Laughing Man:If that is what you think then you lack a firm understanding of the English language. By saying eating meat is bad, one is accouncing that committing such an act is bad for individuals, bad in the sense of being beyond the person making the announcement. By saying 'murder is wrong' I'm not just saying that 'well I think murder is wrong for me' but that it is wrong for anyone to do it or to suffer from it.
And? This doesn't hamper the subjective source of the opinion. If they mean "bad" as in unhealthy then it isn't necessarily an emotional expression but a factual assertion (it may not be true though). If they mean "bad" as in unethical or evil, then its pure emotion.
Laughing Man:Good in an ethical sense, yes there is no economic 'good [ moral ]' Economics is a positive science.
Try and keep up. I pointed this out pages ago.
Laughing Man:Have you not read a thing I've written? Its impossible for taxes to be "good" or "bad." I cannot and shall not try to work an ethics system into a science.(Please try and stay in the realm of ethics though to avoid any confusion over the economic meaning of good.)
Angurse:No room for reason? We can only use emotion?
Angurse:Or try and explain the consequences of taxes.
Laughing Man:How does it beg the question?
It begs the question what is "wrong?"
Laughing Man:What entails wrong?
I've been asking you that very question this entire thread.
Laughing Man:'the natural-law ethic states that goodness or badness can be determined by what fulfills or thwarts what is best for man's nature'
So if it is best for man's nature to rape, then rape isn't wrong? Because I disagree with that entirely.
Laughing Man:Why not slavery? Why not communism? You are not supposing that everyone wants happiness and prosperity are you? And selfishness? Are you saying that everyone is objectively selfish?
Private property is more economical than slavery and communism. Read some Mises. As a matter of fact, I'm no supposing that everyone wants happiness or prosperity. One of the biggest problems with natural rights is that is assumes there is an end that satisfies the wants of everyone. There isn't. I simply could care less about the desires of murderers, thieves and rapists. (And yes, everyone is selfish (they just show it in different ways).
Lilburne: LM, Everyone is an individual utilitarian in that everyone, by definition, tries to maximize their own utility. Benthamite utilitarianism ought to have been called something more specific, like "social utilitarianism". I don't know if that's what LS meant, but if it is, I agree with him.
LM, Everyone is an individual utilitarian in that everyone, by definition, tries to maximize their own utility. Benthamite utilitarianism ought to have been called something more specific, like "social utilitarianism".
I don't know if that's what LS meant, but if it is, I agree with him.
If that is true why aren't we all killing each other over ideas in which we think are false? If all that matters is social utility then why were there natural rights theorist? What utility did Locke gain by being exiled for his ideas? Where is the social utility gained by Spooner? Rothbard? John...Lilburne even with his 'freeborn rights'? Was this all a clever ruse to trick others into fighting for these individuals ability to be free from government? Or was it a premise that there are realm in which should not be violated? Things that are instinctively wrong?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Laughing Man: I have started reading Roderick Long's piece on Wittgenstein and I think it very brilliant. The language we employ is one of objective nature. There is no subjective linguistics because there is no private language and since we employ objective language, that is language that is not bound to one single individual but all the people who practice it, then it follows that emotivist beliefs are nonsense. When an individual says something is good, they usually mean to imply that it is a social good, that it is something beyond themselves. Therefore it is not just pure emotion like the emotivists try to make it out to be. That is what I have drawn from it so far, though I have yet to finish it. I recommend it. Wittgenstein, Austrian Economics, and the Logic of Action
I have started reading Roderick Long's piece on Wittgenstein and I think it very brilliant. The language we employ is one of objective nature. There is no subjective linguistics because there is no private language and since we employ objective language, that is language that is not bound to one single individual but all the people who practice it, then it follows that emotivist beliefs are nonsense. When an individual says something is good, they usually mean to imply that it is a social good, that it is something beyond themselves. Therefore it is not just pure emotion like the emotivists try to make it out to be. That is what I have drawn from it so far, though I have yet to finish it. I recommend it.
