ProfessionalTeabagger

The Problem with Hume's law is that he was sitting on his own when he posited it. Morality only activates when you're interacting with others in some way. There are no external oughts, only a choice of wrong or right. Do you choose to behave in a way that can be supported with logically consistent / universal justifications or not? As soon as you appeal to consequences this way then the relativists can drag you down to their level. That's because consequences are just subjective preferences.

Where did I say or argue that all statements had to be arguments? I'll rephrase. If you don't want to be an annoying twat who makes bald assertions like that then you should support your claims with arguments and/or evidence; especially given that you're on a fucking debate forum. Also, saying "it's pretty basic" and Friedman holds that position for decades is not an argument either. I could just as easily say the opposite is "pretty basic" and point to some equally qualified person who doesn't hold that view for decades. By your standard I would be just as right. Smarten up. Right, it's like reason and science. I can't find those in any organism at the macro or micro level. They must not exist. Obviously you don't because you can kill someone who doesn't want it but it's still not murder. Self defense for example. What gave me the impression was that you reduced murder to "killing someone". But killing someone is a necessary but not sufficient condition for murder. So you were wrong. That's not the argument. It's that murder (voluntarily killing someone through the initiation of force) cannot be universally preferable behavior.

Do you understand you have to make an argument, not just bald assertions? Sure and if you reduce in down even further isn't it really just molecules interacting with other molecules? I don't see any morality in molecules, do you? If you don't understand the difference between killing that is murder a killing that is not murder then this debate is too advanced for you. These are elementary things you need to know before you come here. Otherwise we all have to slow down just for you.

That's how you characterize my arguments? Do you know how fucking rude that is? You think what YOU put forward was "simple"? Really? That incomprehensible string of unpacked premises is simple?

I've already explained this. It's like asking me, "How is your system scientific rather than logical?". If the moral theory/ justification/ rule, etc is illogical then it must be wrong. For moral theories, justifications, rules (which we use all the time implicitly or explicitly) to be valid they have to meet certain criteria (logical consistency, universality). If they don't meet those criteria then they are wrong. Violations of the NAP do not meet these criteria. You can test it by trying to find a valid justification for rape, theft, etc. I have asked but you keep repeating the same bullshit over and over. How hard is it to understand that "God said it's good" is not a valid justification. I told you I can just say "God said it's not good" and we're back to square one. How long are you going to keep telling me that the statement "God said rape is good" can be a valid premise as if it refutes what I'm arguing? There being multiple definitions does not preclude the explanation being in the title. If you think otherwise then why did you ask for a definition in the first place? No matter what definition I gave you can just say it's wrong because there are multiple definitions in the book. I'm tired of your manipulations. Many valid theories have multiple definitions that are valid in different contexts. People use moral theories and make moral statements and use moral justifications all the time. To say you have NO CLUE what I mean by morality makes me think you are an idiot. Rape is wrong. There's nothing "mysterious" about my views. I've made every effort to make them as clear as possible. I've explained the term UPB. I have already related them. What I was trying to achieve was to ask you a question. Hence the question marks? You are just too bust trying to manipulate in order to even process that you were asked questions. I do understand the difference and I'm pretty sure you know I understand the difference. You are continuing to double down on this even after I repeatedly explain to you why it's wrong. You seem to be using validity to refer to a statement (rather than the form of the argument) but I'm not talking about a statement. I'm talking about the justification. The entire justification. The justification. Do you understand? The justification is more than just the statement. Do you see? To avoid this nonsense I'm going to stop using the term "valid" or "validity" because you are exploiting it in order to obfuscate like some kind of lawyer. I've explained the logical inconsistency in your justification. It was an arbitrary declaration. Arbitrary declarations cannot be correct justifications. I gave an example of how arbitrary declarations always lead to contradiction. Your justification fails. Obviously. You cannot provide a correct justification for NAP violations. Anything you provide will collapse into insurmountable contradiction Why do I care about accounts of morality? This is not William Lane Craig time. I'm not interested in "accounting". I'm interested in truth. The truth is that some moral justifications are objectively wrong.

