ProfessionalTeabagger

You just bypass all counter-arguments by claiming you can't follow me and that it appears to you that your original objection is correct and that's IT? Don't you think it you should attempt meet your own standards of rigor by least citing the parts you can't follow and what it is you don't understand about them? You claimed the negation of stealing is not everything other than stealing. I gave you a dictionary definition of "negation" that may demonstrate that you are wrong. What do you not understand about that? You claimed the opposite of stealing is NOT respecting property rights. I told you that not "respecting property rights" IS a definition being used in the section you're referring to. What is it that you can't follow about this? I claimed that you have not actually demonstrated any equivocation but only asserted your own interpretation of "not stealing" (after having it pointed out to you that "refraining from theft" and "violating property rights " are used in the same context). What is it that you don't get about this? If you do not respond to these objections and others directly then why should anyone take you seriously or not conclude you are a disingenuous person who is deliberately misconstruing the the phrase "not stealing"? If he should define "opposite" before he uses it then why don't you define it in your objection? Whether Flake is right or not is irrelevant to your objection? Your objection is that Stefan is equivocating by conflating "opposite" with "negation" and that because of this his disproof of positive moral obligations is destroyed and that the book should be completely rewritten. It is not that it needs to be "tightened up". Demonstrate your main objection is correct or concede that you can't. As for the other thing- YES it could just be true that you have a subjective preference for using sound arguments, believe that you I do too (which my presence on the forum suggests) and so correct me because you believe that it satisfies my subjective preferences. So what? What the hell has that got to do with it? I said that once you correct someone you are appealing to an objective standard. That standard must be universal and alignment with it must be preferable to all other states. If you correct me then logically it must be according to an objective standard, right? Otherwise it's not a correction. That standard must be universal, right? Being in accord with it must be a preferred state, right? Otherwise it cannot be wrong; just different. If it is not a preferable state to, say, have your propositions conform to reason and evidence / truth then the whole concept of correction is a logical non-starter.

@Trane Definition of NEGATION 1 a : the action or logical operation of negating or makingnegative b : a negative statement, judgment, or doctrine; especially :a logical proposition formed by asserting the falsity of a given proposition — see truth table table 2 a : something that is the absence of something actual :nonentity b : something considered the opposite of something regarded as positive Not stealing can be the absence of stealing. So everything other than stealing can be the absence of stealing. A lack of theft can include everything other than theft. I'm baffled as to why you're bringing the null hypothesis into this (as if this wasn't already torturous enough). If as you say the null hypothesis is also the negation then you are saying Stefan has confused the opposite with the null hypothesis? That might be the definition you use and your opposite may make sense to you. But the definition actually BEING used in the section of UPB you refer to is the violation of property rights. The opposite is respecting property rights. This is in the context of the moral rule "thou shalt not steal". I did not say "respecting property rights" was the negation of theft. ​You go straight to stating that Stefan is equivocating between the use of terms and I'm not sure how this follows from what you previously said. You have not demonstrated any equivocation other than the one you've invented. You're argument is becoming more incoherent and convoluted and you have again failed to respond to several of my counter-arguments, even after I asked you specifically not to do this. Don't just ignore counter-arguments. And my point was that it doesn't matter whether "UPB is false" is a "value statement" or not. Once you correct someone you are appealing to an objective standard. That standard must be universal and alignment with it must be preferable to all other states. Ugh.

If you understand UPB then you'll understand that what you value or what you explicitly state others should value is irrelevant.

There are two valid interpretations of "not stealing" here. There's "not stealing" as in the negation of stealing. That would be everything other than stealing. Then there's "not stealing" as in the opposite of stealing. That would be "refraining from theft" or "respecting property rights". Given that "refraining from theft" or "respecting property rights" are used in the same context as "not stealing" in the same section (Virtue and it's opposite) it's much more likely this is the meaning. Trane has failed to consider this possibility or just ignored it. He would have had to show that he has not just assumed his interpretation of "not stealing" (from the paragraph quoted) is correct rather than the other valid alternative. He has not shown this so the objection is a non-starter. In as far as I understand the objection to the coma test and positive moral obligations, it fails too. The paragraph Trane is referring to posits giving to charity as a moral absolute. That means that anyone not giving to charity would be immoral according to UPB. If you think negation and opposite are the being confused here then take it up with the person putting forward the proposition that giving to charity is UPB.

It's the "There are..." part that can make you laugh when you think about it. What is the opposite of of "absolutes"?

Cursing at someone randomly is kinda threatening behavior. So it may not pass the nap or upb. I do not agree that it is necessarily aggression as it's one of those things where the threat of force is not explicit. Simply modifying someone's inner physiology is not enough to qualify it as aggression. There needs to be a threat of force for that. I think you need to give an example of a behavior that is unambiguously not a violation of upb/nap in order for the question to be answered. I can only think of aesthetically non-preferable things as examples. But those things are not ethical questions.