Wittgenstein, Austrian Economics, and the Logic of Action
Read Wittgenstein's Vienna by Allan Janik and Stephen Toulmin before you get too into Russell or Tractatus Logicophilosiphicus. From Chapter 5 you will understand how the new positivists of the Vienna Circle used Wittgenstein's work to advance their own theories but were clearly misguided.
If anyone wants to check out/buy this book and discuss in another thread, I will be up to it as soon as I have more frequent internet in a week or so. It bewilders me that wikipedia's page on Heinrich Hertz says nothing of his philosophical work, even though much of today's theoretical physics rests on it and it was central to Wittgenstein's work.
Ernst Mach, following Humean principles, totally mistook Hertz's use of the German Bild for image/model. If you google maybe you can find some good stuff on the critical difference between Vorstellungen and Darstellungen.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Angurse:And? This doesn't hamper the subjective source of the opinion. If they mean "bad" as in unhealthy then it isn't necessarily an emotional expression but a factual assertion (it may not be true though). If they mean "bad" as in unethical or evil, then its pure emotion.
Subjective is dependent on the individual speaking. Objective is when it applies to the whole without exception.
Angurse:Plenty of room for reason.
So is reason subjective?
Angurse:It begs the question what is "wrong?"
I answered this at the bottom of my response to this with the quote.
Angurse:So if it is best for man's nature to rape, then rape isn't wrong? Because I disagree with that entirely.
But it is not best for man's nature to rape.
Angurse:Private property is more economical than slavery and communism.
You presuppose that people want an economical system. What if they don't? What if they want mass starvation and death?
Angurse:As a matter of fact, I'm no supposing that everyone wants happiness or prosperity.
You are saying that private property is more economical. I would ask why you think it is more economical but I think I know why and I don't want to get off on a topic that is a small side issue.
Angurse:One of the biggest problems with natural rights is that is assumes there is an end that satisfies the wants of everyone.
Because there is, liberty.
Angurse:(And yes, everyone is selfish (they just show it in different ways)
You are establish a objective behavior in individuals. What happened to all the subjectivity?
Laughing Man:If all that matters is social utility then why were there natural rights theorist?
Did you get the impression that I was advocating social utilitarianism? If so, please read my post a little more carefully.
E. R. Olovetto:Read Wittgenstein's Vienna by Allan Janik and Stephen Toulmin before you get too into Russell or Tractatus Logicophilosiphicus. From Chapter 5 you will understand how the new positivists of the Vienna Circle used Wittgenstein's work to advance their own theories but were clearly misguided.
I have just started getting into Wittgenstein, thanks for the source.
Lilburne: Laughing Man:If all that matters is social utility then why were there natural rights theorist? Did you get the impression that I was advocating social utilitarianism? If so, please read my post a little more carefully.
You said you agree with him if he means that everyone is a utilitarian in the sense they want to maximize their social utility.
Laughing Man:in the sense they want to maximize their social utility.
Again, I must ask you to read more carefully. I wrote, "LM, Everyone is an individual utilitarian in that everyone, by definition, tries to maximize their own utility." I was explicitly distinguishing individual utilitarianism from Benthamite social utilitarianism.
Lilburne:Again, I must ask you to read more carefully. I wrote, "LM, Everyone is an individual utilitarian in that everyone, by definition, tries to maximize their own utility." I was explicitly distinguishing individual utilitarianism from Benthamite social utilitarianism.
Yes, I know, I read that. That is why I said, 'was natural rights just a clever ruse to trick people into fighting for the rights of an individual theorist? Or was it something beyond the theorist himself, something that dealt with a realm that cannot be transgressed and that applied to everyone' [ in oh so many words ]
I see what you are saying, people joined natural rights because they thought they would get the most out of it just for themselves. Perhaps that is true for some but I believe that there is / was a group of individuals who were natural rights theorists not simply because self interest but because of the benefits it would bring to the masses. Its like libertarianism. Perhaps there are some libertarians who are libertarians because they want to do whatever they feel like as long as it is NPA-approved. However there are libertarians who are libertarians because they want liberty for all, prosperity for all etc.
Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what benefits a theory of natural rights would bring to the masses?
tacoface:Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what benefits a theory of natural rights would bring to the masses?
Well the theory itself doesn't bring people benefits. Natural rights doesn't give me liberty. It merely illuminates a truth of my existence, which is that since I am a human, I am afforded certain obligations which I must obey concerning the treatment of other and they most obey in treatment towards me. So I have liberty, self-ownership and the ability to produce property that I can call my own, natural rights is the organization of that into applicable system in legal theory.
Laughing Man: tacoface:Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what benefits a theory of natural rights would bring to the masses? Well the theory itself doesn't bring people benefits. Natural rights doesn't give me liberty. It merely illuminates a truth of my existence, which is that since I am a human, I am afforded certain obligations which I must obey concerning the treatment of other and they most obey in treatment towards me. So I have liberty, self-ownership and the ability to produce property that I can call my own, natural rights is the organization of that into applicable system in legal theory.
It seems useless to me. In reality might does make is. If you violate my property rights, I will beat your face in. That's all that matters.
Laughing Man:Subjective is dependent on the individual speaking. Objective is when it applies to the whole without exception.
Exactly. Ethics fall into the subjective category.
Laughing Man:So is reason subjective?
No. It is a contrast to emotion.
Laughing Man:But it is not best for man's nature to rape.
But you have yet to prove it. You have yet to prove what is best for man's nature. Men aren't a collective entity, they are individuals with very different needs and wants, some are at odds with one another.
Laughing Man:You presuppose that people want an economical system. What if they don't? What if they want mass starvation and death?
Want an economic system? Its impossible for men to escape an economic system. If men want mass starvation and death it natural rights aren't going to be any more useful than they currently are.
Laughing Man:Because there is, liberty.
Liberty doesn't solve that problem though. I want to murder you, you want to open a flower shop. Liberty won't help us both.
Liberty isn't a right, read de Jasay. "Liberty should be presumed, not because we have a "right" to it, or because it is the most important value or goal, but because it follows from the requirements of epistemology and logic."
Laughing Man:You are establish a objective behavior in individuals. What happened to all the subjectivity?
Its no different than saying "men act."
Theres a saying something like: "There are no good deeds, only good men."
"God" or "natural rights" are noumenal abstractions. This doesn't mean they are worthless, but some of you are trying to square the circle.
Angurse: I have no idea...
I have no idea...
you've already established that.
Angurse: Not a single definition above contradicts what I said.
Not a single definition above contradicts what I said.
and it doesn't contradict what I've said. i don't know what you're reading. objects are not merely material, but you like to think so.
I posted definitions as to what I'm talking about, but here's even another dictionary that spells it out more explicitly, almost word for word as I've said all along. It did take some thought to understand the definitions I pointed out above, but since you are non-cognitive and rely upon your feelings to read it might make such efforts difficult. idk. Here it is. It's a common understanding:
5. anything that may be apprehended intellectually: objects of thought.
the rest of your post is merely a fetish about subjective or objective, which I've stated I'm not hung-up on. You've taken up the cause of supporting somebody laughing at the ill-wills of others. I don't find that to be ethical. So I'm moving on in light of your disposition about the world, ethically speaking.
good night
tacoface: It seems useless to me. In reality might does make is. If you violate my property rights, I will beat your face in. That's all that matters.
yes, it boils down to that, OR you can be logical and reason ahead of time, "Oh, that's somebody's property and they might beat my face in if I violate it." Natural rights are not arbitrary, but coherently logical that any one person can discover such truths on their own. That's why it's called natural (intellectual) law. When critical thinking is being applying on human nature these become self-evident truths that entail peaceful co-existence. But you seem to be saying instead of thinking ahead of time and having the low-time preference for far-sightedness, then you need to know each and every time that walking onto anothers property may lead to a persons face being beaten in. Good luck with that venture. Do you have to learn that everyday? I guess this is why Pavlov's law doesn't always work. hmm, is it really a law?
Angurse: Liberty isn't a right, read de Jasay. "Liberty should be presumed, not because we have a "right" to it, or because it is the most important value or goal, but because it follows from the requirements of epistemology and logic."
