wilderness:The Nazi's took over as their legal system was based on the historical school of positivism
That's interesting because Germany is know for its historicist school of thought. You know Gustav Schmoller and his toadies.
wilderness:It's an amazing book. One of the biggest recent eye-openers for me with his history, in-depth philosophical inquiry, and the clarity in his comparison's on what is natural law and what is positivism. I could say so much more out of excitement, but I'll let it go at that. I have more to read in that book and I realize the depth and magnitude of what's happening. Much more to learn...
Haha well it seems to have wisped you away to paradise. I shall add it to my books to read list. It sounds fascinating though
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Laughing Man: wilderness:The Nazi's took over as their legal system was based on the historical school of positivism That's interesting because Germany is know for its historicist school of thought. You know Gustav Schmoller and his toadies.
I haven't heard of them or can't recollect. Here's what Rommen said of Hitler quoted from the book:
"As a practicing lawyer, Rommen watched with alarm as the Nazi party deftly used German legislative, administrative, and judicial institutions to impose totalitarian rule. 'Our modern dictators,' he remarked, 'are masters of legality. Hitler,' Rommen concluded, 'aimed not a revolution, but at a legal grasp of power according to the formal democratic processes."
Laughing Man: wilderness:It's an amazing book. One of the biggest recent eye-openers for me with his history, in-depth philosophical inquiry, and the clarity in his comparison's on what is natural law and what is positivism. I could say so much more out of excitement, but I'll let it go at that. I have more to read in that book and I realize the depth and magnitude of what's happening. Much more to learn... Haha well it seems to have wisped you away to paradise. I shall add it to my books to read list. It sounds fascinating though
lol
wilderness:I haven't heard of them or can't recollect. Here's what Rommen said of Hitler quoted from the book:
He is the individual who basically said there are no economic laws. He and Menger got off on a debate over methodology.
wilderness:"As a practicing lawyer, Rommen watched with alarm as the Nazi party deftly used German legislative, administrative, and judicial institutions to impose totalitarian rule. 'Our modern dictators,' he remarked, 'are masters of legality. Hitler,' Rommen concluded, 'aimed not a revolution, but at a legal grasp of power according to the formal democratic processes."
This reminds me of Roderick Long's paper "They Saw it coming" in which he talks about 19th century theorists seeing the raise in fascism. In it he stated and I'm paraphrasing that while Communism seeks to end any rivals to the state power, Fascists seek to ally with them. So it is interesting to see the fascists using the democratic legal system to aggrandize their power instead of causing a revolution to destroy it.
Laughing Man: wilderness:I haven't heard of them or can't recollect. Here's what Rommen said of Hitler quoted from the book: He is the individual who basically said there are no economic laws. He and Menger got off on a debate over methodology.
Oh, I did hear of him before (Gustav). yes, that tradition isn't interested in knowledge and learning what is. science doesn't germinate in such conditions.
Laughing Man: wilderness:"As a practicing lawyer, Rommen watched with alarm as the Nazi party deftly used German legislative, administrative, and judicial institutions to impose totalitarian rule. 'Our modern dictators,' he remarked, 'are masters of legality. Hitler,' Rommen concluded, 'aimed not a revolution, but at a legal grasp of power according to the formal democratic processes." This reminds me of Roderick Long's paper "They Saw it coming" in which he talks about 19th century theorists seeing the raise in fascism. In it he stated and I'm paraphrasing that while Communism seeks to end any rivals to the state power, Fascists seek to ally with them. So it is interesting to see the fascists using the democratic legal system to aggrandize their power instead of causing a revolution to destroy it.
yes, their focus is on the will - on power such as that happening inanimately (a rock needs pushed externally and they end up wanting to be the pushers of rocks/people - probably cause their society is made up of bullies and it's a game of either be dominated or be the dominator for positivists). The intellect is thrown out the window by them and abandoned. For them, it's about will and apply their will upon others - that's positivism in a nutshell. They are skeptics, moral relativist, legal positivists, and historical school, etc... advocates not trying to know what is, and simply playing king of the hill for no real reason except to apply their will. Whereas the practical reason of natural law is the unison effort of intellect and will.
wilderness: They are skeptics, moral relativist, legal positivists, and historical school, etc... advocates not trying to know what is, and simply playing king of the hill for no real reason except to apply their will. Whereas the practical reason of natural law is the unison effort of intellect and will.
