cynicist

I'm glad others are contributing to the thread, it's nice to get a sense of the types of music people are into here! Here's an energetic dubstep track that I love. And here is some Spanish hip-hop, originally heard this on Breaking Bad and it's really catchy.

Wow, that's a bunch of nonsense. Consensual reality? Oneness? Subjective morality? This is a philosophy board, not a place to discuss self-contradictory concepts as if they are real. The number of newer posters bringing this type of stuff to the board is alarming. I think expressing knowledge of something that you admit you have no grasp of should be a clear warning sign...

Well it seems at the very least that you now understand what Stefan means, even if you think he is incorrect. Arguing about it's validity wasn't in the scope of the thread anyhow. Cheers.

Colloquialism - A saying that expresses something other than the literal meaning of the words it contains. It doesn't really matter, since those are just types of rights, and I'm asking what a right is. Given the context of the thread though, let's go with property rights. Saying that you are responsible for your nephew is referring to being held accountable for your actions in regards to your nephew. In other words, you own the effects of your actions. No, I'm saying they are identical in meaning, just rarely in usage. Saying that you 'own' effects like murder sounds weird, because we generally use 'responsible for' in its place. Ok, say that you are correct. Then where do property rights derive from?

Responsibility/ownership are identical besides the distinction between actions and objects.

Every dictionary I've seen defines it as some variation of, "initiating a hostile action" or "hostility to another", and both of those are descriptive. Please help me do this by defining what a right is and then explaining where it comes from. I've already asked several times.

You can say required, binding, necessary, or mandatory instead if you like those words better. Maybe you are thinking of obligation in terms of fulfilling a promise and the common usage of the word is what makes it seem strange here. ('When you accept the first, you are obligated to accept the second' is accurate regardless) Enforceable is literally 'to compel by force'. In the context of the book Stefan is using it to distinguish between preferences that are aesthetic (I like ice cream) and those that are not (Give me your money). If it helps, think of enforceable preference as 'any preference involving the use of force'. That's funny, we are indeed using different definitions. This is from Merriam-Webster: Yeah absolutely, that's what Stefan means by it. It took me quite a while and many subsequent readings of UPB to get it. Saving someone else some time is a worthy endeavor.

Where does it become normative? I own my body, that's descriptive. I own (have responsibility for) my actions, hmm also descriptive. I own (have responsibility for) the effects that result from them, is that... no wait, descriptive. Taking someone's property against their will is an act of aggression, initiated by you. Even THAT's descriptive. I'm still unclear as to how it could be normative since I don't understand what rights are or where they come from.

It's really not that complicated. If you understand and accept the methodology, then you also accept the conclusions of its application. You could think that math is a bunch of bullshit, or that there are better ways to determine the amount of change that you should pay the store clerk, but if you accept math as valid then when someone uses it to calculate how much change to give you, then you will accept the results of that calculation as also valid (barring any errors made by the clerk). A bully punches a kid and steals his lunch money. He has enforced a preference but there is nothing binding about it. I defined both 'binding' and 'enforceable' and gave you a page from UPB explaining both. I'm really not sure what is unclear here. Of course someone can justify their violation. They would be incorrect, but they can still do it, just like they can choose whether to follow morality or not. Nothing stops me from shouting, "2+2=5!!!". I have to both want to know the truth around numbers and accept mathematical rules as valid before the conclusions of mathematics are binding on me. If I don't want to know the truth or reject the methodology for determining it, then there is no obligation for me to use math.

Magnus, your post is well put and accurately describes the mistake the OP is making, but your use of the word 'rights' makes things confusing. (like how people using the term 'government' as if it is a real entity is confusing) Relevant youtube:

You can only claim ownership of the car BECAUSE you have direct control over your body. In fact you could only make this post and claim ownership of your argument through the direct control you have over your fingers. (control over an object is not the basis of ownership, but control of your body is) Please explain what "the moral right to determine permissible use" is and where it comes from. If you want to argue that the basis of ownership is not biological, there are only two alternatives I can think of and neither make good arguments. (god and arbitrary, aka legal)

Exactly my thoughts. It's definitely overrated if you thought it had magical curative properties but for stress relief, anxiety, and depression it is underrated by most. I recognize the benefits and even then I have to remind myself to do it sometimes.

I want to step back to the initial post. Direct control of the body through the brain is the biological basis for ownership. Your point is based on a misunderstanding of what Stefan is saying. It's evident in the thread title There is no Ownership vs Direct Control (of the body). One is the basis and requirement for the other. You are thinking of the difference between direct control and ownership of an object, which is not really applicable to the body given that we can't relinquish direct control over it. (and again, it's the foundation of all ownership) This is why the idea of voluntary slavery makes no sense.

We all belong to the same species. The problem with race is that people think it has some significance outside of describing slight differences in appearance. It's like coming up with new labels for orangutans based on the width of their noses or sheen of their fur. Yes, empirically that person might have darker colored skin, but why come up with a label for it unless you are trying to exaggerate the difference?

If it's circular, then it's not a definition. I have no idea what you are talking about in the second part. Obligation means required, as in required to fulfill the condition. Not required as in unavoidable like gravity..... The obligation in math is that if you accept the validity of the methodology, pending errors on the part of the mathematician, you must accept the results of its application. Ethics has to do with enforceable preferences, and it is binding. Those are two different characteristics, so why are you trying to combine them? No, I'm saying that it's only binding if you accept it as valid and have a desire to be good. In other words, morality is optional. How is being moral too abstract to be a goal? We're all familiar with don't hit, don't steal, etc, we just didn't have a logical framework to explain what we knew intuitively.

