Political Theory

Re: Your ethics are real bad, guys

Kelvin Silva — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 03:14:15 GMT

Well of course stealing is immoral, in any case. The question is if one must do a smaller evil to avoid bigger evils (that is in the stealing bread dillema).

Just like how one would lie (immoral) that they have AIDS to stop a rapist from raping you.

The question is if ones situation is so dire, that it is required to steal food to avoid starvation, or lie to stop getting raped.

When ethics and morals are discussed one cant be so black/white, is this completely wrong or completely bad.

/2cents

Re: Your ethics are real bad, guys

John James — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 02:19:05 GMT

Cortes:

Allow me to critique what I read in that thread and why I believe most of you on the forums lack any firm understanding of ethics:

    A:Why can't the would-be bread thief tell the merchant, "I'll sweep the floor for a loaf of bread." Oh, there's probably a law against that.
    B: thats an even better suggestion than mine....
    this logic goes over the head of an evil person.

This is absurd. Explain to me how this isn't outrageous and unethical reasoning.

I'm confused. What's unethical about asking why someone can't make an offer to trade his labor for a good (in this case, bread)? I assume the person making this claim of "outrageous and unethical reasoning" has never offered a trade in his life? Or is he just by his own admission "outrageous and unethical"?

What if there was no situation where property rights are understood, ie you cannot rely on that argument. Is it ethical or not to let the thief steal the bread?

This is a fallacy in logic. It makes the assertion that property rights are not "understood" (which I have to assume means no one has a concept of property rights), and then assumes that property rights exist by asking if it is ethical to allow "theft". "Theft" is a concept that presupposes property rights.

If there was "no situation where property rights are understood", one cannot presume to know when or even if "theft" has taken place.

What he's done here is essentially the same thing as saying: "If there was no situation where agreements existed, is it ethical or not to breach a contract?"

A: 25,000 children die every day due to hunger. Half the world lives on less than $5 a day.
B: That is irrelevant to the point he is making.

I submit that it isn't, Person B. Prove me wrong.

Because the point he was making was specifically a hypothetical: "If property rights were correctly understood and enforced there would be no such situation."

Simply making a statement about the state of things as they are currently is completely irrelevant because the point he was making had nothing to do with how things are currently. In fact, the entire purpose of his statement was to illustrate how different things would be if "property rights were correctly understood and enforced"...implying that they are not currently...hence why we have the result that we do (i.e. "25,000 children die, blah blah blah).

It's essentially the same thing as:

Person Z: "If every human could fly like Superman, there'd be a lot less bicycles in the world."

Person A: "25,000 bicycles are sold every year in the state of Arkansas alone. Half the world rides a bike every single day."

Person B: That is irrelevant to the point he is making.

You: I submit that it isn't, Person B. Prove me wrong.

is that man justified for impaling the thief's head?

I wouldn't say so. But I fail to see why this is relevant if you admit you believe this was a joke anyway.

I'd say most of those people in that thread and on these forums don't care about making the ethically correct decision.

Okay.

"If you are talking personal ethics, it is individual and as such the question is pointless."

Right, because nobody has the right to convince others to adopt a moral code they find superior in such a situation? *rolls eyes*

I don't see how the response here follows the statement.

But on a side note, I don't quite see how statements like those quoted here (let alone that fill that thread) can be said to be an echo chamber or anything of that sort. It seems to me there is some differing opinion there.

And the very fact that the thread was started as a hypothetical question I think shows an interest in discourse, as opposed to the circle jerk I find in many forums. If one can show me a statist forum which not only poses questions regarding ethics and philosophy, but actually results in threads in which differing opinions are expressed (especially among people who generally agree), I would love to see it.

Guys, most people would find the posts in that thread an embarrassment if they wanted to be held with any degree of credibility or to be respected as knowledgeable in political discourse.

Please demonstrate how the posts in the thread show a lack of knowledge in "political discourse".

Re: Your ethics are real bad, guys

Autolykos — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 01:29:59 GMT

That person's argument seems to boil down to: "Your ethics are wrong because they're not the same as mine."

Re: Your ethics are real bad, guys

vive la insurrection — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 01:23:47 GMT

They're actually below the level of Philosophy 101, even.

This comment among other ones made, doesn't even make sense. Than again neither do ethics, so I'll bow out disgracefully on this right now.

I'd say most of those people in that thread and on these forums don't care about making the ethically correct decision.

I for one don't. Ethics are antiques, which is why most people put them in the dust bin of history. they are linguistic dinosaurs.

Is this not barbaric? (I have a feeling William was being sarcastic here, not to mention contradicting in order to make a point. But still, is that man justified for impaling the thief's head?).

Clarification:

I was being sarcastic. If I had mady any statement on that thread worth considering, it was "people like interesting things". Besides all that what's wrong with barbarism? Ok now I'm done.

Your ethics are real bad, guys

Cortes — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 01:07:47 GMT

[note: in this thread I am paraphrasing a conversation I engaged in on another forum. One member made these arguments and by permission I have posted them here, taking the role of Devil's Advocate. ]

They're actually below the level of Philosophy 101, even.

First off, the bread dilemma: http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/16103.aspx All of you have failed this by refusing to address it. Instead, the contributing posters turned that topic into an echo chamber and evaded answering the thought experiment.

Allow me to critique what I read in that thread and why I believe most of you on the forums lack any firm understanding of ethics:

A:Why can't the would-be bread thief tell the merchant, "I'll sweep the floor for a loaf of bread." Oh, there's probably a law against that.

B: thats an even better suggestion than mine....

this logic goes over the head of an evil person.

This is absurd. Explain to me how this isn't outrageous and unethical reasoning.

"I would like to point out that this situation is absurd. The idea that this famliy is so poor (involuntarily) that one couldn't afford bread. If property rights were correctly understood and enforced there would be no such situation."

I would like to make the point that property rights are not understood by millions, and may never be properly understood. And anyway, I submit that this is an attempt to evade the argument here! What if there was no situation where property rights are understood, ie you cannot rely on that argument. Is it ethical or not to let the thief steal the bread?

A: 25,000 children die every day due to hunger. Half the world lives on less than $5 a day.

B: That is irrelevant to the point he is making.

I submit that it isn't, Person B. Prove me wrong.

"Not only should a man NEVER objectively steal EVER, it should be actively encouraged the bread vendor shoot the thief dead on the spot and put his head on a pike to discourage anyone breaking the law of the sacred property rights."

Is this not barbaric? (I have a feeling William was being sarcastic here, not to mention contradicting in order to make a point. But still, is that man justified for impaling the thief's head?).

"Libertarian natural rights ethics tell you what is contrary to justice and how justice can be restored. They don't tell you what you should do in a given situation."

I'd say most of those people in that thread and on these forums don't care about making the ethically correct decision.

"If you are talking personal ethics, it is individual and as such the question is pointless."

Right, because nobody has the right to convince others to adopt a moral code they find superior in such a situation? *rolls eyes*

Guys, most people would find the posts in that thread an embarrassment if they wanted to be held with any degree of credibility or to be respected as knowledgeable in political discourse.

/Devil's Advocate paraphrasing