I have to ask, is there any reference to Nietzche in the book? Perhaps is master values and slave values? I hear he had great influence on the Nazi regime.
Laughing Man: wilderness: They are skeptics, moral relativist, legal positivists, and historical school, etc... advocates not trying to know what is, and simply playing king of the hill for no real reason except to apply their will. Whereas the practical reason of natural law is the unison effort of intellect and will. I have to ask, is there any reference to Nietzche in the book? Perhaps is master values and slave values? I hear he had great influence on the Nazi regime.
I'm not through with the book... let me look at the index.... no he doesn't mention him. I've heard that before as well. Even though Rommen didn't mention him, I don't know if that means Nietzche played no part.
He does mention Hume is kin to Hobbe for Hume's philosophy basically rids intellect all together and therefore has results similar to Hobbe's effort to anchor any legal system in the state's will. Hobbe and Spinoza changed what "nature" had meant for centuries. They redefined "nature" and "natural" into meaning 'might makes right' and in opposition to civility and reason whereas before and after them (those not infected by their corruption of the terms) the concept was commonly understood to have intellectual and civil connotations. They undermined it's concept and infused a different definition into what "nature" means to provide aggrandizement to their philosophy and the State (in which their philosophy was trying to make loom as all powerful). They corrupted it's meaning, but with clarity of intellect it's true meaning is understood. The nature of a thing is the what is of the thing. Therefore if a person has been able to intellectually apprehended the nature or essence (quiddity) of the object, then that can be called the objects true nature (whatever the object may be) and therefore the person is said to have true knowledge of the object.
AJ:I do not here advance any ethical position myself. I only point out that Hoppe's logic here is flawed beyond repair, and I hope he comes to grips with this so as to advance libertarianism on a sound basis and not open himself up to easy demolition like this, because the casual observer may throw out the baby (strong arguments for libertarianism) with the bathwater (glaringly fallacious arguments like the argument of Hoppe's we are discussing).
I thought I would add this little nugget of gold for good measure.
Hoppe pg.7: Yet such relativism is impossible to follow and thus wrong in the most objective sense of being literally incompatible with our nature as actors. Just as it is impossible to say and mean to say that there is no such thing as objective truth without in so doing actually presupposing objective criteria for the application of terms, so is it impossible to actually advocate ethical relativism. Because in order to advocate any ethical positioin whatsoever, one must be allowed to communicate rather than be coercively shut up and silenced, and thus, contrary to the relativist message itself, its messenger in bringing it to us, must in fact presuppose the existence of objectively defined absolute rights. More specifically, he must presuppose those norms of action as valid whose observance makes talk as a special form of cooperation between physically separate talkers possible, [...] and whose validity must then be regaded as objective and absolute in that no one could possibly ever be alave and talkingly challenge them.
Yet such relativism is impossible to follow and thus wrong in the most objective sense of being literally incompatible with our nature as actors. Just as it is impossible to say and mean to say that there is no such thing as objective truth without in so doing actually presupposing objective criteria for the application of terms, so is it impossible to actually advocate ethical relativism. Because in order to advocate any ethical positioin whatsoever, one must be allowed to communicate rather than be coercively shut up and silenced, and thus, contrary to the relativist message itself, its messenger in bringing it to us, must in fact presuppose the existence of objectively defined absolute rights. More specifically, he must presuppose those norms of action as valid whose observance makes talk as a special form of cooperation between physically separate talkers possible, [...] and whose validity must then be regaded as objective and absolute in that no one could possibly ever be alave and talkingly challenge them.
wilderness: Stephen Forde: You have your natural rights theory and I have mine. And it's natural. Just look at the empirical evidence. And anything that's natural must be right. So murder, enslavement, and crime are right. wrong... you're lacking an epistemology based on a metaphysics of the nature of natural rights. life is. liberty is. property is. Once you intellectually apprehend what the quiddities of life, liberty, and property is (of human nature) and gain knowledge, their natures will be understood. Until then your logical fallacy of murder is life, liberty is enslavement, and crime (I guess) is property is a doublethink where A is not-A.
