Lilburne:So I suppose that means you now recognize your error.
False. You suppose about me wrongly. It probably means you are actually trying to understand me and not drawing the debate into semantic quibbling.
wilderness:What do you mean by objective and what do you think realism means?
I'm referring to objectivist ethics/moral realism. For both terms I mean any doctrine according to which normative statements can be verified or refuted.
wilderness:I am saying that I believe objective ethics to be true because I as an individual know by evidence that they are true.
What evidence is that?
wilderness:until you can show me what an axiom is without reverting to logical deductions I don't think I continue this discussion as it is a key term.
axiom: statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true
wilderness:question 1: I do think it is the most accurate conception. question 2: Negative demonstrations
Do you mean argumentation ethics?
wilderness: Lilburne:So I suppose that means you now recognize your error. False. You suppose about me wrongly. It probably means you are actually trying to understand me and not drawing the debate into semantic quibbling.
wilderness:I believe my preference is correct.
and then in response to my statement...
Lilburne:"(...)a preference itself can neither be correct nor incorrect."
Statement II:
wilderness: "(...)truism are awesome!
"(...)truism are awesome!
What's Wrong with Libertarianism by Jeffrey Friedman is a brilliant critique: Libertarianism is essentially vacuous Enlightenment nonsense.
“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre
Libertay:What's Wrong with Libertarianism by Jeffrey Friedman is a brilliant critique: Libertarianism is essentially vacuous Enlightenment nonsense.
How reminiscient of your "critique" of argumentation ethics I suggested to some random person not posting here now. And I quote:
Libertay:Lol.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
It follows that a portion of vacuous enlightenment nonsense might also be vacuous enlightenment nonsense.
kool?
Liberte: What's Wrong with Libertarianism by Jeffrey Friedman is a brilliant critique: Libertarianism is essentially vacuous Enlightenment nonsense.
"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:I'm referring to objectivist ethics/moral realism. For both terms I mean any doctrine according to which normative statements can be verified or refuted.
What do you mean by "normative"?
Lilburne:What evidence is that?
If it is ok with you, I am not talking in terms of subjective or objective anymore in this discussion between you and I. I may in the future, but at this point, I think it only inhibits our exchange. I refuse. Sorry. I was talking with somebody else in terms of objective and subjective, which you quoted and started this exchange, but that was with them. I am talking with you now. It is different. I am making this decision based on our usual discussions that tend to wonder around terms instead of getting to what we actually mean. Maybe it's partially my fault so I want to stop it now. Fair?
Now to answer you're question. My evidence is my person.
Lilburne:axiom: statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true
If you mean the axiom can only be stated in words, then I disagree. I'm only guessing because I don't know what you mean by proposition and last time I tried to explain to you what I meant you falsely accused me of confusing words and evidence.
My take: Axioms are empirically grounded as well as being able to be put into words. The words reference the evidence (empirical grounding). Other words for axiom is common sense, primitive sense, intuition, assumptions, and yes self-evidently true.
Lilburne:Do you mean argumentation ethics?
Not necessarily.
Lilburne:How are statements I and II (below) of yours non-contradictory? Statement I:
Lilburne:"(...)a preference itself can neither be correct nor incorrect." Statement II:
In the first statement I meant: I was using fact synonymously as correct, meaning, my preference is a fact. In other words, my preference is.
In the second statement I meant: Everybody is doing what their preferences are.
That's what I mean.
wilderness:What do you mean by "normative"?
From Wikipedia: "In philosophy, normative statements affirm how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, which actions are right or wrong."
wilderness:Now to answer you're question. My evidence is my person.
How is your person evidence that normative utterances can be verified or refuted?
wilderness: Lilburne:Do you mean argumentation ethics? Not necessarily.
