LS:Angurse, you know you're not going to get a straight answer because there isn't one.
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."
Angurse: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.
So basic desires such as life and liberty are not universal?
Angurse: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)
Well when I say reason asks for liberty to develop goals and fulfill desires, you suddenly go off on a subjective escapade.
Angurse:Then I can murder you
Why? That doesn't cause a flourishing. How are you developing by committing murder? It is in fact a devolution in man.
Angurse:Doesn't matter. Oh, say, Its the only thing that makes me happy, its the only way I can flourish.
Why you act doesn't matter? Now you are just being intellectually dishonest.
Angurse:It doesn't matter if you want economic calculation. The error exists. We know it exists. You can't want it away.
But you presuppose that people want calculation. There can be someone so devoted to irrational economics that they will not be convinced by your comments about how capitalism is an efficient system.
Angurse:So people don't have the right to life then, as they (food, shelter) are all needed to live.
The right to life is just a phrase meant a life freedom from coercion in which they can act out their goals. You don't have the right to be a parasite and the lives of others do not exist to sustain my own.
Angurse:Mad? Not at all. The system of rights just favours one group over another. Which makes it at odds with objectivity.
It favors rational and reason over irrational delusions. Irrationality is like a mutation found in nature. It is not an accurate representation of a whole species. You cannot apply rational theory to those incapable of understanding it.
Angurse:Guns. Reputation. Money. And more guns.
So 'might makes right'
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Laughing Man:Why? That doesn't cause a flourishing. How are you developing by committing murder? It is in fact a devolution in man.
Maybe, maybe not. But at the end of the day, if I am going to commit murder the only thing you can do about it is to persuade me that it's not in my self interest. If I tell you that I've made my cost benefit calculation and I think that putting a slug in a guy to get his car is worth a bit of flourishing then you've got to step aside and admit that neither you nor anybody else has any "right" to stop me.
Like I said, you can appeal to my own self interest, but nobody has any right to complain when I say it's in my self interest to cap the guy. Of course, you can pull out your piece and threaten me in the hope that adding the costs of getting the guy's car will persuade me not to. However, now it seems we're back in the realm of "might makes right" that you so ardently oppose.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton:If I tell you that I've made my cost benefit calculation and I think that putting a slug in a guy to get his car is worth a bit of flourishing then you've got to step aside and admit that neither you nor anybody else has any "right" to stop me.
I can tell the person you are after, and if I am so devout in my belief that what you are doing is wrong, then I can follow you around and wait to become the agent of the person you intent to hurt in order to help them combat you. This is obviously an extreme but it is possible.
GilesStratton:Maybe, maybe not. But at the end of the day, if I am going to commit murder, you might just kill me.
Killing people is okay to you, so where is your coherent objection to being killed?
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Laughing Man: GilesStratton:If I tell you that I've made my cost benefit calculation and I think that putting a slug in a guy to get his car is worth a bit of flourishing then you've got to step aside and admit that neither you nor anybody else has any "right" to stop me. I can tell the person you are after, and if I am so devote in my belief that what you are doing is wrong, then I can follow you around and wait to become the agent of the person you indeed to hurt in order to help them combat you. This is obviously an extreme but it is possible.
I can tell the person you are after, and if I am so devote in my belief that what you are doing is wrong, then I can follow you around and wait to become the agent of the person you indeed to hurt in order to help them combat you. This is obviously an extreme but it is possible.
Of course you can. I never disputed what you can do, if you really want to can call the guy up and tell him that some crazy guy who clearly doesn't care for his "flourishing" wants his ride. My point concerned what you have a right to do, and I don't believe you have a right to stop me, which as I pointed out gets as back to "might makes right", at least as far as interpersonal ethics goes.
E. R. Olovetto:Killing people is okay to you, so where is your coherent objection to being killed?
It's not OK to me in the slightest, it goes against my religious beliefs and I think anybody capable of murder in cold blood has something wrong with them. Now, to answer your question, my objection to being killed needn't be any stronger than "I know a whole lot of people are going to miss me and I wouldn't want to impose them on that".
