ProfessionalTeabagger

More generally immoral means those things that do not have any moral justification / not UPB. It just so happens all those things are violations of the NAP. So it would seems that violations of the NAP and immoral are synonymous.

Now you're re-framing it as only spanking when the child is attacking another person. But you were not arguing that spanking is justified only in defense (boggles my mind what threat a 2-4 year old could possibly present but okay) but for non-defensive purposes too. You cannot remove aggression by using aggression. You are justifying a degree of aggression that would be considered assault if used towards an adult. It's like saying you're going to molest the child to remove their possible tendency to molest people. Also most evidence shows that spanked children are more aggressive. I'm not sure how the hell your 2 to 4 year old child developed "rage and pride" but I'm pretty sure hitting them won't solve it. Would you spank your wife is she showed rage and pride? Why not? The reason the breaking primes people to accept state rule is because spanking and the state are both violations of non-aggression. They are both the initiation of force. Children are evolved to accept behavior their parents model. So if the parent violates the non-aggression principle the child learns that violations of it are necessary and moral. That makes the governments violations appear normal. If you think spanking children breaks them in so as not to be a threat to society then you need to explain why a disproportionately high number of violent criminals were spanked.

I'd just save up the extra you were going to donate and make a single bonus donation every few months.

"Training" doesn't necessarily involve reason but If reason is the only way then why did you hit them? It wasn't for self-defense. It was just expedient. They now psychological accept that the initiation of force can be morally permissible because to not accept it they need to see their parent as immoral. They are broken in and ready to accept the validity of the state. As your parent initiated force on you, so shall the state.

I do not know what argument you are making (other than some "we can't prove our axioms so everything that follows is faith, blah blah, blah..." argument) or what it's got to do with UPB being objective. Are you saying UPB is not objective because nothing is? I can't really respond to this because you are using a caricature of voluntarism. Your categorizations of what would happen under these broad abstract scenarios is not necessarily true. Again simply referring to a case in real life and then presenting it as an abstract scenario is not valid because the detail required to apply ethics do not exist in it. If you have an argument that UPB or voluntarist ethics are wrong could please just present that?

Can you demonstrate a single necessary service the government provides that can't be provided without it?

Either you don't understand what you're arguing agianst or you do and you are deliberately attacking a straw-man. Anarchy means without rulers. Rulers refers to a coercive hierarchy. So anarchy means without coercive rulers. The warring factions in the middle east are not only coercive rulers but their situation has been caused to a large degree by coercive rulers from democracies.

Democracy is inherently dysfunctional. It's just the majority forcing its will on the minority. Even the idea that everyone gets an equal vote is absurd given that that all provide different amounts of value and have wildly different skills and intelligence. So what you asking is us to do is to try make an inherently dysfunctional system functional.

All behaviors do not become violations of UPB because someone subject to them does not want them. Being unwanted is an aspect of it but it's the break with universality that's required. You are just wrong. Murder is not defined as unwanted killing. That would make self-defense, murder. Is you making a joke of some kind? This critique is almost like a satire of those "Massive laughable errors in UPB" or "UPB: The spectacular flaw that ruins it all!!!!" type posts or you tube videos. Absolutely chronic.

Of course there could be such an edict but it's still wrong. If you're going to to apply different ethical rules to people (like different eye color) then you need to show why those differences are morally relevant, otherwise the the ethic is arbitrary and wrong. I'm not taking it as axiomatic. The ethical rule would be not logically consistent; ergo wrong. It's not an act of faith to assume a rule needs to be logically consistent. Usefulness is irrelevant. This is about what is true and valid. What problems with voluntarism? If you have a argument that shows we wrong then clearly state the argument. Otherwise you need to concede we are correct.

Well that would be self-defense which is not murder. Murder requires the initiation of force. If there is some moral distinction between people of different eye color that what is it?

Okay then let's use the exact details of that case and not an abstraction you claim to have derived from it. Well that would be self-defense which is not murder. Murder requires the initiation of force. If there is some moral distinction between people of different eye color that what is it? Well that would be self-defense which is not murder. Murder requires the initiation of force. If there is some moral distinction between people of different eye color that what is it? Well that would be self-defense which is not murder. Murder requires the initiation of force. If there is some moral distinction between people of different eye color that what is it? Well that would be self-defense which is not murder. Murder requires the initiation of force. If there is some moral distinction between people of different eye color that what is it? Well that would be self-defense which is not murder. Murder requires the initiation of force. If there is some moral distinction between people of different eye color that what is it?

Murder is killing someone agianst their will for reasons other than defense. That's what it actually is in reality. That can be observed. If anyone wishes to define it as something arbitrary then I can define their claim as arbitrary. "You ought to murder any blue eye person, whenever you come across on" fails right away. What if you are a blue-eyed person? You can't murder yourself. It would just be suicide. There's no moral distinction between a blue or or any other color eyed person so the moral prescription is arbitrary. It's breaks with universality and so cannot be valid. It's wrong.