Nitroadict: Liberte: What's Wrong with Libertarianism by Jeffrey Friedman is a brilliant critique: Libertarianism is essentially vacuous Enlightenment nonsense. I should give this a read myself since I also find myself disagreeing more & more with the Rationalism that the Enlightment is usually famous for, but i don't anticipate it giving a huge dent into libertarianism.
On the self-ownership part he also completely misunderstands coercion. He thinks coercion = violence, not coercion = violence against innocent people. I'm not a libertarian, but this piece really didn't strike me as something Austro-libertarians couldn't easily come back at.
Liberte: It is metaphysical, but I wouldn't consider it 'speculation'. I base it on Aristotle's elentic proof of non-contradiction, that if things were not either the case or not the case then the logical non-contradiction (p or not p) could not be possible. Since there is logic, there is ontological non-contradiction. That combined with Aristotle's materialism, that for a thing to exist is to have properties (if it had no properties it would not be the thing that it is, and therefore nothing at all, i.e., law of excluded middle).
It is metaphysical, but I wouldn't consider it 'speculation'. I base it on Aristotle's elentic proof of non-contradiction, that if things were not either the case or not the case then the logical non-contradiction (p or not p) could not be possible. Since there is logic, there is ontological non-contradiction. That combined with Aristotle's materialism, that for a thing to exist is to have properties (if it had no properties it would not be the thing that it is, and therefore nothing at all, i.e., law of excluded middle).
Arrangements in my internal, private world have properties, like vividness or severity.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
Lilburne:From Wikipedia: "In philosophy, normative statements affirm how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, which actions are right or wrong."
Ok, thank you. This is what I'm saying. In this possible world a society, ie. aggregrate of individuals, found a law to maintain the society. The society decides to maintain economic action by protecting private property and human existence. The starting point or axiom of such a society is therefore the human existence and private property. This is where all the laws will start from in such a society in order to found it and maintain what the society has decided on maintaining, ie. economic action in the Miseian sense. Since the society has decided in this possible world to maintain these foundations of said society, ie. human existence and private property, then this is what the society has determined the individuals within said society ought to do. It starts with preferences. The society begins with these preferences on how a society is to become. How this has evolved isn't being discussed at this point, what is being discussed is that in this possible world this is what the society has decided to maintain. The law based on these foundations of protecting human existence and private property are the axioms that all subsequent laws will be logically deducted from. The initial axioms are not necessarily deducted. They are established on preferences on how the society has come to realize it will need to establish itself. The society establishes laws or norms, ie. private property and human existence, and then maintains these essentials by maintaning these ought to be the norms in order for continued existence of said society.
Lilburne:How is your person evidence that normative statements can be verified or refuted?
As a person I hold the view of the above society that I transcribed as being possible. It can be verified by those individuals in the world who are also maintaining argumentatively and bodily human existence and private property. It is being refuted by those individuals in the world who are not maintaining human existence and private property. Both of these are established by the preferences of the two different types of people. Both are also showing evidence to their particular cause. The first by actual maintenance in their everyday lives. The second by destroying the human existence of the first and destroying, stealing, or simply trying to live a life that tries to establish itself by non-private property means, ie. tribalism maybe or socialist efforts.
Lilburne:What other negative demonstration(s) are you referring to?
Those that are presupposed before argumentation (which is argumentation ethics), and therefore they are also presupposed in everything people do, such as human action. Argumentation is an act as well as walking is an act or sitting, etc.... The underlying act is presupposed in all of these. Thus human action as well as the axiom of person or scarcity each imply each other and are therefore negatively demonstrated by all people whether they know it or not because even to attempt to refute them in argumentation or simply acting, human action, person, and scarcity are negatively demonstrated. But of course some people will still try to refute by bodily action (kill somebody) or by argumentation, but simply because a person killed another person doesn't mean human action has been refuted. For one, the killer is still alive and acting.
