Arius

I return your definitions. Parents (noun): 1. People who buy you clothes, feed you, put a roof over your head, throw you parties, transport you, provide you medical care, buy you ice cream, and use violence as a means of placing you at the bottom of an authoritarian power structure. 2. People against whom you cannot physically defend yourself. 3. Administrators of a welfare state Family (noun): 1. An organization with rules and procedures which supersede all other authority. 2. A welfare state

I return your argument. If I slap you for making that argument, will you understand it is a type of loving discipline? It shouldn't traumatize you. I'll only slap you a little, it won't cause severe pain. It will be an expression of my love for you as a fellow person. We have a bond of care between us, so it's not some kind of huge deal. I don't want to discipline you, but you don't seem to understand how much danger your argument puts you in. Don't you see? I need to slap you for your own good. It doesn't mean you're any less of a person or that I don't like you. It just means I cannot reason with your young mind (as it cannot rationalize danger), and you need to be slapped into not making this argument again. It's not abuse. It's not assault or rape. Associating assault with something like a small, harmless slap is wrong to do.

[] What can I do to benefit your search for self-knowledge? I should add, in my experience self-knowledge doesn't actually help in controlling others. It does exactly the opposite. It makes the holder of such knowledge more difficult for others to control. For example, in the past, people have tried to dictate "right" behaviors to me by shaming me into conformance. I have come to understand that shame is predominately used as a tool of control. To this end, whenever I feel an upwelling of shame, I evaluate the reason for the feeling. If the feeling is a conditioned response to some familiar social stimulus (i.e. another person telling me I'm somehow inferior to them by failing to perform according to their expectations), I reject the felling. Because of my awareness of the behavioral conditioning I have, I can reject the effects of that conditioning. I cannot be shamed into compliance. I suspect that, if everyone understood themselves, no one could control anyone else... It would be anarchy.

That's a statement of self-knowledge...you know why you want to know something, sort of. You see, there is no particular reason why you must behave in any specific way. That's the implication of "no involuntary, positive moral obligations". Every belief you hold, every behavior you demonstrate, all of it is for some set of reasons which are contained entirely within you. Knowing those reasons, understanding your own motivations...as you say, your own "evolution", that's self-knowledge. The assumption I make from what's written is that you feel a need for power over others. I'd like to make a deal: I will offer you the courtesy of not attempting to manipulate you, if you choose to return the favor. I know that's a lot to ask, as I'm requesting you value my need over your own. However, I can't participate if it's all just a power struggle. I am very interested in participating if it's a search for what is true. I don't believe it is possible to do both at the same time.

I think the more important question is: why do people respond to this sort of non-argument? Suppose the OP has correctly identified his opinion: The OP is only communicating as a means of increasing power. Reason will fail. Empathy will fail. Meaningful, peaceful discourse is impossible. Suppose the OP has incorrectly identified his opinion: The OP is ill-informed about his own motivations and lacks the self-knowledge for philosophy. Meaningful, peaceful discourse is impossible. Go dominate somewhere else!

Prove: To establish consistency with that which exists independent of human awareness by presentation of argument or evidence.

It is absolutely critical to understand the epistemology of the people with whom you converse. Epistemology forms the foundation of validity. If two people do not share an epistemology, they will have different standards of evidence. What is proof to one will be absurd nonsense to another. Regrettably, some forms of epistemology reject the possibility of statements being objectively true or false. As such, it is (sadly) impossible to prove or disprove anything for some people.

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WM8bTdBs-cw]

I think the wall is blue. You agree that the wall is blue. The wall looks blue to both you and me. That does not necessarily mean the wall is blue, though it does mean that the wall is blue in every testable way. Reality is, at best, knowable within the context of the standards of evidence used by the individual. Of course, that's just a simple explanation of applied epistemology. I think that, more often than not, when people refer to the invalidity of the senses, they actually believe that the mind's failure to understand sensory information is a problem of sense, and not a problem of mind.

Other fictional characters.