Hi. Check out http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/handy-dandy-guide-for-skeptic-of.html . If you are a causal determinist you might want to read http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2071...eterminism.pdf .

You own the responsibilities you chose when you created the child. When you created it you created another being with self-ownership. You own the effects of your actions, not just the product of your labor.

His justification is that it's moral for him to murder his wife's murderer because it sees it that way. That means if someone sees something as moral then it is. So logically he must accept that it's moral for HIM to be murdered if someone sees it that way. His wife's murderer would also have be justified in killing her if he saw it that way. These scenarios omit necessary information (is the nurderer remorseful and willing to make restitution or glad and certain to murder again?) and use the emotional weight of extreme events to bypass reason. Whe one brings up murder or terrifying situations the mind's rational capacity gets lowered and nonsense can get slipped by. This person supports that state right? So that's probably why he's trying to destroy universal moral principles because he knows the state can't survive them. Well just apply his argument to theft. If it's moral to murder you wife's murderer then it should be moral to steal from those who steal from you. That means it's moral to steal back tax revenue. That means everyone can morally stop paying taxes or take back what's been stolen.

There are 216 letters in your post.

I guess the scientific method or logic or accepting the truth that the NAP is a subjective preference are subjective preferences too. Is there such a thing as an objective preference?

I really like your idea of "symmetry" and "moral peers". That seems like an original way to think about upb.

In the movie, members of the government are exempt from the purge. Anyone surprised?

If that's the argument then everyone would always have to compensate everyone else at all times and places. If I deserve compensation because I can't use your land then you deserve compensation because you can't use mine. If a city of people have a right to compensation from a big oil company because the residents are excluded from their oil-fields then the big-oil company has a right to compensation because THEY are excluded from those residents homes, etc.

Lots of people get there first and do nothing with the resource. If someone wants compensation then the developer of the resource must have created value from it, otherwise the resource would have no current value (oil in the ground or fish in the sea are not inhernetly valuable). So what person X is saying is that they are owed a part of person Y's labour because if it hadn't have been for person X just happening to get there first person Y could have used the resource to create value. But person X is already compensated because person Y is saved from having to use their labour and take risks to create the value. Nothing has been taken from person Y other than a possible opportunity.

I think the onus would be on the one who wants to exclude them. I would guess much less then 1% of land owners could trace back a line of ownership back to homesteading. Even if they could go back centuries, they would almost invariablely find that the title does not come from being the first to use the land but to some state sanctioned title. Even if a mixing labor with virgin soil were a valid way to secure an indefinite property claim, it is not the basis of the vast majority of land titles. The state has written the history of land ownership, and those not in positions state privledge who previously used a land, found their history not recorded by the state. If the contestor is arguing the owner has no right to exclude them because of this then by the same standard the contestor has no right to claim ownership of the land either. They'd be making a self-detonating argument.

So if I come on your land, you or the government as your agent cannot initiate force against me? If you cannot exclude me from your land, then it is a public space. No, hang on. If the land is legitimately owned by me then the person coming on the land is initiating force. They are in some sense violating my property. So any force I use is defensive, not an intiation.

UPB would only come into play if someone contests the homesteading of some land. They would have to put forward a theory that explains why the homesteading was not UPB and therefore immoral. If the contestor says the owner has no right to exclude them from the land because it was originally obtained in some immoral way then they have to explain what gives THEM rights to the land. How is THEIR claim UPB? Anyone can homestead any piece of unused land. As far as I can it is UPB because so far I've heard no objections to homesteading that don't blow up in the objectors face. I'm not sure how one would morally exclude others by the intiation of force. By defintion that would be immoral. I think we DO produce land in some sense. That is if you view land as useful space that may have resources. When we build a skyscraper we are making land. If we change land in some beneficial way we have produced it.

Well if she likes it then it's not rape. If people like being taxed then they can do that. They can arrange to have some authority force them to pay for services. The problem comes when they make it universal and claim everyone must be taxed.

It talks about objective "values". I'm not sure how that would relate to UPB.

I think "Don't take my word for it" can be translated as "Don't accept my authority on this. The process by which I came to this conclusion is valid and you can replicate it".

How can you then define senses as something that works? What's the difference between your senses and reality?

If you know of the senses because they work and you experience them then you know of reality because it works and you experience it. There's no magical barrier between your senses and reality. The lense/apparatus of a camera is not necessarily distinct in nature from the things it's photographing. What is sensed is the light refleted of the objects.

Well how do know of the senses if not by reality? I think you can only compare what is sensed (or assumed to be sensed) to the senses.