If it's murder then by definition it is not "UPB compliant". The moral justifications that underlie our actions need to be logically consistent in order to be valid. One necessary component of logical consistency is universality. Murder cannot be universal, therefore any moral justification for it cannot be valid. If it's not valid it's wrong. So murder is wrong. you can prefer to murder but you will be wrong. That preference cannot be universal. I just up-voted you to counteract it.

What has science supporting it's own foundations got to do with UPB? All you did was state your opinions about scientific foundations. Are you saying this is analogous to UPB? My final conclusion does make sense. I didn't say you couldn't amend the hypothetical, I said it was a scenario that will not happen. The people in the scenario are just 2 dimensional characters without history or context. My ethical theory does not say it's not immoral to refuse to open the window. Your caricature of my ethical theory which you don't understand says that. There's an argument that says such owners implicitly accept such emergency situations as a condition of living among people and as such have accepted an implicit contract to give aid if possible in these situations. IOW, if you're going to live with us then we expect you to help out in such dire life or death situations, especially when it costs you little or nothing. Baldly stating "problematic" is not an argument. Why's it problematic? Because feelings? Because "Oh what a meany that guy is"? HOW is it problematic? What does problematic even mean? That you have a problem with it? Make an argument. I'm stating a fact. Do you think you are the first person to present flag-pole scenarios and radical skepticism as it they're some slam-dunk rebuttal? There have been hundreds or thousands of you and you all generally follow the same pattern. Yeah sure, the universe could turn into a glass of penguin inside a square-circle made from jokes. Wtf are you going on about? What's your argument? That UPB is not objective or wrong because you can imagine causality changing? That would also apply to your arguments so they would be equally wrong. Every rule you implicitly or explicitly put forward also applies to you and your argument.

These kind of epistemological rug-pullers pop up all the time. The pattern I see is that they will argue that nothing can be self-evident or that logic can't be trusted (because paraconsistent quantum Godel's Theorem woo, woo) but expect others to hold the premises of their argument as self-evident and their logic as trust-worthy.

Whether this is true or not what has it got to do with UPB? Again , just enough details to describe a scenario but not enough to apply ethics. What contracts does the owner have? Don't they accept that emergencies happen? Don't they expect others to reciprocate? How where they able to rent or buy a house that allowed this kind of extremely harsh behavior? What kind of implicit or explicit norms exist where they live? To what degree are both parties responsible for the event? What justification is the owner using for their actions? A million questions. The fact that you're able to amend the hypothetical shows it has no solid connection to any real event that could ever happen.

It's not a real life example. This is what I'm talking about. You gave an abstraction of a situation that did not contain the sufficient details required to make a valid ethical response. You did not cite an actual real event. There was almost no context, no information about the people, no information about the past, no information about any contracts or agreements. It's just a generic doctor and generic patient and the most basic scenario. That's not the same as a real thing that happened or could happen. What YOU said did not happen and never will happen. Abstract event do not happen. We can't apply ethics to cartoons. It's what Ayn Rand called the ethics of emergencies. In emergencies we can't really apply correct ethics because we generally lack sufficient time and information. We just guess. So this is why these though experiments are always given with the most basic information and context. They are emergency situations disguised as detailed scenarios. I have never once seen a person provide a sufficiently detailed flag pole scenario. It's always the same "a guy in the desert has some water and another guy is dying of thirst...". They're not even imaginative. You can test what I'm saying by providing an a moral dilemma scenario that actually happened (not an abstraction of an event that may have happened).

The standard is not UPB. The standard is reason and evidence. Something like logical consistency (a necessary component of reasoning) is UPB. When you addressed me/us in this debate/discussion you accepted logical consistency as an objective standard by which we can measure the validity and accuracy of our arguments and propositions. By debating you automatically accept a range of premises and universal standards. Morality is a subset of UPB that concerns enforceable behavior. Something like murder is wrong because no logically consistent justification is possible. Justifications must be universal. Murder cannot be universal. So if you murder you do so in the knowledge that it can not or has not been justified. It is objectively morally wrong. As for the flag pole/ life boat scenarios, there's a reason why people who put forward these thought experiments never use actual known examples from reality. What do you think it is?

I can't really follow all that. It seems to be about radical skepticism and language. You use UPB when you interact with people so these sorts of Cartesian insecurities and speculations are irrelevant. It doesn't matter if logic is, unbeknownst to us, all wrong and bricks are actually aardvark unicorns. You are either using an objective standard and holding others to that standard or you're not. If you are then logically you're using UPB (as such standard must be universal). If you are not then it's just subjective opinions and who cares?

Penn has an objective standard by which he could be wrong. What's yours?

It's not nonsense. It makes complete sense. You are holding me and everyone else to an objective standard by which our propositions and arguments can be found to be right or wrong. This is self-evidently the case. It's the alternative that's "nonsense" If you are not using an objective standard then by what standard do you claim to be right?

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying your question and argument depends on an objective standard which you accept. UPB uses that objective standard. If you don't accept the objective standard then you can't claim to be right. It's not circular, it's self-evident.

Question begging requires everyone accept an objective standard because in begging the question one is deviating from that standard.