Rights are principles. This isn't anything new. Natural means intellectual and the objects apprehended by such (the intellect). It always has in the natural law tradition. If I were de Jasay, I wouldn't leave out metaphysics because liberty is.
wilderness: tacoface: It seems useless to me. In reality might does make is. If you violate my property rights, I will beat your face in. That's all that matters. yes, it boils down to that, OR you can be logical and reason ahead of time, "Oh, that's somebody's property and they might beat my face in if I violate it." Natural rights are not arbitrary, but coherently logical that any one person can discover such truths on their own. That's why it's called natural (intellectual) law. When critical thinking is being applying on human nature these become self-evident truths that entail peaceful co-existence. But you seem to be saying instead of thinking ahead of time and having the low-time preference for far-sightedness, then you need to know each and every time that walking onto anothers property may lead to a persons face being beaten in. Good luck with that venture. Do you have to learn that everyday? I guess this is why Pavlov's law doesn't always work. hmm, is it really a law?
You seem to be suggesting that your "natural rights" will restrict how a person can defend their property. I'm afraid it isn't up to you what a person does to defend their property.
Yes you do need to know ahead of time if a person will kill you for walking on their property. They make the rules. If you don't like their rules, don't go near them or their property. It's too simple.
tacoface: It's too simple.
It's too simple.
indeed
Angurse:Morality has changed quite a bit over the last 5,000 years and vary culture to culture.
Angurse: Juan: Or what you mean is that you call them immoral, but the word immoral is meaningless, or at best it only means "I don't like it" ? Yes.
Juan: Or what you mean is that you call them immoral, but the word immoral is meaningless, or at best it only means "I don't like it" ?
Angurse: Juan: I'm sure that if look up "moral/immoral" in the dictionary I won't find any entry saying that immoral means "something not liked by someone - a matter of taste" OK? And? Will the dictionary explain how its objective at all?
Juan: I'm sure that if look up "moral/immoral" in the dictionary I won't find any entry saying that immoral means "something not liked by someone - a matter of taste"
All thats "really wrong" with it is that I don't like it. (You could also make non-ethical case against crime as well)
A: J: A: Feelings are emotions they only exist within the mind, they are intangible. So is language. So is meaning. So is logic. Lots of key things are 'intangible'. Absolutely. However, logic is also a science in a similar vein as mathematics (Sorry Popper). Math not being tangible doesn't mean its subjective.
J: A: Feelings are emotions they only exist within the mind, they are intangible. So is language. So is meaning. So is logic. Lots of key things are 'intangible'.
A: Feelings are emotions they only exist within the mind, they are intangible.
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."
So again you add nothing.
wilderness: 5. anything that may be apprehended intellectually: objects of thought.
And that isn't the defiintion that I'm using. I've made it clear what I mean, and pointed you to the one definition that I'm using. "But I'm going to consult Princeton to help what I'm saying." The fact that words can have multiple meanings is irrelevant.
wilderness:the rest of your post is merely a fetish about subjective or objective, which I've stated I'm not hung-up on.
Fetish? Again you make no sense. The entire debate rests on whether its subjective or objective. If your not hung-up on it do me a favour and stay out.
wilderness:You've taken up the cause of supporting somebody laughing at the ill-wills of others. I don't find that to be ethical. So I'm moving on in light of your disposition about the world, ethically speaking.
Once again you spew horse shit. I see you aren't too hung-up on reading either.
wilderness:Rights are principles. This isn't anything new. Natural means intellectual and the objects apprehended by such (the intellect). It always has in the natural law tradition. If I were de Jasay, I wouldn't leave out metaphysics because liberty is.
False. There is a huge difference between natural rights and rights. Natural rights are supposed to stem from natural law. And natural law is supposed to be set by nature, that is, valid everywhere, regardless of culture. The history if this idea is well documented and the "natural law tradition" has been anything but traditional. Natural law has been used to describe extremely different things.