wilderness: Ok, thank you. This is what I'm saying. In this possible world a society, ie. aggregrate of individuals, found a law to maintain the society. The society decides to maintain economic action by protecting private property and human existence. The starting point or axiom of such a society is therefore the human existence and private property. This is where all the laws will start from in such a society in order to found it and maintain what the society has decided on maintaining, ie. economic action in the Miseian sense. Since the society has decided in this possible world to maintain these foundations of said society, ie. human existence and private property, then this is what the society has determined the individuals within said society ought to do. It starts with preferences. The society begins with these preferences on how a society is to become. How this has evolved isn't being discussed at this point, what is being discussed is that in this possible world this is what the society has decided to maintain. The law based on these foundations of protecting human existence and private property are the axioms that all subsequent laws will be logically deducted from. The initial axioms are not necessarily deducted. They are established on preferences on how the society has come to realize it will need to establish itself. The society establishes laws or norms, ie. private property and human existence, and then maintains these essentials by maintaning these ought to be the norms in order for continued existence of said society.
wilderness: Lilburne:How is your person evidence that normative statements can be verified or refuted? As a person I hold the view of the above society that I transcribed as being possible. It can be verified by those individuals in the world who are also maintaining argumentatively and bodily human existence and private property. It is being refuted by those individuals in the world who are not maintaining human existence and private property.
As a person I hold the view of the above society that I transcribed as being possible. It can be verified by those individuals in the world who are also maintaining argumentatively and bodily human existence and private property. It is being refuted by those individuals in the world who are not maintaining human existence and private property.
wilderness:Those that are presupposed before argumentation (which is argumentation ethics), and therefore they are also presupposed in everything people do, such as human action. Argumentation is an act as well as walking is an act or sitting, etc.... The underlying act is presupposed in all of these. Thus human action as well as the axiom of person or scarcity each imply each other and are therefore negatively demonstrated by all people whether they know it or not because even to attempt to refute them in argumentation or simply acting, human action, person, and scarcity are negatively demonstrated. But of course some people will still try to refute by bodily action (kill somebody) or by argumentation, but simply because a person killed another person doesn't mean human action has been refuted. For one, the killer is still alive and acting.
Argumentation does indeed imply human action. But how is that a "negative" demonstration? And what does that have to do with moral realism (the doctrine that normative statements can be verified/refuted)? And how is it that killing another person is attempting "refute" them or their action. Are you being poetical, or do you really think a killer in murdering someone is really attempting a "refutation"?
Yep, and yet it still seems to be 'another common charge' from certain individuals around here...
"Another common charge is that natural-law theorists differ among themselves, and that therefore all natural-law theories must be discarded. This charge comes with peculiar ill grace when it comes, as it often does, from utilitarian economists. For economics has been a notoriously contentious science - and yet few people advocate tossing all economics therefore into the discard. Furthermore, difference of opinion is no excuse for discarding all sides to a dispute; the responsible person is the one who uses his reason to examine the various contentions and make up his own mind.[22] He does not simply say a priori, "a plague on all your houses!" The fact of man's reason does not mean that error is impossible. Even such "hard" sciences as physics and chemistry have had their errors and their fervent disputes.[23] No man is omniscient or infallible - a law, by the way, of man's nature." - MNR
[22] And there is a further point: the very existence of a difference of opinion seems to imply that there is something objective about which disagreement can take place; for otherwise, there would be no contradictions in the different "opinions" and no worry about these conflicts. For a similar argument in refutation of moral subjectivism see G.E. Moore, Ethics (Oxford, 1963 [1912)), pp. 63ff. [23] The psychologist Leonard Carmichael, in "Absolutes, Relativism and the Scientific Psychology of Human Nature," in H. Schoeck and J. Wiggins, eds., Relativism and the Study of Man (Princeton, N.J.: 1). Van Nostrand, 1961), p. 16, writes:
We do not turn aside from what we know about astronomy at any time because there is a great deal we do not know, or because so much that we once thought we knew is no longer recognized as true. May not the same argument be accepted in our thinking about ethical and esthetic judgments?