For the millionth time, I didn't use "good" or "evil". One might use "evil" as a synonym for morally wrong or use "good" as a synonym for morally correct. If you want to talk about evil or good as well then that's fine but don't shoehorn them into an argument where I did not use them. If I did use them then link to where I used them or stfu about it. Enforceable behavior is behavior that that is claimed rightly or wrongly to be enforceable. That is if I say something is immoral then I'm saying it can legitimately be enforced through violence. Morality is universally preferable behavior. So the subject is human behavior. Thank you for telling me what you find astounding. What a brilliant argument. What I find astounding is certain people's inability to comprehend something when the description of the thing is in the title. You know what preferable behavior is, right? It's preferable to eat food if you want to live, etc. Well UPB is preferable behavior that is universal. It applies to everyone at all times. I have to show? Is it just preferable for me to show this in a debate or is it universally preferable behavior to show it? Is there someone at some time to whom the implicit rules you are putting forward do not apply? Jesus Wept. Let's try again. Person A: Can you morally justify rape? Person B. God said it's morally right. Person A: God said it's morally wrong. If person B's statement can be considered valid in any way then Person A's statement can be also be considered valid. But they cannot both be true. The problem lies in the form of the statement. It's an arbitrary declaration and can be dismissed as such. So your justification does not work. It is wrong. There's also other ways to chuck out your attempted justification (ex: there's no god) but this suffices. You need to provide one valid justification for rape. You can't do it. BTW, valid means the justification is logically consistent, not just the statement. The justification has to work when applied. Do you understand?

This is a vicious and extremely manipulative attack on us. We have not harmed you in any way yet you slander us? Are you really so sensitive about some down-votes that you'll judge thousands of innocent people and paint them as bastard while setting yourself up as a saint. You smear people you don't even know and then expect pity because someone pricked you're hypersensitive balloon? What kind of sociopath are you?

I'm pretty sure there's as much argumentation in my response as there was in what I was responding to. If not then please correct me. I thought it was self-evident but if you require more then I'll try. When you debate (argue, propose, etc) you necessarily have to accept certain standards and hold the other person to them. If you make the argument that all men are mortal then you accept an objective standard of truth (otherwise it's arbitrary opinion with no truth value and can be dismissed). We are both bound by this standard (it is preferable) in the debate and must compare our argument and propositions to that standard. Agreed? So that standard of truth in order to be valid must be universal (true for everyone at all times - given the context). Then by accepting the standard for the debate you must necessarily accept that it is valid and preferable universally. No because a theory can still be valid even if it has no uses. As it happens morality is used all the time. You can formally reject all of morality but it will still exist between people. People will still do evil things and attempt to morally justify them (it's for the greater good, it's natural, she was asking for it, it's the will of God, it violates the nap, it's bad for society, etc). Even giving no justification is itself a justification. You can't escape UPB. It is accurate. When someone asks "Why be moral?" they implicitly accept that if I give a correct answer then that is sufficient. If not then they are asking a question of aesthetics or one that is beyond reason and can't possibly be answered. Your example with blonds and brunettes is an aesthetic question. Unless otherwise stated, "Why be moral?" is not.

If you're right and spanking has little or no effect then there'd be even less reason to spank. Why take the risk of spanking if it has little or no effect? So the no-spanking case wins either way. So you're saying the positions agianst spanking were hysterical (rather than reasoned), the studies were just "thrown around" (rather than used in a valid way to support the arguments) and Stefan "clings to his conclusions" (rather than accepts them as a result of sound reasoning)? Do you have any evidence for those claims?

Morality is a preference, just like science and reason are preferences. You can prefer to have the theories and justifications that underlie your behavior be rational or you can prefer the other. Asking "Why be moral?" is like asking "Why be scientific?" or "Why be rational?". The answer is, because if you don't you'll be wrong. If being wrong / right is not sufficient reason then you're not asking a valid question, because asking the question presupposes that being right or wrong is a sufficient answer. See?