GilesStratton:My point concerned what you have a right to do, and I don't believe you have a right to stop me, which as I pointed out gets as back to "might makes right", at least as far as interpersonal ethics goes.
I cannot stopped you because you haven't done anything wrong. You just said 'Oh man I could really kill a person', saying something like that isn't a rights violation. However, if you said that and pointed a gun at someone, I could be within my right to stop you.
But at the end of the day, if I am going to commit murder the only thing you can do about it is to persuade me that it's not in my self interest.
Juan:But at the end of the day, if I am going to commit murder the only thing you can do about it is to persuade me that it's not in my self interest. Persuade you? You miss the point, on purpose. The best thing may be to simply shoot you. Now, what matters is that shooting you is justified, whereas your criminal act is not.
Well I wouldn't go that far because it opens the door to all sorts of preemptive violence and violates the NAP.
Paging G-Isles
Juan:Well, if A ("I am going to commit murder") is trying to kill B, it looks as if B is justified in killing A...
Well if A says I'm going to kill you and draws a gun then I think it is justified.
Juan:What's the connection between totalitarians like aristotle, hobbes and aquinas with libertarianism ? Again, you think that by invoking the mistakes of people who pretend to speak in terms of natural justice, you prove that natural justice doesn't exist ?
What are you rambling about? Who has correctly spoken about natural justice?
Angurse:They differ - whos right?
Juan: If you can't tell the difference between aquinas and hobbes in one hand, and spooner in the other, that's your problem. But your mental limitations are not a proof against common sense morality.
Angurse:They differ
Is it now being called common sense morality?
Juan:Oh wait. You just asserted, again, that people making mistakes means truth doesn't exist. Won't you tire of repeating the old same fallacy ?
Where? I asserted that their mistakes means truth doesn't exist where? When I asked you who was right?
Juan:Yes sonny and I already made it - the point is : your childish skepticism will get you nowhere.
Oh, yes. A mere assertion without any sort of evidence. I guess I'll call that a "Juan point."
Juan:No, you quote the dictionary that says that morality and aesthetics are synonyms. Or else admit that your conflation of the two concepts is nonsense.
No. You quote the dictionary that says morality is objective.
Juan:Or else admit that your conflation of the two concepts is nonsense.
Juan:Huh? You mean, let's pretend that justice == legal positivism ?
Yeah because every conflict in the world can be solved by a vague idea that hasn't ever been proven or agreed upon. Why don't we just wait for god to help us.
Juan:What is a science ?
"Juan answer" Not morals.
Laughing Man:It favors rational and reason over irrational delusions. Irrationality is like a mutation found in nature. It is not an accurate representation of a whole species.
Thank you. You've admitted that there isn't such a thing as objective ethics. Maybe there is "ethics that average people agree with" or "common sense ethics: but objective ethics no.
They differ
GilesStratton: E. R. Olovetto:Killing people is okay to you, so where is your coherent objection to being killed? It's not OK to me in the slightest, it goes against my religious beliefs and I think anybody capable of murder in cold blood has something wrong with them. Now, to answer your question, my objection to being killed needn't be any stronger than "I know a whole lot of people are going to miss me and I wouldn't want to impose them on that".
Hold up. You hate murder in cold blood but advocate the initiation of aggression as right and good {in some cases}, no?
I know a lot of people who would miss my fish tacos. What an oppressor you are to deprive people of my tacos JUST because I murdered someone or instituted a system of robbery.
awaiting your coherence,
E
Juan:Okay, I'm not wasting more time with a bright guy like you. You named a bunch of philosophers (and clowns) such as hobbes, aquinas, spooner and you added that "they differ". Right. So? Marx, hitler and the pope differ too. What of it ?
I named several natural rights philosophers and asked you who was right? If anyone? You still haven't answered. You still haven't even said what they are.