After a long, sunny walk, I realize that I'm sidestepping your actual argument. You are not arguing that a state of total coercion exists now. You are arguing that, if a state of total coercion existed, everyone's moral obligations would be indistinguishable from moral nihilism. Suppose that every person lived under a quasi-omnipotent, coercive entity. I'll use the popular example. Suppose God exists (the Christian one). If an entity creates arbitrary rules about all types behavior, and enforces those rules through the swift application of force, then everyone lives in a condition of constant, absolute coercion. In that case, there are no opportunities to make free choices, and no moral obligations. So, you are correct. In the case of an absolute state of coercion, there is no room for moral practice. However, for every degree of freedom in choice and action which exists, there is room for moral practice. This is distinct from the moral nihilist position: there is no morality, no matter the amount of freedom in choice and action. I would say: The amount of morality in a situation is inversely proportionate to the amount of coercion. A moral nihilist would say: There is no morality in any situation. I hope that better addresses you argument.

I can summarize my counter argument so it better meets your needs. When you are alone in a room, the government is not there. When you are standing in a field with several other people, the government is not there. We do not live under perpetual coercion, violent or otherwise. Were you to make that claim, you would need to identify the source of this coercion, you have, as of yet, failed to do this. Living in close proximity to a bunch of violent assholes in insufficient justification for moral nihilism. As I said, geographic location is not a source of coercion. If you can identify the gun (figuratively or literally) which is constantly pointed at everyone, then that would be worth considering as a source of perpetual coercion. Barring something more tangible than "the state rules", you have not yet shown the necessary link between the ideas of moral nihilism and amorality in coercive situations to justify the claim that the latter must lead to the former.

I'm gonna talk to you, cause I like that topic too. It's true that there is some degree of income mobility. I might, over the course of 30 or 40 years of wage labor, manage to increase my annual income from $15k to $80k or $90k. However, and I think it's worth considering carefully, it takes an entire lifetime of wage labor to accomplish that change. I believe the important point is not the actual distribution of wealth. It really doesn't matter who has the money. What matters is how much violence was used to accomplish and maintain a specific distribution. In our case, society is rife with welfare (both corporate and individual). The large nanny state acts to inhibit the equitable transfer of wealth. Rather than fall into the neo-con trap of becoming a corporate apologist (by over-focusing on income mobility), can't we all just agree that force in society is categorically bad, and any wealth arrangement which requires force to arrive at or maintain is equally bad? You don't notice when the obesity makes it hard to run. You don't notice when the obesity starts to cut off circulation to random parts of your body. You notice when the obesity causes diabetes and your toe is amputated. You don't notice when the state subsidizes big business by creating tiny pockets of extremely competitive, immobile labor markets (how much usable land in the US is "off-limits" and owned by the government). You don't notice when capital is allowed to move and work all over the globe, but people are kept within their own nation states (The wealthy can work in any country, at any time. The poor cannot.). You notice when the liberalization of capital, combined with the entrapment of people, makes a tiny few, well-connected people obscenely wealthy while the rest actually lose income over time. Wealth inequality is symptomatic of the exceptional amount of violence in our economy. That's all. (Non-sarcastically) Please, share that knowledge with me. I've been alive for decades. I've worked, saved, and I am now less employable than I have ever been. I currently make the lowest wage of my life. I have never been fired, never received a poor evaluation. I've deferred gratification in favor of education. What is this path to income mobility you know of? Cause I don't even know how to get from $10k up to $50k a year...Much less how to become a millionaire. I'll need to dwell on why that provokes such a strong emotional reaction in me. I'm actually a little frustrated that you'd say that. Perhaps it's that the statement conflicts with my experience...I just don't know. Still, I'd really like to know how to get that mobility. I'm kind of a lefty (though I self-identify as a centrist). I'm not pro-state. If asked I'll point-out that the bulk of the economic activity created by the state serves to absorb the surplus production of naturally unsupportable industries. I'm not anti-market, but I do point-out that the costs of maintaining an economy of conspicuous consumption are being socialized by the state (the poor pay disproportionately, through regressive taxation, for the protection of the property of the rich). I know the individual has some mobility. Not much (relative to the distance from one side of the wealth scale to the other), but some.

I call it "Big Brother Conan". It's rare that I'm inspired, by an argument, to create art. Thank you for that. "Ethics ... is survival of the fittest." "There will always be a will to power" "every move you make happens in a society under the umbrella of the State" "There is always a State." - Moncaloono

I could try to explain that the state is not, in fact, omnipresent or omnipotent. But would you believe me? In my mind, it's better to echo back your own ideas, as any attempt I make to communicate will be construed as an attempt to dominate. I cannot even begin to deconstruct "You aren't walking on the sidewalk in a state of anarchy because the contractor who built the sidewalk was commissioned by a government employee who might have used tax funds, rather than a bond, to pay for the work"...Rather than try, I'll just echo. I don't know. The idea that everyone is trying to kill or dominate you, doesn't that strike you as a touch paranoid? The idea that the state is there with you, as you walk down the sidewalk... I try to communicate in meaningful ways, but I don't know how to address paranoia (I'm not trying to judge, that's really the only way I can understand thoughts like these) except to announce my own good intentions. I mean you no harm. The state is not following people down the sidewalk. The state is not everywhere within the geographic borders of a country. The state is in control of very little.

