Wesley

I was on using Stef's definition (I believe it is located in "On Truth") and it is not particularly relevant to the discussion except to prompt the question I am posting about. I am proposing that good is not defined as "not evil". Evil is defined, logical and objective, but being not evil doesn't mean you are doing good. Unless someone else wants to define goodness or virtue as "not evil" by which case I would ask for clarification on Stef's definition of love as it seems that anyone who has not comitted initiatory violence would be loved by all. No, I accept UPB and am trying to work toward objective morality. See my original post and earlier in this post for clarification as to my goal. If someone can define it objectively, then that would be fine, but I am asking the question. This I would like to see virtue defined and run through UPB. I do not think you can define honesty as UPB or kindness, or generosity, or prudence, or any other "classical virtue". UPB in general requires negative assertions rather than positive assertions. Thus, I feel it is great at defining evil, but I am asking as to how one could objectively define good or virtue. If the definition is "not evil", then UPB seems to work. If it is more than that, then I am asking the definition and how we could apply objective standards to it (or not).

I searched the forum and didn't find a thread devoted to defining virtue, which I think may be a worthwhile venture for two reasons. 1. Love has been defined as an involuntary response to virtue. This definition seems to need at least a working definition of virtue in order to gain completeness as to how love is achieved. 2. UPB may be incomplete in defining morality, which I have heard Stef talk about (I think). Yes, initiating violence makes you evil and not initiating violence is necessary to be good, but it seems incomplete. It also seems slightly disingenuous to put classical virtues into the category of aesthetics. For instance, someone in a coma cannot be evil, but it seems odd to consider them as good when they are doing nothing. My instinct at least is that virtue would be required to achieve goodness in addition to the avoidance of evil. Definitions of virtue seem to be silly, but here are some dictionary definitions (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/virtue): vir·tue [vur-choo] noun 1. moral excellence; goodness; righteousness. 2. conformity of one's life and conduct to moral and ethical principles; uprightness; rectitude. 3. chastity; virginity: to lose one's virtue. 4. a particular moral excellence. Compare cardinal virtues, natural virtue, theological virtue. 5. a good or admirable quality or property: the virtue of knowing one's weaknesses. Also here is a LIST OF VIRTUES. These in themselves seem silly and contradictory. For instance, caution and courage, definance and obedience, as well as beauty all appear on the list which seem to not fit my definition, or are seemingly self contradictory. This then brings up the possibility that maybe evil can be objectively defined, but virtue could be relegated to the area of aethetics, thus making goodnessand love more subjective. This seems fair as not everyone loves the same virtuous people in practicec, but is a bit disconcerting in the attempt to objectively define morality. Let me know what you think and maybe we can flesh out a definition of virtue. Maybe I also missed something obvious on this where it has already been discussed, so if you could point it out then that would be helpful as well.

I would also like to see an interview if possible which I think it could be quite interesting.

I would just like to say how sorry I am for what you have experienced. Words cannot even describe what I am feeling right now. I also would like to point out how amazing it is that despite what happened to you, it is amazing that you made it here and are reaching out to people. I do hope you continue with that journey.

My hope would be the slavery of the family where children are demeaned, beat, forced to do work without pay, and given enough resources for food and shelter only would be the next slavery that people are angered by. Those who justify what their parents did to them and continue the abuse onto others would be the Uncle Toms. I would love a world where hitting a child is looked at with the revulsion of hitting a slave or hitting your wife.