Juan:Nope, you quote the dictionary that says morality == aesthetics. Have you ever looked at a dictionary ? They usually provide lists of synonyms. Since, according to you, it's a fact that aesthetics and morality are the same thing, it must be well documented by all dictionaries.
Nope, you quote the dictionary that says morality == science.
GilesStratton:Maybe, maybe not. But at the end of the day, if I am going to commit murder the only thing you can do about it is to persuade me that it's not in my self interest. If I tell you that I've made my cost benefit calculation and I think that putting a slug in a guy to get his car is worth a bit of flourishing then you've got to step aside and admit that neither you nor anybody else has any "right" to stop me.
You might want to start thinking really hard if this is the place for you.
Angurse:Nope, you quote the dictionary that says morality == science.
I thought you were done?
Juan:So, please, show where such basic 'fact' is documented.
The same place where it says humour == personal aesthetics. History and common sense.
Juan: By the way, you can also show a dictionary definition of morality that states that morality is just 'subjective preference'...
How about you show where it states that morality is objective. (How about you answer a single question?)
You're all missing my point in the exact same way, so let me try spelling it out again (by the way, my criticism is solely aimed against the natural law, virtue ethicists).
If I'm adamant that I'm going to shoot somebody for my gang initiation and I tell you this, your attempts to persuade me must be in the form "killing will be immoral because it goes against your nature or flourishing or whatever", what you cannot do is say "you can't kill because he has rights that no man may violate".
In response the former I can say "I'm a G, what use do I have for that shit? I don't want to flourish that shit sounds gay" and you're done, in response to the latter I just have to bite the bullet and admit I'm violating his rights if I want to do it.
I suppose my point is that if virtue ethics are correct, and I don't think they are, the ethicist essentially becomes just another person to fit in your weekly routine with your personal trainer and psychologist; the virtue ethicist is just somebody you can ask for advice with respect to a given end.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Well, there's ethics, which is the branch of praxeology (science) dealing with morals.
It deals with ethics but....
Adam Knott:Specifically, praxeology has not succeeded to date, in arriving at cause and effect laws in the social-ethical realm. In the strictly scientific sense as understood by praxeology, there are no known laws of ethical phenomena akin to the various economic laws established since the beginning of economic science several centuries ago.
Its yet to be shown how far praxeology can extend.
Juan: LS:Angurse, you know you're not going to get a straight answer because there isn't one. Actually the problem is that there are no sensible answers to stupid questions...
Haha! Good one Juan. The questions you can't answer are stupid. Priceless.
liberty student: 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.
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.
I don't need to provide my capital of premises to you. Find your own. I understand no matter what I say you will act in a dialectical manner trying to deduce what I say. You will use my deduction as your premise of negation or affirmation. Meanwhile I've not even professed I'm being objective, but you assume I am. I haven't even stated if I'm being subjective, but you assume I'm not. Yet I have explicitly pointed out my position isn't stuck in this class conflict, but Ang and you pull it back to something (s v. o) I am not apart of.
liberty student: 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.
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.
And I am proud of them for going about it that way. It's worth a mention, but it's not anything that considers special pleading. Lot's of conversations in this forum are informative and constructive. I only want to know what fruits are emerging out of this relational conflict. Not a conflict that opposes the NAP, of course not, but a relational conflict that intellectually I find to be dry and unfruitful, as fruit is something I am looking for if you get my drift. In other words, is this s v. o that you delineate productive for you? If it is, then that's enough for me to go on. I've opted out of this a long time ago, and though I've gotten swept up in the mess at times, I now have been able to pull out of this wreckage with what I had before ever coming to these forums. That is something of a better quality that isn't hung-up on class conflicts. I'm not necessarily, possible, but not necessarily saying you or anybody is stuck or hung-up on anything, unless of course you want to continue to pull the discussion back to something I've already identified to Ang. And that is I'm not necessarily being objective nor subjective. Those are too narrow to fit what I understand.
liberty student: 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.
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.