Juan:False. Of course, you confuse, probably on purpose, morality with fashion and/or morality with the statist legal system.
Well. You sure proved me wrong. Are you actually going to substantiate this claim or are you just pulling a "Juan?" I've read Rasmussen, Osterfeld, Rothbard, Aquinas, Spooner, Aristotle, Long, Hobbes, Van Dun, and a whole slew of other theorists from different periods. They differ - whos right? Have any of them gotten it right Juan? If not can you tell me who?
Juan: Do you think, for instance, that slavery in the South was morally good because a bunch of corrupt oligarchs declared it to be morally good ?
Nope. Morally bad. (Remember Juan, ethics are only opinions)
Juan: Do you think that blowing up entire cities is morally good cause military murderers believe in 'patriotism' and similar trash ?
Juan:Your non-argument is the most used non-argument in the skeptics' bag of tricks. You seem to believe that since some people fail to grasp truth, truth doesn't exist. Lame.
Good point. (Do you have a point?)
Juan: No. Immoral means morally bad. It doesn't mean "I don't like it". Or maybe it does, in your own 'subjective' version of newspeak...
"Immoral means morally bad." Well no shit. But wait what does morally bad mean exactly?
Juan:What the dictionary shows, for starters, is that your take on the concept of morality is not consistent and that reducing morality to aesthetics is, get this, a philosophical position and a very lame one.
Please quote this dictionary. I need to see where it says ethics are objective and reducing it to subjectivity is lame. Or perhaps your just a bullshitter who has no interest in truth.
Juan:Except that the concept of 'crime' is only meaningful within an ethical system.
Well, lets just Ignore the entire concept of law (civil, contract, common, tort, property, etc). Objective ethics can solve it all. Now if someone would demonstrate them so we could get started.
Juan:Sorry, math & logic only exist in your mind. Are they 'subjective' or not ?
Already answered. "Math not being tangible doesn't mean its subjective." Its a science, It doesn't change from person to person. It can be verified. Objective. And as I've already stated, I'm not a materialist. I didn't challenge objective ethics with the claim "where are they" I asked for proof of them. If someone would logically derive them I'll kindly accept ethics as being objective.
Laughing Man:When an individual says something is good, they usually mean to imply that it is a social good, that it is something beyond themselves. Therefore it is not just pure emotion like the emotivists try to make it out to be.
Thanks for raising this important issue, and you're correct: emotivism seems to claim that all ethical statements merely express "Yay!" or "Boo!" It's elementary to see that this is not true, because we use the same word "ought" or "good" to convey different meanings all the time. Sometimes it is yay/booh, and sometimes it is intended to imply - as you say - that something is a social good (i.e., produces good consequences, or perhaps even good in a whole other way).
It's in the nature of ethical language that it can convey any number of possible meanings, and that's part of what makes it useful in everyday talk. Instead of having to say all of
or any combination of the above common-sense meanings, one can rather simply say, "You ought not X." Or "X is bad." This is useful, but for the same reason it is hard for ethicists to analyze.
When we hear these statements there is no way to know which combination of the above elements they are intended to mean, so we naturally cannot evaluate them, except conditionally based on suppositions about what the speaker meant:
Yet more likely, as mentioned above, it will take a combination of these interpretations, because most people use "ought" with multiple meanings as a matter of conversational convenience.
Another way to think about it: Say someone makes a statement, "You ought not do X," and let's assume their intended meanings turn out to be
Then they are really making four statements at once (this is extremely common, if you think about it):
We can then assign truth values to each of these four statements:
Only by unpacking these specific intended meanings can we get to the bottom of what ethical statements mean.
As for "objective ethics," I pronounce it generally noncognitivist for now, but await further clarification to classify it into one of the above categories, or another one entirely.
Why anarchy fails
tacoface:It seems useless to me. In reality might does make is. If you violate my property rights, I will beat your face in. That's all that matters.
I look forward to you beating the face of government. Tally ho! Go get'em!
Angurse: wilderness:Rights are principles. This isn't anything new. Natural means intellectual and the objects apprehended by such (the intellect). It always has in the natural law tradition. If I were de Jasay, I wouldn't leave out metaphysics because liberty is. False.
