitutes as 'aggression'.
"Defining 'aggression' is circular" in the sense that the definition of 'aggression' can be interpreted in too many ways that people have different conceptions about punishment and parenting.
"The NAP is paternalistic"
"In the sense that people who adhere to it do it voluntarily, no."
"In the sense that other busyboddys out there might seek out people to convert & force the NAP unto others (physically) & thus contradicting the NAP: yes. This is less clear if the NAP being "forced" is a reaction against a violated contract by another person to adhere to the NAP, though. "
"In the sense that other busyboddys out there might seek out people to convert & "force" the NAP unto other's socially: maybe, because social coercion does not always translate into physical coercion. "
I just have discovered that most of the controversey stem from the differences in interpretations.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:"Right and wrong are not value-judgments" in the sense that determining if an action constitutes as either 'right' or 'wrong' requires human thought and reasoning.
What is this suppose to mean? That thinking if a action is right or wrong based on human reason is not right or wrong?
Anarcho-Mercantilist:"Value-judgments are subjective" in the sense that those judgements require human emotional perception.
Yet human emotional perception is an objective trait.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:"Morality is not emotive" in the sense that we do not feel any 'emotions' when some person lied to anther.
What? Being lied to or seeing an individual lied too does not invoke an emotional response? Nonsense.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:"Defining 'aggression' is circular" in the sense that the definition of 'aggression' depends on the definition of 'property rights', which, in turn, we define as the "absence of aggression against property."
That would depend on if you believe in self-ownership.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:"Defining 'aggression' is not circular" in the sense that we do not need to define 'aggression' in every case because it takes too much time.
Hence it is apriori
Anarcho-Mercantilist:"Defining 'aggression' is circular" in the sense that the definition of 'aggression' can be interpreted in too many ways that people have different conceptions about punishment and parenting.
Actually not. If you were to ask the forum the definition of aggression they would give you something akin to Rothbard's definition.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:In the sense that other busyboddys out there might seek out people to convert & force the NAP unto others (physically) & thus contradicting the NAP: yes. This is less clear if the NAP being "forced" is a reaction against a violated contract by another person to adhere to the NAP, though.
That is self-refuting. If people actually believe in the NAP, then they wouldn't go out of their way to coerce others.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:In the sense that other busyboddys out there might seek out people to convert & "force" the NAP unto other's socially: maybe, because social coercion does not always translate into physical coercion.
Explain how one can take a proactive stance in pre-emptive use of the NAP.
Anarchist Cain: Actually like I stated, the burden of proof is on you to establish why we [ natural law theorists ] are false to believe in something we think is true for it would be ridiculous to assume that we are false until we can prove to you that what we believe is true.
I'm afraid the burden of proof is on the person claiming the existence of something, not the one claiming its absence. Otherwise I could claim that the earth is ruled by little invisible men who in turn are controlled by Santa Claus, and as you would have no way of disproving this, you'd have to accept it. Obviously an absurd situation.
There just ain't such a thing as a "natural law" - all prescriptive laws are set by humans. Live with it.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:All of the controversies in 'ethics' stem from the usage of those ambiguous labels. People equivocate the different meanings of each of those terms and misinterpret what others mean by those labels.
Well said.
scyg:I'm afraid the burden of proof is on the person claiming the existence of something, not the one claiming its absence.
Actually like I said, why should we try to prove something is true when we already believe it to be true. The proof is on you to establish that we are wrong and why we are wrong.
scyg:Otherwise I could claim that the earth is ruled by little invisible men who in turn are controlled by Santa Claus, and as you would have no way of disproving this, you'd have to accept it. Obviously an absurd situation.
Actually I could. Santa Claus is a mythical representation of human empathy and giving. There is no entity called Santa Claus who is living in this world. The myth of Santa can be shown through cultural reference in various societies. http://www.christmas-day.org/multiculturism-santas.html
Proof of his nonexistence can also be seen by impersonators and the fact that parents/family/friends actually deliever the present
AM:The assertion "right and wrong are value-judgments" can be interpreted in many ways: "Right and wrong are not value-judgments" in the sense that determining if an action constitutes as either 'right' or 'wrong' requires human thought and reasoning. "Right and wrong are value-judgments" in the sense that humans feel positively if they hear the word "right" and react negatively if they hear he word "wrong." "Right and wrong are not value-judgments" in the sense that 'value-judgments' (in the sense of aesthetics) are unnecessary for the judgment whether if an action confirms or violates the anarchist moral code. "Right and wrong are value-judgments" in the sense that it requires empathy, which you classify as a 'value-judgment', to determine if an action constitutes 'right' or 'wrong'.
Anarchist Cain on August 7, 2:15 pm:Actually like I said, why should we try to prove something is true when we already believe it to be true. The proof is on you to establish that we are wrong and why we are wrong.
Anarchist Cain on August 6, 8:08 pm: Angurse:Nope. I said an amoralist can call natural law correct or incorrect without making the judgment from a moral standpoint. If you believe it, prove it.
Angurse:Nope. I said an amoralist can call natural law correct or incorrect without making the judgment from a moral standpoint.
If you believe it, prove it.
Lilburne on August 7, 2:30 pm: LOL!
LOL!