The State knows all. The State sees all. The State controls all. It's like you're channeling Big Brother.

You said: "...Ethics ... is survival of the fittest..." and "There will always be a will to power" and "power is the dominant factor in freedom". I just wanted you to know that I'm not going to try to kill you, even if you don't let me dominate you. Also, I will not allow you to dominate me, even if you try to kill me. We will both survive each other, no matter who is fitter. I have no desire to dominate or control other people. No one controls me and I don't control anyone. I am free, yet I lack power.

Kill or be killed, everything else is pretense. It's such a tragic existence. I won't kill you, even if you don't allow me to dominate you. I won't be dominated, even if you try to kill me. We can have real, peaceful debates, in which there are no attempts to dominate or coerce...or, we can talk as a pretense to establish authority. I prefer the former over the latter..

Kill or be killed, it's human nature. Freedom is slavery. To dominate is best in life. Conan The Barbarian + Doublethink. Why pretend to debate? Just grab your sword and go defeat your enemies.

The only problem with this is the idea that wealth inequality is somehow resolved by more violence in society. I also find it funny that the wealthiest side of the chart gets the most welfare from the state. The government has solved the problem of poverty...for that one guy. It's sad that these kinds of debates are always about who should hold the gun and where it should be pointed, rather than how to actually solve the problem.

I think we're talking about the state differently. I would agree that, in any case where the state is threatening a person, there is no opportunity for a moral choice. However, simply being in a country cannot reasonably be construed as a threat. In fact, anything which is not part of an interaction between two people cannot be construed as a threat. Walking on a road is not a threat. It being tax day is not a threat. The threat is the nasty letter from someone at the IRS, or the cop who knocks on the door. There is no gigantic, sentient, omnipresent organism named "The state". "The state" is shorthand for "a person or persons who claim the right to coerce"... Simply, those people who imagine themselves to be the rulers of others are the state. You do not live in constant danger. Anyone making an argument that they live under total, constant threat would need better evidence than "I'm standing in Iowa" or "It's April". Alternatively, if their actually is no opportunity for any free choices, then there is no opportunity for morality. I believe you see a continuity between the two sets of interactions. Perhaps you believe accepting the money has a greater implication. If I am handed a rock, which was used to kill a person, by the murderer (not as part of an avoidance of an investigation)... Some guy just hands me a rock which was previously used to kill some other person, do I endorse the murder by performing the act of taking? There are no implicit agreements created by accepting offered objects. The argument that some class of voluntary transaction is not permissible, is a positive argument for a state. It's "People, if left to their own devices, will take prohibited, yet mutually preferable, action X (smoking crack, copyright infringement, whatever). We must, therefore, use violence to prevent action X from being taken." If some class of voluntary transaction is morally prohibited, then we need coercion in society to break-up that transaction, as people will not avoid the prohibited action of their own volition. We know that coercion is morally wrong, so all types of voluntary transactions must be morally permissible. Look, we cannot morally support the A->C action, that's clear. However, there is no reason (no social contract) to think that the A->B action (getting paid) constitutes support of the A->C action (robbery). If, for example, B told A to go get C's money (if you vote), then there's all sorts of room for moralizing. Or, if A and B collude (if you are a politician or a lobbyist) to take C's money, that's also not kosher. However, if A is just out there in the world, robbing indiscriminately, then taking A's gifts, surrendering to A when threatened, and fighting-back against A are all morally permissible. That is not to say it is right to take A's money, there are no involuntary positive moral obligations. It is neither right nor wrong, entirely a matter of preference. I believe that you are arguing that taking A's money is either an A-and-B-colluding-against-C or a B-instructing-A-against-C scenario. To me, it's better to simply stop A from wandering around and robbing people than to moralize against people who get gifts. It doesn't really matter who gets the ill-gotten gains. What matters is stopping the ill-getting.