Stephen Forde: You have your natural rights theory and I have mine. And it's natural. Just look at the empirical evidence. And anything that's natural must be right. So murder, enslavement, and crime are right.
You have your natural rights theory and I have mine. And it's natural. Just look at the empirical evidence. And anything that's natural must be right. So murder, enslavement, and crime are right.
wrong... you're lacking an epistemology based on a metaphysics of the nature of natural rights.
life is.
liberty is.
property is.
Once you intellectually apprehend what the quiddities of life, liberty, and property is (of human nature) and gain knowledge, their natures will be understood. Until then your logical fallacy of murder is life, liberty is enslavement, and crime (I guess) is property is a doublethink where A is not-A.
Well don't keep your treasure trove of meta-physical knowledge locked away. By all means, do share.
all three are being... is denotes being.
As the intellect apprehends these that are - life, liberty, and property - true knowledge of what they are is part of the process in deliberating their nature - their what is.
It is true this knowledge of life is life.
It is true this knowledge of liberty is liberty (freedom from physical coercion)
it is true this knowledge of property is property.
Definitions usually bog down discussion from expanding, but I'll expand into this for now:
life being life is the truth of life.
liberty being liberty is the truth of liberty.
property being property is the truth of property.
in other words for each of these: if life is not life that is not only illogical (A is not-A) but false according to what the object - life - is. (liberty and property can be put in place of the term life in that statement and the same would hold true.)
*I MOVED THIS TO ANOTHER THREAD HERE.
Stephen Forde: AJ:In that case, Hoppe's statement is a simple non sequitur: "You must understand as true that the person has spoken freely. Therefore, you must understand as true that there is an underlying norm adopted by both participants in an argument." In other words, "The fact that each person spoke freely implies that each person adopted certain norms toward the other participants." That clearly does not follow. So it's not normal for people to not coerce each other when they enter into an argument? Is that really what you are arguing? This isn't a mode of operation that is necessarily adopted?
AJ:In that case, Hoppe's statement is a simple non sequitur: "You must understand as true that the person has spoken freely. Therefore, you must understand as true that there is an underlying norm adopted by both participants in an argument." In other words, "The fact that each person spoke freely implies that each person adopted certain norms toward the other participants." That clearly does not follow.
So it's not normal for people to not coerce each other when they enter into an argument? Is that really what you are arguing? This isn't a mode of operation that is necessarily adopted?
Stephen Forde:If I adopt a norm of not drinking or smoking, the fact that there are no cigarettes or booze around doesn't change that.
Whatever analogy we bring in, it is simply not the case that not violating a norm implies recognition of that norm, as Hoppe wants it to.
Stephen Forde: AJ:Nevermind that Hoppe starts with the underlying notion that an ethical theory can only be justified in an argument, implying that Hoppe's ethical theory wasn't justified until he argued about it with someone else(!!). Besides being patently ridiculous, it appears to include an inverse ad hominem fallacy for good measure. He also hints at an appeal to psychology fallacy with his talk of the arguer being uncoerced. Or else, he means justified to mean something other than "valid," hence allowing any ethical principle at all to still be valid. Obviously, justifying means proving to someone else. It's not just a matter of convincing oneself. Also, what is being justified is a set of norms. And these norms exist whether anyone justifies them or not. Hoppe's proof is a proof that only certain norms can ever be justified. Valid means that the conclusions of an argument logically follow from its premises.
AJ:Nevermind that Hoppe starts with the underlying notion that an ethical theory can only be justified in an argument, implying that Hoppe's ethical theory wasn't justified until he argued about it with someone else(!!). Besides being patently ridiculous, it appears to include an inverse ad hominem fallacy for good measure. He also hints at an appeal to psychology fallacy with his talk of the arguer being uncoerced. Or else, he means justified to mean something other than "valid," hence allowing any ethical principle at all to still be valid.