Withdraw from what? Prove what? And yes, I haven't called it anything other than, it's not of this class conflict. That I do know.
and peace to you
Angurse:Thank you. You've admitted that there isn't such a thing as objective ethics. Maybe there is "ethics that average people agree with" or "common sense ethics: but objective ethics no.
Well if that is your tenet for objective anything then the supply and demand chart is completely subjective due to the fact there are people who believe in post-scarcity. The impossibility of socialist calculation is subjective because there is right now a group of people who believe it is possible. There is nothing in the world that everyone agrees to so everything is completely subjective according to that premise. Welcome to the world of nihilism.
GilesStratton:You're all missing my point in the exact same way
Angurse:It deals with ethics but....
wilderness:I don't need to provide my capital of premises to you.
You don't need to do anything. And yet you keep doing things.
Laughing Man: Well if that is your tenet for objective anything then the supply and demand chart is completely subjective due to the fact there are people who believe in post-scarcity.
Well if that is your tenet for objective anything then the supply and demand chart is completely subjective due to the fact there are people who believe in post-scarcity.
Thank you for conceding, I'm glad you finally see the light. But once again you've committed the same error as before. Just because people believe in post-scarcity doesn't mean anything. You cannot believe scarcity away. Its an objective fact of life.
liberty student: wilderness:I don't need to provide my capital of premises to you. You don't need to do anything. And yet you keep doing things.
Action is an axiom of human nature.
Angurse:Thank you for conceding, I'm glad you finally see the light. But once again you've committed the same error as before. Just because people believe in post-scarcity doesn't mean anything. You cannot believe scarcity away. Its an objective fact of life
People try to live in a post-scarcity world. The fact that they do such a thing shows that they can violate the law of supply and demand.
Knight_of_BAAWA:But nothing. Morality deals with the group-rules of human interaction. How we deal with each other. How we act. What we may and may not do as far as acting goes wrt others. It is an action-based concept.
In a descriptive sense not prescriptive (which has been my focal point.) But even in a descriptive sense morality is ever changing and still comes from the conscience.
Laughing Man:People try to live in a post-scarcity world. The fact that they do such a thing shows that they can violate the law of supply and demand.
They try. They fail. Laws always win.
Angurse:They try. They fail. Laws always win.
Well they can commit the action like murderers can commit murder. Now according to you, since murders have the ability to murder people then they can deny objective ethics. By logical extension, because people can live in a post-scarcity community would mean they defy the law of demand.
Laughing Man:Well they can commit the action like murderers can commit murder. Now according to you, since murders have the ability to murder people then they can deny objective ethics. By logical extension, because people can live in a post-scarcity community would mean they defy the law of demand.
Strawman. *Yawn*
I think it follows. If you feel it doesn't please explain. Anguse's argument was that since man can murder that then means that objective ethics are not universal in the sense it can be transgressed. The laws of economics can be transgressed. People can totally disavow the premise of supply and demand by believing and acting as if we are in a post-scarcity. Therefore not everyone believes in supply and demand, therefore it is not universal by Anguse's very argument. And Anguse did say that economics is objective.
But I am growing tired of this discussion and I think Anguse is too. Anguse, let us agree to disagree on this subject?
Thats not a logical extension. Its a just fabrication. People cannot live in a post-scarcity community. Scarcity is unavoidable.
Laughing Man:I think it follows. If you feel it doesn't please explain. Anguse's argument was that since man can murder that then means that objective ethics are not universal in the sense it can be transgressed. The laws of economics can be transgressed. People can totally disavow the premise of supply and demand by believing and acting as if we are in a post-scarcity. Therefore not everyone believes in supply and demand, therefore it is not universal by Anguse's very argument. And Anguse did say that economics is objective.
The laws of economics can't be transgressed any more than the laws of physics. Even for the sake of argument we pretend that there are no economic laws such actions would still result in failure. As scarcity just points out that resources are limited. But pretending they aren't won't change the conservation of mass.
Laughing Man:But I am growing tired of this discussion and I think Anguse is too. Anguse, let us agree to disagree on this subject?
there isn't anything more to discuss, you've already conceded.