scyg:n terms of logical arguments, the biggest strike against "natural law", at least the way Rothbard presents it, is the fact that all your "rights" (self-ownership, life, etc.) that it implies work ONLY in society - i.e. you can claim them in the face of other humans. Ownership is moot if there are no other people around to contest it, an attacking tiger would not worry about your right to live, and so on. If there is no "natural law" in a setting outside of society, then there must be no "natural law".
Well what do you define as society? Merely two people?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Anarchist Cain: Well what do you define as society? Merely two people?
The presence of other people, as I clearly stated above. In this case, even one other person would be enough, and the absence of another person renders "natural laws" and the "natural rights" that supposedly stem from them completely useless at best. What's the use of saying "I own this" if there's nobody else to worry about?
There just ain't such a thing as a "natural law" - all prescriptive laws are set by humans. Live with it.
scyg:The presence of other people, as I clearly stated above.
So two people is 'society'? I think you should grab your dictionary.
scyg:and the absence of another person renders "natural laws" and the "natural rights" that supposedly stem from them completely useless at best.
Well if humanity didn't have natural law unless there was two people around, then how did it come to exist? We state that man has self-ownership therefore it is not that natural law doesn't exist if there isn't around, it is only that if there is another individual then the rights of A must be recognized by B and vice versa.
Anarchist Cain:Morality is define as a code of conduct proposed by a given group or individual. Explain how that is correct or incorrect.
The natural rights theories we are criticizing are not mere codes of conduct. They contain assertions about objective reality.
"Society" is a shorthand way of saying "groups of people". The point is that without other people you have no rights - there is nobody to recognize the fact that you have them or to deny them. For example, imagine you are in an avalanche. You can claim your right to live until you're blue in the face, but there is nobody else around, nothing will come of it. Therefore, I can claim that your "natural right" to life is a fiction.
Anarchist Cain: Well if humanity didn't have natural law unless there was two people around, then how did it come to exist?
Well if humanity didn't have natural law unless there was two people around, then how did it come to exist?
The whole point is that it didn't. At least nobody's been able to prove that it did.
Anarchist Cain: We state that man has self-ownership therefore it is not that natural law doesn't exist if there isn't around, it is only that if there is another individual then the rights of A must be recognized by B and vice versa.
We state that man has self-ownership therefore it is not that natural law doesn't exist if there isn't around, it is only that if there is another individual then the rights of A must be recognized by B and vice versa.
Now you're making no sense. Even if by self-ownership you simply mean the power to control your own actions, if someone else has more power over that than you, then where's your "natural right" to self-ownership? And why does B have to recognize A's rights? If A is not strong enough to enforce what he perceives as his rights, and there is no outside force to stop him, B can do exactly as he wishes. Therefore, in fact, A has no rights at all unless he has the means to enforce them.
Lilburne: Anarchist Cain:Morality is define as a code of conduct proposed by a given group or individual. Explain how that is correct or incorrect. The natural rights theories we are criticizing are not mere codes of conduct. They contain assertions about objective reality.
I believe that 'objective reality' does 'exist' in the sense that I do not adhere to 'ontological solipsism'. All 'ethical' systems contain assertions about 'objective reality' in the sense that they refer to 'empirical observations' (which 'exists' in 'objective reality').
I will clarify Lilburne's sentence by rephrasing it like this: "'Natural law' theories derive their 'moral codes of conduct' from the mere laws of logic, without any reference to 'empirical' constructs such as 'human biology'."
Life is filled with misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and prodigal folklore.
Anarcho-Mercantilist: "'Natural law' theories derive their 'moral codes of conduct' from the mere laws of logic, without any reference to 'empirical' constructs such as 'human biology'."
thats so obviously false. like so many things you say.
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
scyg:The point is that without other people you have no rights - there is nobody to recognize the fact that you have them or to deny them.
Because they cannot be transgressed does not mean they don't exist.
scyg:You can claim your right to live until you're blue in the face, but there is nobody else around, nothing will come of it.
Just because I claim a right to life in front of a serial killer does not mean something will come of it. Having rights does not mean they cannot be transgressed or violated.
scyg: Even if by self-ownership you simply mean the power to control your own actions, if someone else has more power over that than you, then where's your "natural right" to self-ownership?
Again violation of rights does not mean rights don't exist.
scyg:And why does B have to recognize A's rights? If A is not strong enough to enforce what he perceives as his rights, and there is no outside force to stop him, B can do exactly as he wishes. Therefore, in fact, A has no rights at all unless he has the means to enforce them.
You are speaking of de facto rights and not recognizing normative rights. De facto rights are 'I get my umbrella stolen, I temporarily lose my right to property over it' however, how am I to reclaim my property if I lost my right to it in the first place? You seem to sound like a fellow who was here not to long along named Jacob Bloom.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:I believe that 'objective reality' does 'exist' in the sense that I do not adhere to 'ontological solipsism'
Taking a page from your playbook. I reject everything you believe.