Obviously, justifying means proving to someone else. It's not just a matter of convincing oneself. Also, what is being justified is a set of norms. And these norms exist whether anyone justifies them or not. Hoppe's proof is a proof that only certain norms can ever be justified. Valid means that the conclusions of an argument logically follow from its premises.
So Hoppe merely "proves" that it would be hypocritical to advocate not letting people speak freely. Except that he doesn't. A man could easily make statements like this, "Everyone should vie to speak first and everyone else should try to compete to see who can get out their arguments before others do or before others try to stop them." Hoppe has not shown such an advocate of "violating the right to speak freely" to be inconsistent, as he had hoped to. He has in no way derived an "ought" from an "is." He has in no way shown the man's argument to be even unjustifiable (let alone invalid) as a universal norm.
Stephen Forde: AJ:And even in the fairy-tale world where Hoppe's non sequitur holds, he still has nothing to say about those who would advocate that everyone with kidneys be forced to give up one kidney for scientific research. After all, the advocate may well have given up his kidney, and people can still argue fine with one kidney. Hoppe fails even on his own terms. But this is ruled out by the universalizability principle which is also presupposed by argumentation. Going into this is unecessary since the OP only asks whether the is/ought gap can be bridged. I think I have sufficiently backed up Hoppe and demonstrated that some norms are indeed valid and objective.
AJ:And even in the fairy-tale world where Hoppe's non sequitur holds, he still has nothing to say about those who would advocate that everyone with kidneys be forced to give up one kidney for scientific research. After all, the advocate may well have given up his kidney, and people can still argue fine with one kidney. Hoppe fails even on his own terms.
But this is ruled out by the universalizability principle which is also presupposed by argumentation. Going into this is unecessary since the OP only asks whether the is/ought gap can be bridged. I think I have sufficiently backed up Hoppe and demonstrated that some norms are indeed valid and objective.
Yes, ignoring Hoppe's non sequitur, the is/ought divide would be breached, but a logical fallacy is no help to the OP, and even ignoring that fallacy does not give his argumentation ethics any way to derive the NAP. As for universalization, see the argument of the hypothetical man above.
Stephen Forde:His proof is only a conservative logical innovation building on top of many other philosopher's work.
I have not read his predecessors, but either (a) they are right and his "innovation" does not logically follow, or (b) they are wrong and his innovation may logically follow but be invalid in any case because his predecessors' argument was invalid. I think I and others have Swiss-cheesed Hoppe's AE enough for a while.
Stephen Forde:So, I think you're right that something else is needed to market to the casual observer.
Yes, I contend that even if his AE were valid, it would accomplish less than the NAP, which is already pretty easy for people to agree with. Although people may fundamentally agree with the NAP but discard it for practicality, if people can discard the NAP for practicality, how much more easily Hoppe's AE? I don't think there is anything to be gained even if an "ought" could be derived from an "is" (to use Hume's awkward phrasing).
Why anarchy fails
Stephen Forde's quote of Hoppe:...he must presuppose those norms of action as valid whose observance makes talk as a special form of cooperation between physically separate talkers possible...
Again, the same old fallacy that observance of norms implies the validity of those norms. Otherwise me not wearing green would imply that I recognize the norm "You ought not wear green" as valid.
if it was impossible to justify wearing green . yet possible to justify not wearing green . then you could as a point of faith believe that you could wear whatever green thing that you liked, but you could not even defend your claim against dissent, let alone prove your point. the other side would have all the cards. imagine the debate:
"you ought not to wear green because X , Y Z, notice, my oppenent can not even offer a possible counter without instantly lapsing into contradiction and falling silent, thus we know his position to be false"
"I think a man can wear green because ....(i cant speak the next part of my sentence or i am in contradiction)"
well, the arguments all point one way.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
is there even such a thing as a green shirt?