Conza88:Yep, and yet it still seems to be 'another common charge' from certain individuals around here...
Where did anyone here say the diversity of views sharing the name "natural law" is itself grounds for dismissal?
this is why we can't have nice things
Lilburne, I think they may be addressing me (since I made a comment about conflicting theories of natural rights). I didn't insist that because there are different theories they all must be false. I was simply asking how I am to judge one theory against another. Specifically, a way to verify or falsify them so I can choose the best one. If I have no reason to believe that one of them is more likely to be true than any other, then I will assume they are all equally likely to be true (an application of the indifference principle).
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
Natural rights theorists don't really agree on what they mean, I have no problem with him having his own pet theory.
But they agree on certain things about it.
Solid_Choke: Lilburne, I think they may be addressing me (since I made a comment about conflicting theories of natural rights). I didn't insist that because there are different theories they all must be false. I was simply asking how I am to judge one theory against another. Specifically, a way to verify or falsify them so I can choose the best one. If I have no reason to believe that one of them is more likely to be true than any other, then I will assume they are all equally likely to be true (an application of the indifference principle).
Yeah, and the answer was provided in the quote already given.
Conza88, which part of that quote gave me instructions for verifying or falsifying one or more of the different natural rights theories, so that I can compare them and determine which is the most likely to be true? If it contains no such thing, then the answer was not provided.
You didn't explicitly ask for instructions.
"who uses his reason to examine the various contentions and make up his own mind"
Is what I was getting at. Guess it wasn't clear, I accidently left out the top bit of the quote;
"One common, flip criticism by opponents of natural law is: who is to establish the alleged truths about man? The answer is not who but what: man's reason. Man's reason is objective, i.e., it can be employed by all men to yield truths about the world. To ask what is man's nature is to invite the answer. Go thou and study and find out! It is as if one man were to assert that the nature of copper were open to rational investigation and a critic were to challenge him to "prove" this immediately by setting forth on the spot all the laws that have been discovered about copper."
Lilburne:Okay, the difficulty I have with conceiving of that hypothetical world is that societies don't "decide" or have "preferences": only individuals do.
Don't you know that a society is an aggregrate of individuals? When I first used the word society in that possible world I even gave you the definition. (1) You don't realize that a society is an aggregrate of individuals yourself (2) You do not read my posts carefully
Lilburne:Do you think normative utterances can be verified or refuted?
I don't know what you're asking.
Lilburne:Argumentation does indeed imply human action. But how is that a "negative" demonstration? And what does that have to do with moral realism (the doctrine that normative statements can be verified/refuted)? And how is it that killing another person is attempting "refute" them or their action. Are you being poetical, or do you really think a killer in murdering someone is really attempting a "refutation"?
This is very difficult to discuss with you because of (1) and (2) above, and (1). Also, you don't know what certain philosophical terms mean, which would be perfectly fine if we were not in the ca. 100th post in which I've used these same terms with you and now, I mean, now by Scott, you ask me what these terms mean and what they have to do with certain things. This is uncanny for any one person in my opinion. And no these are not poems, this is philosophy. Are you being serious or are you just pulling my chain this whole this time?
I will await for answers to the above questions because I have been using these same words for so long this is quite... I can't even think of a word.... After all of this time can you not see why I react this way? I don't know if you are trying to waste my time on purpose because you know I am dedicated to philosophy. Please clarifiy the above if this is to continue.
- Thank You.
Solid_Choke:Conza88, which part of that quote gave me instructions for verifying or falsifying one or more of the different natural rights theories, so that I can compare them and determine which is the most likely to be true? If it contains no such thing, then the answer was not provided.
I thought I answered this for you. Did you get back to me? I forget.
Conza88 quoting:"who uses his reason to examine the various contentions and make up his own mind...it can be employed by all men to yield truths about the world.