False.
no, it's true. NR are principles, axioms to be exact, and natural does mean such within the tradition that includes a particular identity with natural philosophy/science. But a sophist and an intellectual are natural contraries, so, you being the former and I the latter, it is natural that the dialogue evolve into you saying "false" and i saying "true". Yet how a sophist tries to make a truth claim when we know well and good that the 'damn burden of proof on the shoulders' is something you intend to not display therefore how you mustered the strengthen with all that burden to attempt a demonstration of this either being true or false deserves an applause.
Angurse:Exactly. Ethics fall into the subjective category.
Natural rights doesn't deal with just a singular person though. It is not dependent on them.
Angurse:No. It is a contrast to emotion.
So why can we not use reason [ which you say is objective ] to discover truths about the human race?
Angurse:But you have yet to prove it. You have yet to prove what is best for man's nature. Men aren't a collective entity, they are individuals with very different needs and wants, some are at odds with one another.
What is best for man's nature is an environment in which he can discover and mold their conscious preferences and goals. Such an environment is provided by liberty and when one violates the property of another, then one is retarding the ability of such an environment. They are purposely squelching the ability of human development. Since they have no right to this based on logic and reason, then why should they be allowed to?
Angurse:Want an economic system? Its impossible for men to escape an economic system. If men want mass starvation and death it natural rights aren't going to be any more useful than they currently are.
I meant it in terms of efficiency. What if man wants socialism? The utter destruction of all things? You have no basis to combat that. You are lost in the world of nihilistic ambivalence. You have no radical nature towards the state if you practice what you preach. You just have this mentality of 'well I don't like what they do...but *sigh*'
Angurse:Liberty doesn't solve that problem though. I want to murder you, you want to open a flower shop. Liberty won't help us both.
You have yet to show you have the right to murder me.
Angurse:Liberty isn't a right, read de Jasay. "Liberty should be presumed, not because we have a "right" to it, or because it is the most important value or goal, but because it follows from the requirements of epistemology and logic."
Well I shall ask you what you told me. What if I want to murder you and you want to open a flower shop? Your system devolves into of 'might makes right' to which devolves into a mentality that whatever the state does or any other individuals do en mass is right simply because you could not sufficient ability to resist them.
AJ: Then they are really making four statements at once (this is extremely common, if you think about it): an individual subjectivist statement a universal statement of other's preferences a universal prescriptivist statement a non-cognitive statement We can then assign truth values to each of these four statements: True. (Provided they are being honest that they don't like X.) False. (Barring the unlikely even that it's really true that everyone else dislikes X.) N/A. (Commands aren't subject to truth or falsehood.) N/A. (Incoherent statements aren't subject to truth or falsehood.) Only by unpacking these specific intended meanings can we get to the bottom of what ethical statements mean. As for "objective ethics," I pronounce it generally noncognitivist for now, but await further clarification to classify it into one of the above categories, or another one entirely.
Well I think you are denying the result of 'You ought not do X' particularly with the third response 'Don't do X.' Why cannot the responder say 'Why shouldn't I do it?' or 'What is stopping me from doing it?' And also how many rapists like to be rape? How many thieves like to be stolen from? Do they feel indignant if such an event happens to them? Do they welcome these affairs? Is it still considered rape if the rapist is happy and welcoming about the event against him/her? What about murders?
All I'm talking about is how to unpack what people mean when they use ethics-related words.
You are saying "ought" means X, and Angurse is saying "ought" means Y. But obviously people use it to mean both X and Y, so I don't think arguing back and forth about that will get anywhere.
Laughing Man:Natural rights doesn't deal with just a singular person though. It is not dependent on them.
If it is universal then it has to. If they aren't universal then it isn't objective.
Laughing Man:So why can we not use reason [ which you say is objective ] to discover truths about the human race?
I've said multiple times that you can use reason.