Hoppe’s links his own “argumentation ethics” with a passage from the Ethics of Liberty in which Rothbard states that “a proposition rises to the status of an axiom when he who denies it may be shown to be using it in the very course of the supposed refutation.” (Rothbard 1984, 32; cf. Hoppe 2002, xxxiv– xxxv) Rothbard, in turn, was hugely impressed by Hoppe’s work and wrote that “[Hoppe] has managed to transcend the famous is/ought, fact/value dichotomy that has plagued philosophy since the days of the scholastics …”
(Rothbard 1988, 44; cf. Rothbard 1990)
http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2009/lp-1-34.pdf
I'll respond once someone actually articulates an objection rather than just hinting at one.
My first thoughts addressing the OP:
Natural law is the knowledge of human actions that result in existence or nonexistence perceived by human senses.
Could you elaborate on this? Existence or non-existence of what?
Natural law is the knowledge of human actions that result in existence or nonexistence of life perceived by human senses.
Sorry, I'm not getting what you mean. How is law knowledge? I can't make sense of the rest of the sentence.
Live_Free_Or_Die: Natural law is the knowledge of human actions that result in existence or nonexistence of life perceived by human senses.
o_O
AJ: Sorry, I'm not getting what you mean. How is law knowledge? I can't make sense of the rest of the sentence.
Please point out an error in spelling, grammar, or sentence structure.
The sentence may be grammatically correct, but I don't see what you mean. How is law knowledge? What do you mean by "existence of life" - existence of surviving humans? What is perceived by human senses - life or the existence/nonexistence of life? I'm at least seven steps away from having any idea what you're getting at, so feel free to elaborate. No need to pack it all into one line.
What is required to further your understanding of the sentence:
discussion of clauses and sentences?
discussion of word definitions?
discussion of sentence structure?
If I write a sentence using well defined words with no errors in grammar, spelling, or structure what else do you expect of me to convey a thought?
There are two possibilities:
1. The sentence is true or false.
2. The sentence contains errors.
I am unable to respond because you have cited no errors or no reasons the statement is false. "I don't see what you mean" indicates you do not understand the definition of a word, words, or the relationship of one clause to another. Neither of which is related to whether the sentence is true or false or whether the sentence contains errors.
How is law knowledge? What do you mean by "existence of life" - the existence of surviving humans? What is perceived by human senses - life or the existence/nonexistence of life?
AJ: How is law knowledge?
How is law knowledge?
Traffic law is the knowledge of human actions eligible for economic penalty or infringement of liberty when traveling public property.
AJ: What do you mean by "existence of life" - the existence of surviving humans? What is perceived by human senses - life or the existence/nonexistence of life?
What do you mean by "existence of life" - the existence of surviving humans? What is perceived by human senses - life or the existence/nonexistence of life?
AJ: I'll respond once someone actually articulates an objection rather than just hinting at one.
I will respond when you articulate an objection. Please refer to my previous post.
This is going nowhere. (He can't articulate an objection as you are being too vague)
I will be sure to use that argument in the future.
I am sorry you are being vague and therefore your statement is invalid despite my inability to articulate the reasons it is vague.
I am sorry Austrian economics is invalid because it is vague despite my inability to articulate the reasons it is vague....
That is not intellectual dialogue.
I do not find the sentence vague. I defined natural law as a type of knowledge. The specific knowledge of human actions that result in existence or non-existence of life perceived by human senses.
Since concepts of existence and non-existence are vague I conditioned existence and non-existence of life with the ability to perceive them by human senses.
Knowledge is a clearly defined concept.
Human action is a clearly defined concept.
Life is a clearly defined concept.
Human senses are a clearly defined concept
Existence or non-existence of life perceivable by human senses is a clearly defined concept.
I am being vague?
Honestly, you are being almost caricature-level vague. Is there some reason you're adverse to paraphrasing or elaborating? You say I haven't pointed out what is vague in your sentence, but I have: the three questions you still haven't answered (one you hinted at in a roundabout way, which I suppose is good enough for now, but what about the other two?).
Are you under the impression that stringing together a bunch of well-defined English words in a sentence automatically makes a well-defined and understandable sentence? Just try saying it in a different way, or unpacking some of the concepts. For instance, "life" can mean all sorts of things. Flourishing, existence, survival, human life, etc.
Live_Free_Or_Die: I will be sure to use that argument in the future. I am sorry you are being vague and therefore your statement is invalid despite my inability to articulate the reasons it is vague.