No, the definition of entitlement is literally 'the fact of having a right'. So saying that a right is 'the fact of having a right to perform an action' is not a definition at all. (It would be like saying, 'A rhino is an object with the characteristics of a rhino'. You literally get zero characteristics which explain what the thing is) It doesn't have to be a normative statement. I mean I can say that my property rights were violated or more specifically that my money was stolen and they both can refer to the same thing. Intellectual property is not a valid form of property. I'm not sure what you mean by the rest of your statement. If you are morally responsible for an action that means you own that action. I don't know what you mean when you say 'legitimate property rights claim in it', are you talking about physical property like a house? If so, what does moral responsibility have to do with that? If you are talking about an action, then what do you mean by 'legitimate property rights claim'? (Responsibility and ownership mean the same thing, they simply distinguish between actions and material objects) There is no such thing as a right to property. It's a legal construct created for a statist system. If there were no state you would just say 'he owns x'.

Sure, no problem. That definition is circular since an entitlement is a right. Ownership implies a type of possession, not ability to be sold. Accepting self-ownership doesn't include the ability to sell yourself into slavery, so there's already a tricky exception to his argument. Sorry, what's the normative statement here? IP is a fiction. Stefan created the work regardless. It would not exist otherwise, that's what I mean by it being indicative. (I'm using own in terms of being responsible for, not some imaginary monopoly on words)

What's a "right of exclusive control"? I've never heard of this guy either. Owning a murder means being responsible for, that's just obvious. And writing the book does indicate that he owns the work... Why is that absurd? People can have crazy opinions. Just because he thinks people should be taxed doesn't mean it's not theft.

I don't even know what 'training the mind to be quiet' would look like, sounds vaguely insulting lol. I don't view meditation as a very formal practice, like I don't "clear my mind" or whatever. I either try to observe my thoughts in a passive kind of way if I want it to be mind-oriented or focus on my breathing if I want something more body-oriented. I think I know what still mind is, but what's the thinking practice?

It makes sense to me how this memory is connected. When a parent threatens you like that and doesn't explain anything, as a kid you are left trying to figure everything out yourself. I was cringing reading that and I know I've been through many similar situations, sorry to hear it happened to you. My mind is also very active but I don't see it as a problem. (except when it prevents me from sleeping lol) I do sometimes have to be aware that I haven't relaxed in a while and set some time aside for that. Sometimes I like to just sit and flex my fingers or toes, or run my fingers down the palm of my other hand and feel the sensation. I think any physical activity would be a good idea. It's like I'm taking the time to appreciate the wonder of my body instead of just being in my mind. (since I often had to escape to my mind while growing up, because what I felt in my body was too overwhelming) I think that trying to force yourself to experience something, shut it off, or dominate it is only going to make the problem worse. Obviously getting the root of the issue psychologically is an important step to take but some body-focused action might help. Have you tried meditation at all? By that I just mean sitting somewhere with little external stimulation and allowing yourself to think and feel, maybe even focusing on your breathing if you find the passivity unbearable. You don't even have to be in a sitting position, I prefer laying on my back in a bed/hammock since it's more relaxing for me.

I'm surprised this thread got so long. The answer is no, because philosophy deals with the truth and there is no such thing as race in reality.

I'm sorry to hear that but I'm not surprised. My advice is connect with people in the community and chat, that's the best way to feel less alone. I started doing this recently and have had some ridiculously good conversations. If you are feeling really brave, a call into the show might also be a good idea (Oh and welcome to the boards! )

It's always a descriptive (is) claim. Anything else is invalid. Maybe you could explain this a bit more. The moral argument is a direct consequence of the descriptive claim. (if you didn't directly control your body you couldn't be responsible for any of your actions, so how could morality even exist?) It doesn't. Like you said, direct control doesn't necessarily imply ownership when it comes to things other than your body.

Binding means it creates an obligation. Enforceable means to compel with force. Not everything that is binding involves force. Science/truth is a good example. Here is a quote from page 40 that may help. Yeah the problem is you are using the word physically, which has nothing to do with obligation. There are no 'oughts' in reality. Also, saying that something is obligatory if it's our obligation to do it is circular. No, if you don't want to be good then there is no obligation for you. The obligation comes with the goal. Like if I want to lose weight then I'm obligated to choose the appropriate diet. If I don't care about my weight then I'm not under any obligation in regards to what I eat.

Seems like you got stabbed in the back there. Rather than work things out one-on-one, your team lead went straight to the manager... in order to shame you? I don't know. From what you are describing it sounds like you were willing to admit to mistakes and improve so what was the point of bringing him into it and threatening you with this 'fork in the road' comment? This is an insightful question. I am curious though, did you ever have long projects and resulting attendance issues with your prior team lead? Are you certain that the reason for your lack of attendance had to do with being 'deep in the project'? You've been doing this job for a while so it just seems important that you were being 'unprofessional' at the same time that this new guy got put in charge. I wouldn't be surprised if you had a history of being shamed into compliance by authority figures, but do any incidents stand out?