Laughing Man:What is best for man's nature is an environment in which he can discover and mold their conscious preferences and goals. Such an environment is provided by liberty and when one violates the property of another, then one is retarding the ability of such an environment. They are purposely squelching the ability of human development. Since they have no right to this based on logic and reason, then why should they be allowed to?
Now you are merely asserting something, prove it.
If my goal is to rape women. That clearly isn't best for me.
Laughing Man:I meant it in terms of efficiency. What if man wants socialism? The utter destruction of all things? You have no basis to combat that.
Sure we do. Economics. The impossibility of socialism has been shown repeatedly through logical vigor and empiricism. Natural rights just isn't necessary nor sufficient. Its easy enough to demonstrate:
Person A: Everyone hand over all their money
Person B: Why?
Person A: Because not everyone can afford health care, and health care is a right.
Person B: But its my money
Person A: Everyone has a right to live, you're violating peoples rights!
Laughing Man:You have yet to show you have the right to murder me.
I never claimed that I do. But if it'll satisfy my need for happiness, natural rights would have that I continue to remain unhappy. Which certainly wouldn't be in man's best nature to live unhappily. The natural rights idea simply cannot be objective.
Laughing Man:Well I shall ask you what you told me. What if I want to murder you and you want to open a flower shop?
The answer is "though shit wanna-be-murderer. We don't care about your 'rights.'"
Wilderness, do you intentionally pack your posts with non-answers, horse shit, insults, rambling and non-sequitars?
Lets see these damn axioms that prove NR. I've only asked for this... what this entire thread now? And you're the "intellectual" here it shouldn't be so damned difficult.
Angurse:If it is universal then it has to. If they aren't universal then it isn't objective.
You are saying that if it is to be universal, then it must be dependent on the individual interpretations of a singular individual? That makes no sense, you are saying that for it to be universal, it must be subjective.
Angurse:I've said multiple times that you can use reason.
Ok but why can't we use reason to discover objective truths about humanity?
Angurse:Now you are merely asserting something, prove it.
Under liberty one has the ability to choose the lifestyle and goal preferences that allow for an individual to flourish.
Angurse:If my goal is to rape women. That clearly isn't best for me.
Well why do you feel it is in your nature to rape?
Angurse:Sure we do. Economics.
A positive science with no normative statements. You can say to people prosperity is achieved under capitalism but not that people should want prosperity.
Angurse: The impossibility of socialism has been shown repeatedly through logical vigor and empiricism
The impossibility of rational economic calculation. Yet you assume that people want economic calculation, under your theory, you have no grounds to say such a thing because that would show there is an objective ethic towards humanity [ prosperity is a good thing ]
Angurse: Person A: Everyone hand over all their money Person B: Why? Person A: Because not everyone can afford health care, and health care is a right. Person B: But its my money Person A: Everyone has a right to live, you're violating peoples rights!
That clearly contradicts natural rights. It is not a system of positive liberties such as healthcare, shelter and food for they contradict the very premise of self-ownership and private property.
Angurse:I never claimed that I do. But if it'll satisfy my need for happiness, natural rights would have that I continue to remain unhappy. Which certainly wouldn't be in man's best nature to live unhappily. The natural rights idea simply cannot be objective.
So you are mad that people are not allowed to have their destructive fantasies because a system of rights which disallowed coercion?
Angurse:The answer is "though shit wanna-be-murderer. We don't care about your 'rights.'"
So by what institution do you claim to be defending yourself? Self-ownership?
Angurse, it would 'burden your shoulders' too much. I'm moving on to more constructive and creative activities. In the Aristotelian sense, find your own premises dialectician.
Laughing Man:You are saying that if it is to be universal, then it must be dependent on the individual interpretations of a singular individual? That makes no sense, you are saying that for it to be universal, it must be subjective.
No. I'm saying if its really objective then it must be universal (like math, logic, etc..). But that simply cannot be due the desires of men varying so wildly.
Laughing Man:Ok but why can't we use reason to discover objective truths about humanity?
I didn't say you couldn't. In fact, all I've done is ask for proof of objective ethics, (which is obviously supposed to be an objective truth)
Laughing Man:Under liberty one has the ability to choose the lifestyle and goal preferences that allow for an individual to flourish.