Calm down. 1. Saying "please elaborate" isn't an argument. 2. Nobody said your statement was invalid, rather it couldn't be validated, hence the requests.
Live_Free_Or_Die:I am sorry Austrian economics is invalid because it is vague despite my inability to articulate the reasons it is vague....
Austrian economics has a well written history, where the terms are extensively defined.
Live_Free_Or_Die:Knowledge is a clearly defined concept.
No, it is a very complex concept.
Live_Free_Or_Die:Human action is a clearly defined concept.
No, in fact Mises even had to define human and action to fully explain what he meant by human action. (Generous as he was he didn't just say human and action are clearly defined concepts and leave it at that)
Live_Free_Or_Die:Life is a clearly defined concept.
Hardly, "life" has been used to mean a multitude of different things.
Live_Free_Or_Die:Human senses are a clearly defined concept
No, how people perceive phenomena is hotly debated.
Live_Free_Or_Die: Existence or non-existence of life perceivable by human senses is a clearly defined concept. I am being vague?
Quite.
AJ: Honestly, you are being almost caricature-level vague. Is there some reason you're adverse to paraphrasing or elaborating? You say I haven't pointed out what is vague in your sentence, but I have: the three questions you still haven't answered (one you hinted at in a roundabout way, which I suppose is good enough for now, but what about the other two?). Are you under the impression that stringing together a bunch of well-defined English words in a sentence automatically makes a well-defined and understandable sentence? Just try saying it in a different way, or unpacking some of the concepts. For instance, "life" can mean all sorts of things. Flourishing, existence, survival, human life, etc.
I had to look up caricature to understand what you meant by caricature-level vague.
By looking at the caricature wiki I still do not understand your meaning of caricature-level vague. Defined in the wiki as a description of a person using exaggeration of some characteristics and oversimplification of others I am assuming you are making a reference to a person I do not know.
My point here is that I am able to convey why I do not understand your meaning. My initial lack of understanding of your meaning was because I was not familiar with the word. My present lack of understanding to your meaning is because I do not know who you are describing and how they relate to me.
I am not adverse to paraphrasing or elaborating. I simply do not know how to respond to "I don't get your meaning". Such a comment provides no opportunity for discussion. I am not under the impression stringing together a bunch of well-defined words automatically makes an understandable sentence. I elaborated on that. I said a sentence can be true or false or contain errors. Beyond that the only opportunity for conversation is discussing the definition of words, sentence structure or how clauses relate to one another, etc.
I can respond to your citation life can mean all sorts of things. The definitions of the words I am using.
Knowledge is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as (i) expertise, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge
Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have self-sustaining biological processes from those that do not[1][2] —either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as "inanimate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
Humans are bipedal primates belonging to the species Homo sapiens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human
The traditional five senses are sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste: a classification attributed to Aristotle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense
Some would prefer to define actions as requiring bodily movement
Perceive - to attain awareness or understanding
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Perceived
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_%28philosophy%29
After review of common wiki definitions I will rephrase my original statement to reduce the assertion of vagueness due to certain words having multiple definitions.
Natural law is knowledge of human actions involving bodily movement resulting in existence or non-existence of human life perceived by the five traditional human senses.
-or-
Natural law is a subset of knowledge.
Knowledge about human actions that involve bodily movement.
Actions that result in existence or non-existence of human life.
Existence or non-existence of human life that is perceivable by the traditional five human senses.
Angurse: Live_Free_Or_Die: I will be sure to use that argument in the future. I am sorry you are being vague and therefore your statement is invalid despite my inability to articulate the reasons it is vague. Calm down. 1. Saying "please elaborate" isn't an argument. 2. Nobody said your statement was invalid, rather it couldn't be validated, hence the requests. Live_Free_Or_Die:I am sorry Austrian economics is invalid because it is vague despite my inability to articulate the reasons it is vague.... Austrian economics has a well written history, where the terms are extensively defined. Live_Free_Or_Die:Knowledge is a clearly defined concept. No, it is a very complex concept. Live_Free_Or_Die:Human action is a clearly defined concept. No, in fact Mises even had to define human and action to fully explain what he meant by human action. (Generous as he was he didn't just say human and action are clearly defined concepts and leave it at that) Live_Free_Or_Die:Life is a clearly defined concept. Hardly, "life" has been used to mean a multitude of different things. Live_Free_Or_Die:Human senses are a clearly defined concept No, how people perceive phenomena is hotly debated. Live_Free_Or_Die: Existence or non-existence of life perceivable by human senses is a clearly defined concept. I am being vague? Quite.