Dondoolee:AJ I think perhaps some of the confusion and talking over head going on is that you are comming are wanting verifiability (logical proof) while the natural law advocates are comming from a falsifiability standpoint. While I am not a natural law advocate, perhaps that will give you some perspective as to where the arguments are comming from and why they exist.
That's true, but I am only coming at it from the standpoint of verifiability because many natural law proponents have done the same. In fact, I have not yet even seen a defense of "natural law" as a meaningfully-defined concept.
Dondoolee:After breifly going through this thread, I don't think I have actually seen anyone clearly say "No natural law can not be logically proven at this point, but here is the ground work why I believe in it.....". A comment along those lines would probably be much more productive and useful.
Yes, that would be productive and useful, and that is what I would like to see. I find the claim of logical proof to be poisonous to the whole effort of libertarian advocacy, which is fundamentally a persuasive and educational endeavor, not a logical-mathematical one.
Why anarchy fails
AJ: I find the claim of logical proof to be poisonous to the whole effort of libertarian advocacy, which is fundamentally a persuasive and educational endeavor, not a logical-mathematical one.
Well, if a claim is not reasonable, how do you expect to convince others of it in the long run? We're not talking religion here. The problem is not with the idea of logically proving your point, but the fact that some libertarian thinkers have deduced their ideas from unsupportable a priori assumptions. That's why I think utilitarian arguments hold greater promise. If you want to convince someone of the correctness of a political idea, it's better to show that it will have a positive effect than that it is the logical outcome of some abstract idea, especially if it's not provable.
nirgrahamUK: Anarcho-Mercantilist: "'Natural law' theories derive their 'moral codes of conduct' from the mere laws of logic, without any reference to 'empirical' constructs such as 'human biology'." thats so obviously false. like so many things you say.
Indeed, Rothbard and Hoppe took 'empirical' references to 'human biology' into account. For instance, Rothbard, in his argument for the legalization of abortion, took 'human biology' into account in the sense that he believed in this biological fact: 'the fetus grows inside the mother'. In addition, he assumed that humans must accept 'proportional' methods of punishment to "fit the crime" because humans have an innate sense of empathy even for criminals (he called this as the 'intuitive sense of justice'). Hoppe, in his 'proof' of property rights, assumed that no two people can exist in the same place at the same time.
Lilburne still has not strawmanned Rothbard and Hoppe. Lilburne has trouble expressing his ideas clearly enough.
wait, was i qouting you ,or lilburne, im confused .?.
scyg: AJ: I find the claim of logical proof to be poisonous to the whole effort of libertarian advocacy, which is fundamentally a persuasive and educational endeavor, not a logical-mathematical one. Well, if a claim is not reasonable, how do you expect to convince others of it in the long run? We're not talking religion here. The problem is not with the idea of logically proving your point, but the fact that some libertarian thinkers have deduced their ideas from unsupportable a priori assumptions. That's why I think utilitarian arguments hold greater promise. If you want to convince someone of the correctness of a political idea, it's better to show that it will have a positive effect than that it is the logical outcome of some abstract idea, especially if it's not provable.
Fully agreed.
Anarchist Cain:And you Lilburne, don't you have an article establishing libertarian morality through psuedo-Humeian format?
Quasi-, not pseudo-. My theory is an objective theory about how subjective morality arises.
your theory is about how morality is not morality.
You were quoting AM's attempt to rephrase what I said.
ok, that clears that up.
In the light of that clarification, the obviously false statement was innapropriate since I find you (Lilburne) to be well informed and smart in many things. I just have disagreements with you in the narrow field of 'morality'. with Anarcho-mercantilist my disagreements go a lot further.
Anarchist Cain: Again violation of rights does not mean rights don't exist.
No, but it means that they are a moot concept. If they also have no physical existence to ground them in reality, they can be disregarded in any practical sense - even if you insist that they exist, they make no difference in the real world.
Anarchist Cain: Lilburne:The statements involved are statements like "that is illogical". Are you saying, "that is illogical" is a moral value statement? Saying something is illogical implies that it is bad, does it not?
Lilburne:The statements involved are statements like "that is illogical". Are you saying, "that is illogical" is a moral value statement?
Saying something is illogical implies that it is bad, does it not?
I'd like to see an explicit confirmation of this ridiculous position of yours...
Yes or no, is the phrase "that statement is illogical" a moral value statement?
scyg:No, but it means that they are a moot concept.
So because property rights can be violated means we should have no property rights?
scyg: Anarchist Cain: Again violation of rights does not mean rights don't exist. No, but it means that they are a moot concept. If they also have no physical existence to ground them in reality, they can be disregarded in any practical sense - even if you insist that they exist, they make no difference in the real world.
Mathematical 'truths' also do not 'exist' in 'physical reality'. Why do you attach 'truth' values to mathematics but not 'morality'? For more detail, refer to this post.
nirgrahamUK: your theory is about how morality is not morality.
Subjective morality is not non-morality.
nirgrahamUK: ok, that clears that up. In the light of that clarification, the obviously false statement was innapropriate since I find you (Lilburne) to be well informed and smart in many things. I just have disagreements with you in the narrow field of 'morality'. with Anarcho-mercantilist my disagreements go a lot further.