Exactly what I have been saying. I have also been saying of recent since it appears, in my opinion, that some posters like to pick the brains of others quite often instead of using their reason, I have been defining natural law as thinking for one self or learning how to fish on your own.
It is not a comment that is to stir offense. Quite the opposite. It is a comment of self-reliance in which individual responsibility is not to be forgotten. At essence it is what the idea of a society without a gov't relies upon, some people that can think on their own. I say this with all the love I possess which is a lot.
Marko:But they agree on certain things about it.
That's very true Marko. Very true.
Your 'private, internal world' are also real objects. They are precisely states and distributions of the pattern-machine that makes up consciousness. You are the case of being a particular pattern machine.
Liberte: Your 'private, internal world' are also real objects. They are precisely states and distributions of the pattern-machine that makes up consciousness. You are the case of being a particular pattern machine.
That was my point, yes.
Liberte:Your 'private, internal world' are also real objects.
Well said. I have been saying the same thing countless times. It's realism. So our paths cross again. Therefore, I really don't see what all the divisional attempts are by some people.
because your notion of 'natural law' is either nonsense or irrelevant.
wilderness:Don't you know that a society is an aggregrate of individuals?
Yes, and aggregates do not act, which means they don't choose or prefer either.
wilderness: Lilburne:Argumentation does indeed imply human action. But how is that a "negative" demonstration? And what does that have to do with moral realism (the doctrine that normative statements can be verified/refuted)? And how is it that killing another person is attempting "refute" them or their action. Are you being poetical, or do you really think a killer in murdering someone is really attempting a "refutation"? This is very difficult to discuss with you because of (1) and (2) above, and (1). Also, you don't know what certain philosophical terms mean, which would be perfectly fine if we were not in the ca. 100th post in which I've used these same terms with you and now, I mean, now by Scott, you ask me what these terms mean and what they have to do with certain things.
This is very difficult to discuss with you because of (1) and (2) above, and (1). Also, you don't know what certain philosophical terms mean, which would be perfectly fine if we were not in the ca. 100th post in which I've used these same terms with you and now, I mean, now by Scott, you ask me what these terms mean and what they have to do with certain things.
wilderness:After all of this time can you not see why I react this way?
React in what way? What aspect of you reaction are you referring to?
wilderness:I don't know if you are trying to waste my time on purpose because you know I am dedicated to philosophy.
People as diverse as trulib, Esuric, and ERO have expressed that these conversations have clarified things for them. So no, I don't think this has been a waste of time, nor do I want it to be.
wilderness:in my opinion, that some posters like to pick the brains of others quite often instead of using their reason
It's impossible to write anything without using reason. And isn't the whole purpose of a forum to enable thinkers to "pick the brains of others"?
Liberté: because your notion of 'natural law' is either nonsense or irrelevant.
No they aren't. Wow assertions are fun!
Liberté: Your 'private, internal world' are also real objects. They are precisely states and distributions of the pattern-machine that makes up consciousness. You are the case of being a particular pattern machine.
Oh is that all we are? Wow I guess all the people working on Strong AI are just wasting their time all we needed was a regular expression.
Liberte:because your notion of 'natural law' is either nonsense or irrelevant.
So what? I think your notions are nonsense and irrelevant.
tit-for-tat
Lilburne:Yes, and aggregates do not act, which means they don't choose or prefer either.
1 - So you don't think there is such a thing as individuals cooperating with each other. No wonder.
2 - I've used negative demonstration countless times before. Sorry you don't understand. Wish I could help.
3 - It's definitely clarified for me that you don't appreciate cooperation. You won't even recognize a society as your own words clearly state.
Lilburne:It's impossible to write anything without using reason. And isn't the whole purpose of a forum to enable thinkers to "pick the brains of others"?
Not when it gets to the point where some people fail to think on their own, and provide something meaningful. I mean you don't even think people can manage to cooperate.
Individuals do cooperate. And cooperation is an action. That only implies that individuals act (cooperate), not that societies act.