I am not upset. You mistake bluntness for emotion. I questioned the original reply asking if word definitions or sentence structure was in question and the reply was a re-post. Your reply clearly articulates the source of vagueness and it appears the source of perceived vagueness is contained within the definition of words. That is something a person can respond to.
I see this thread being moderated now since I got a message making my last post before I seen this reply....
Live_Free_Or_Die:I see this thread being moderated now since I got a message making my last post before I seen this reply....
When you post too many links, posts get automatically moderated.
However, the level of debate in this thread is now embarrassing with people arguing over definitions. Let's aim for a debate on substance and ideas, not semantics and grammar.
Live_Free_Or_Die: Natural law is knowledge of human actions involving bodily movement resulting in existence or non-existence of human life perceived by the five traditional human senses.
Natural law is acquired expertise of particular bipedal primates bodily movement resulting in existence or non-existence of said bipedal primates self-sustaining biological process understood by the five traditional bipedal primate senses.
Live_Free_Or_Die: Natural law is knowledge of human actions involving bodily movement resulting in existence or non-existence of human life perceived by the five traditional human senses. -or- Natural law is a subset of knowledge. Knowledge about human actions that involve bodily movement. Actions that result in existence or non-existence of human life. Existence or non-existence of human life that is perceivable by the traditional five human senses.
Thank you, this is a quite a bit clearer. Do you mean that natural law is knowledge concerning the question, "Which human actions result in creation or destruction of human life?"?
I can't understand "resulting in existence or non-existence" to mean anything else, so I assume creation or destruction (killing?). Further elaboration is welcome. Perhaps you mean contributing to or diminishing human life (flourishing)? Your definition points to the use of the word "life" as in life vs. death (i.e., state of being alive vs. being dead), which is why I interpreted it as creation or destruction of human life and not in terms of flourishing.
AJ: Live_Free_Or_Die: Natural law is knowledge of human actions involving bodily movement resulting in existence or non-existence of human life perceived by the five traditional human senses. -or- Natural law is a subset of knowledge. Knowledge about human actions that involve bodily movement. Actions that result in existence or non-existence of human life. Existence or non-existence of human life that is perceivable by the traditional five human senses. Thank you, this is a quite a bit clearer. Do you mean that natural law is knowledge concerning the question, "Which human actions result in creation or destruction of human life?"? I can't understand "resulting in existence or non-existence" to mean anything else, so I assume creation or destruction (killing?). Further elaboration is welcome. Perhaps you mean contributing to or diminishing human life (flourishing)? Your definition points to the use of the word "life" as in life vs. death (i.e., state of being alive vs. being dead), which is why I interpreted it as creation or destruction of human life and not in terms of flourishing.
Yes, I was referring to a state of being alive vs. dead.
liberty student: Live_Free_Or_Die:I see this thread being moderated now since I got a message making my last post before I seen this reply.... When you post too many links, posts get automatically moderated.
Thank you for explaining that. I will refrain from including links that are not important in future posts.
The idea I have about natural law is that of a social contract. I read this article about Narveson's book where a similar idea is in: http://mises.org/daily/3755
Everyones ultimate preference is to have the NAP apply to them. Every ego in the universe has the same ultimate idea. So as far as any universal cooperation between egos can go, it can only go as far as to construct a system which takes care of that preference of egos. And since its the highest preference of egos, itis the first on the list of actions the ego does to take care of it.
Damn, no opinions on this idea? gonna bump it.
social 'contract' theory is an abomination of thought.
it involves assuming that people have formed contracts without evidence that they did.
are these -title transfer- contracts or 'promise' contracts?