I see. And thanks for the compliment!
Anarchist Cain: So because property rights can be violated means we should have no property rights?
No, you have property rights because the consensus of people around you is not to take away everything you own and chase you out of town. But there's nothing inherent, "natural", about your property rights, or any rights, as best as I can see.
Lilburne: Yes or no, is the phrase "that statement is illogical" a moral value statement?
Apparently, all statements are moral value statements. The amoralist doesn't exist! (Except when talking about math?)
Anarcho-Mercantilist: Mathematical 'truths' also do not 'exist' in 'physical reality'. Why do you attach 'truth' values to mathematics but not 'morality'? For more detail, refer to this post.
I wasn't talking about "morality". I was talking about whether there is a system of "natural law" with attached rights that could be demonstrated to actually exist.
scyg:I wasn't talking about "morality". I was talking about whether there is a system of "natural law" with attached rights that could be demonstrated to actually exist.
Natural law concerns morality
scyg:No, you have property rights because the consensus of people around you is not to take away everything you own and chase you out of town. But there's nothing inherent, "natural", about your property rights, or any rights, as best as I can see.
So I have rights because people are not trangressing them?
Angurse:Apparently, all statements are moral value statements. The amoralist doesn't exist! (Except when talking about math?)
Amoralists can exist, they just cannot engage in indepth moral anaylsis without contradicting their values. It would be like an atheist speculating with a theologian on the powers of God.
Anarchist Cain: Amoralists can exist, they just cannot engage in indepth moral anaylsis without contradicting their values. It would be like an atheist speculating with a theologian on the powers of God.
And saying morals don't exist can hardly be considered an in-depth moral analysis. But I don't see why an atheist cannot speculate* about god, speculating about doesn't mean believing in. I can speculate about the Easter bunny and how he delivers those baskets, I don't believe in it though.
* Speculate as in discuss in a casual way
Angurse:But I don't see why an atheist cannot speculate* about god, speculating about doesn't mean believing in.
Speculating is establishing the existence of something or at least giving creedence that it could exist.
Angurse: I can speculate about the Easter bunny and how he delivers those baskets, I don't believe in it though.
By establishing action within the Easter Bunny you are establishing that it is an existing entity. How can you ascertain how the Easter bunny does ANYTHING if you don't even believe he exists in the first place?
Anarchist Cain:Speculating is establishing the existence of something or at least giving creedence that it could exist.
Why? Prove it.
Anarchist Cain:By establishing action within the Easter Bunny you are establishing that it is an existing entity
Talking about something is not the same as establishing action within it.
Anarchist Cain:How can you ascertain how the Easter bunny does ANYTHING if you don't even believe he exists in the first place?
Thats what fantasizing or dreaming is, people can still share such ideas.
So when people speak about the Easter Bunny, or the bogey man, or anything made up, they are implicitly saying they think it may actually exist.
Angurse:Why? Prove it.
I did with my second response.
Angurse:Talking about something is not the same as establishing action within it.
Existence is action.
Angurse:Thats what fantasizing or dreaming is, people can still share such ideas.
Then we are no longer in the world of reason, logic or reality.
Angurse:So when people speak about the Easter Bunny, or the bogey man, or anything made up, they are implicitly saying they think it may actually exist.
Look, you just proved what you asked me to prove.
Therefore one cannot be an atheist and speculate on God. They could be agnostic, but that is not the same as an atheist.
Anarchist Cain: So I have rights because people are not trangressing them?
No, it has nothing to do with transgressing or not transgressing some preexisting rights, which I still argue you dont' have and never had. You have your current rights because people around you have formed a consensus that they (notice, it's not about you personally) are better off if they band together and guarantee to protect each other's lives and property. You're rights are incidental to you living in the society (i.e. group of people) that you live in.
scyg: You have your current rights because people around you have formed a consensus that they (notice, it's not about you personally) are better off if they band together and guarantee to protect each other's lives and property.
So rights are derived from some mystifying social contract?
Not mystifying, very practical-minded. But yes. Now notice I'm not saying you personally concluded this contract, even by lack of dissent, but that doesn't change the fact that if it wasn't for that consensus, anybody could come and rob you with impunity if they were stronger than you. Therefore, your rights are a purely social convention.
if everyone in society wanted me dead because i was jewish and they were nazi's, i would not have a right to my life? because there was no 'consensus' that i have a right to my life presumably.....
oy vey.
or rather, of course i have a right to life.. i am a reasoning embodied being. i am a moral agent. i have a right to life. and fuck society.
An atheist cannot speculate on the existence of God? Or does that not count as part of your claim?
scyg:Not mystifying, very practical-minded. But yes. Now notice I'm not saying you personally concluded this contract, even by lack of dissent, but that doesn't change the fact that if it wasn't for that consensus, anybody could come and rob you with impunity if they were stronger than you. Therefore, your rights are a purely social convention.
Then explain to me this because it seems like a common problem of yours. If individuals have no rights before this social contract...then what gives them rights after the contract?