Then I can murder you.
Laughing Man:Well why do you feel it is in your nature to rape?
Doesn't matter. Oh, say, Its the only thing that makes me happy, its the only way I can flourish.
Laughing Man:The impossibility of rational economic calculation. Yet you assume that people want economic calculation, under your theory, you have no grounds to say such a thing because that would show there is an objective ethic towards humanity [ prosperity is a good thing ]
It doesn't matter if you want economic calculation. The error exists. We know it exists. You can't want it away.
Laughing Man:That clearly contradicts natural rights. It is not a system of positive liberties such as healthcare, shelter and food for they contradict the very premise of self-ownership and private property.
So people don't have the right to life then, as they (food, shelter) are all needed to live.
Laughing Man:So you are mad that people are not allowed to have their destructive fantasies because a system of rights which disallowed coercion?
Mad? Not at all. The system of rights just favours one group over another. Which makes it at odds with objectivity.
Laughing Man:So by what institution do you claim to be defending yourself? Self-ownership?
Guns. Reputation. Money. And more guns.
wilderness:Angurse, it would 'burden your shoulders' too much. I'm moving on to more constructive and creative activities. In the Aristotelian sense, find your own premises dialectician.
Its on your shoulders Wilderness, not mine. So take a break and put it down.
Angurse, you know you're not going to get a straight answer because there isn't one. All of the involved parties are too entrenched to admit that they cannot prove their objective position.
I think you've given them ample opportunity to do so.
you assume too much of me as you respond to Ang's response to me. as i've stated throughout this thread and in the past repeatedly, i'm not into these little class conflicts of subjectivists v. objectivists. i think the tendency to get caught up in these semantic games, at times, has one forget the forest for the trees or the trees for the forest - either way. so you can continue to label what you assume of others, notably "objective position", or become more accurate than assumptive. ultimately you are at liberty to do as you choose obviously.
wilderness:you assume too much of me as you respond to Ang's response to me.
I could have responded to any of his posts. Your response (or lack thereof) to him wasn't necessary to make the comment I made. He's asked you, Juan and LM to prove your position.
As lilburne noted, more fruitful discussion has occurred between these two "factions" elsewhere with Zavoi and AJ being able to actually engage one another without histrionics or increasing divergence.
wilderness:so you can continue to label what you assume of others, notably "objective position",
Regardless of the label, if you're really concerned with progress you'll either withdraw or prove your position, whatever it is, whatever you call it.
Peace.
Angurse:Rasmussen, Osterfeld, Rothbard, Aquinas, Spooner, Aristotle, Long, Hobbes, Van Dun, and a whole slew of other theorists from different periods. They differ - whos right?
(Remember Juan, ethics are only opinions)
Angurse: Juan: Your non-argument is the most used non-argument in the skeptics' bag of tricks. You seem to believe that since some people fail to grasp truth, truth doesn't exist. Lame. Good point. (Do you have a point?)
Juan: Your non-argument is the most used non-argument in the skeptics' bag of tricks. You seem to believe that since some people fail to grasp truth, truth doesn't exist. Lame.
Angurse: Juan: What the dictionary shows, for starters, is that your take on the concept of morality is not consistent and that reducing morality to aesthetics is, get this, a philosophical position and a very lame one. Please quote this dictionary.
Juan: What the dictionary shows, for starters, is that your take on the concept of morality is not consistent and that reducing morality to aesthetics is, get this, a philosophical position and a very lame one.
Angurse: Juan: Except that the concept of 'crime' is only meaningful within an ethical system. Well, lets just Ignore the entire concept of law (civil, contract, common, tort, property, etc).
Juan: Except that the concept of 'crime' is only meaningful within an ethical system.
Angurse:Already answered. "Math not being tangible doesn't mean its subjective." Its a science,
Angurse:It doesn't change from person to person.
Angurse:It can be verified.
Angurse:And as I've already stated, I'm not a materialist.
Angurse:I didn't challenge objective ethics with the claim "where are they" I asked for proof of them.