Changing what you call the interaction doesn't change the logic and necessary principles required for it. They are not provisional or temporary requirements. As soon as you debate you implicitly set up an objective standard of truth by which we both must compare our arguments and propositions. That standard applies universally which means to everyone at all times. They are UPB. What uses morality has are irrelevant to the validity of it. Your relativism has no place on this forum. No one cares about your subjective arbitrary preferences. This is a philosophy forum, not post-modern waffle talk. I don't know what "moralism" is but if you're talking about UPB then your statement that it's only useful for bamboozling gullible people is wrong. People make moral claims and put forward moral theories all the time and being able to distinguish the wrong ones from valid ones is obviously of use. Do you think the defeat of the moral justifications for slavery being proven wrong (itself a proof of objective morality) was useful to the slaves? Do you think Stefan's attempt to defeat the moral theories and justifications around hitting kids will help kids? Do you think the moral theories around free speech, separation of church and state and free market principles helped YOU? He says while pulling the rug out from under himself. If you're right then I don't have to do jack-shit. I could pray for a bridge. Is praying an engineering principle?

What you wish to maintain is irrelevant to my argument. Please demonstrate I used the term "evil" or concede I didn't. The theories and justifications that underlie certain behavior is wrong. Morality deals with enforceable behavior. That's what's meant by morally wrong. What's "morally good" mean? I didn't use that term. Theft is not another can of worms. It's just a moral violation like rape. They are both violation of the NAP. Theft is not another can of worms. It's just a moral violation like rape. They are both violation of the NAP. It means "universally preferable behavior". The meaning is in the title. You are implicitly putting forward UPB when you debate here. Do you have a valid justification for rape or not? I have rebutted your other attempts so if you cannot show were my rebuttals are wrong then you have to accept rape cannot be morally justified.

They become related over time as you mix your labor, time with "the land".

How would we counter what? Provide details. We can't do ethical reasoning if we're not sure what the question is or what all the details in the scenario are.

LOL. The poor victim statist. Should we get you fainting couch? I mean, you support and advocate the initiation of force through the apparatus of the state on everyone here but if someone dares respond with nasty comments, well that's just wrong! That's the bully mentality that is shocked when your lesser slaps you back. The fact that you're too stupid to figure out how to pick up trash without the state doesn't give you the right to have your boot on my face. Now fuck off.

You've shown no good-will. Your patina of civility is disingenuous. A person showing goodwill would have looked into these basic concepts properly (and would not be asking how will we handle roads?) and would have at least have read the free book "practical anarchy" that's on this website. Your original post was an insult because it was so lazy and made everyone have to drag stuff out of you. Then you now pretend you're just trying to help. It's concern trolls like you I despise the most. I can explain these things in many different ways but with you I choose to do it this way because you're a lazy asshole who moves goal-posts and wastes everyone's time. As for dealing with people like you in a free society, that's the beauty: I don't have to. The only reason we have to prostrate ourselves before your idiotic creationist level questions is because we're subject to the violent state you support. If there was no state we could just say "bye" and have nothing to do with you. I didn't answer your post originally. I waited until I saw your responses and they were the predictably disingenuous. If you did read the book on this site and you came here with "How will we handle roads?" then you're a fucking moron. So you're saying not one person gave you a single practical answer? I just told you how to have trash collected. That's practical answer. I just told you there's an entire free audio-book by Stefan that addresses these very questions. But no one has given you any practical answers? You fucking liar. Your "how this gun works analogy" is stupid. The argument is that it doesn't matter how SERVICES government already provide will be provided without them because morality supersedes such practical concerns. Either you make a valid rebuttal to that or you accept it. I don't want you to be convinced and I don't believe you're here to be convinced. I don't need you to grant me freedom. We won't wait for you. This kinda reminds of white people and immigration from the third world. They have this delusional belief that if they are just nice the people from these shit countries will see we are better and want to adopt western secular/ free market values. But it's bullshit. The good people here think if they are nice to filth like you then you will come around to reason. But I know you're full of it. If someone thinks a philosophical position is discredited because the person advocating it was insulting then I'm glad they are not coming on board. Slavery abolitionists didn't get anywhere by being nice to slavery advocates. Why should I be nice to you? What value do you have to provide?

Who cares what you buy? It's not like we're going to wait for dickheads who can't even think how to pick up trash unless the state tells them how. You just hire someone to do it you fucking idiot. Please don't pretend you're here for answers. You're one of those jackasses who doesn't even bother to read the entire free book on this website that deals directly with this issue but then proceeds to bombard us with irrelevant questions that you then throw cold water on. If you are concerned that you can't do something without the state then I advise you remain in a state. Please don't get the impression we want you with us. You'd be better off in a state. And people gave you practical answers galore AND gave the argument from morality that shows why it doesn't matter how things will work. Do you have a valid rebuttal or do you just want to keep moving the goal posts every time someone gives you an answer? Unless you can demonstrate one service the state provides that can't be provided without it then you're done.

Of course there's a requirement. You accepted the requirement when you began to debate. A debate or any such rational discourse necessarily requires both parties subject themselves to an objective standard they are both required to conform to. Snark is not an argument. Saying useless moralistic phantoms is like saying useless scientific phantoms or useless rational phantoms. After all, by your standard I'm not required to accept scientific or rational conclusions. You are trying to pull the rug out from under ethics but you've fallen on your ass.

It's not required to follow correct principles to build a bridge.

You're right. The oughts are activated once you interact with people. But some people keep looking for oughts outside of that interaction.

Persuasive? You mean correct, right? You're asking why is it correct that we should conform to principles that are correct? Because otherwise you will be wrong. If that's not true (conforming to reason and evidence) then there's no requirement to accept any of your arguments or conclusions. Why should we? (this is what I asked you in the first place on your original post). I didn't answer "Why be moral?" with "Because it's moral." That would be begging the question (which apparently people ought not do in this debate about whether there is a reason why we ought do X). I answered with "Because it's correct". So your claim that I can then get "Because it's good" from "Why be good?" is wrong. I would give the answer "Because it's correct". I said or argued no such thing. Drop it..

Okay, so now you're question has changed to "Why make sacrifices to follow things that are true?". That's moving the goal-posts. I've answered the question. My answer is correct. You don't get to ask new questions until you tell me why I'm wrong. I'm not sure why you put commas around the word "answer" (to show contempt for me providing an actual answer I guess) but insulting my answer as being "a step below Jesus" and telling me it "seems" like idol worship is stupid and not something I can rationally rebut. I've answered your question. Why be moral? Because it's correct. We should conform to those principles that are correct. To be moral is to conform to correct moral principles. Therefore we should be moral because it's correct. Do you have a valid rebuttal?

I honestly do not know what you're talking about. Tell you what? Apply it to YOUR question / argument as so as I can see how it applies there. Show me how you applied this standard to yourself first (I assume you did that otherwise you would be spouting nonsense). Then maybe I can know how it applies to my answer to the question "Why be moral?".

I don't know what you're talking about but I'm pretty sure it's nonsense. The answer to "Why be moral?" is "because it's correct". You can ask "Why be correct?" but I think that would be the ultimate self-detonating question. Well that's largely true as well but what I mean is that ethics have been aesthetics. What people claim is moral has simply been what that happens to conform to their tastes. I like rape or rape is good has been the same as I like chocolate or chocolate is good.

Because it's correct. Correct. Better or worse has nothing to do it. We don't answer "Why follow the scientific method?" with "because it's better". We answer with, "because it's correct". We don't answer "Why use valid reasoning?" with "it's better". We answer, "because it's correct". So why when it comes to ethics do we suddenly shift into aesthetics? I would suggest that's because ethics have BEEN nothing but aesthetics for thousands of years.