I may not totally understand it yet, which I have had some things going on so I havent been dreaming as much again, but I have been thinking some about these dreams. I am beginning to think that the cats are not evil or good and trying to help me. They appear when I am trying to see the truth about a situation. I am at a point where I want to analyze something that is confusing or ambivalent. The cats try to scare me or delay me from seeing the truth. They seem to symbolize my own insecurities about wanting to know the answer. In the large cat dream, it was dealing with the church, but I was able to kill the cat and see the problems, but then it got to my mother (where there were two large cats) and I was not able to kill them and begun to question if I should (ambivolence about it appearing in my dream). In the house cat dream, I was listening in on a conversation with my mother and a cat-sitter, which then the cats chased me and tried to scare me upstairs so I would not continue to hear the conversation and evaluate it. I then tried to tackle a cat that escaped and got bit by it. I then went downstairs again and was shocked that she was still talking and ignoring that I was attacked by the cats. In a sense, I think the cats are trying to protect me from the truth, which as trying to be a philosopher I would try to reject. I would be curious if this trend starts to hold or if it digresses if I can get to deal with some of these things and start dreaming again. In response to what you are saying I would be very curious how these girls treat their cat. I also to not think it is mystical at all to say that you portray outwardly a lot of information about yourself that people can pick up on. You can know almost everything about someone within a couple of seconds of interaction because of the amazing processing power of the subconscious. Being truly empathetic I am sure attracts people who have enough empathy to want to experience empathy.

No, what it is is you have to prove harm and not have prior contract. So if I grill, I have to pick 1 of two options. 1. Figure out a way that pollutions doesn't go directly onto their property. Yes, maybe 1 particle would, but they would have to prove in a court that it harmed them, which they would not be able to do. If I do not have enough property yo not occasionally blow on their property, then maybe I would have to install ventilation of some kind. 2. Contract. I go and talk to the neighbor who I cannot avoid polluting their property and ask them if it is ok, try to find a spot that would pollute them the least, or maybe allow him to grill near my property as well. Obviosuly a large manufacturing plant would have a more difficult time doing this, and may need contract from more people, better cleaning, or more land to fit these criteria. These are easily achievable in a free society to square the NAP with things that are achievable in the real world.

NOOOOO!!! Intent does not matter at all. If I am a communist and I intend to create utopia, but instead cause the deaths of millions am I not culpable? If I am a parent and I intend to raise my kids right by not sparing the rod, am I still not an aggressor of violence? If I am playing with my gun and accidentally shoot someone in the house next door do I still not commit a crime of muder with maybe a mitigating circumstance as a possible argument (maybe)? If my girlfriend says something that hurts me then OF COURSE she didn't mean it, but I still was hurt and it needs to be dealt with through curious exploration. Now, if I push you into a wall to save you from a car, I would hope that you would thank me rather than press charges, and by far most people would. If you walked up to me in the street and started harvesting my organs without talking to me or anesthetics, then that is pretty vile. You get a lot of pain and sickness and warning before an appedix bursts (usually at least). Also irrelevant. If I make a camp fire that gets out of control by my negligence and I burn down your house, then I am responsible for that. If I am burning a fire over the years that fills your house and gives you lung cancer, then I am responsible even if my attempt was just to grill burgers. There are facts in your example. 1. I started a fire 2. You passed out That is it. My intent can never be disproven or proven. If someone passed out and hit their head because of my fire blowing onto their property, I would do whatever I could to try to restitute them for that. Intent is always irrelevant. Almost all of the most evil people in the world had good intent, but that does not make them less evil, let alone absolve them of their sins.

Agreed. Now we just need to expand the definition to include children. Children have autonomy. therefore they are not owned. Not everything that is created is then owned (see debates on intellectual property). Thus, I feel like the act of creating life is not to create it for your own ownership, but you are creating life and giving it to another consciousness. Thus, you rescind ownership of the property once consciousness is acquired.

Now I'm even more confused. You seem to claim moral relativism and moral absolutism in the same post. You also claim the solution to enforced violence (an evil to be avoided) is enforced violence (a good to be encouraged). These are two positions that are contradictory and cannot exist as both true simultaneously.

Ok... a bit more than that. Ruler is someone who can impose their will on another by force. No, see above. Can, yes. This doesn't answer should or justly or anything. No. Involuntary enforcement is immoral and abhorent. Enforcement should be abolished, thus no rulers. Anarchy? Even minarchism is less tyranny than this tyranny of all. Not guns, involuntary enforcement. Slippery slope fallacy No. Eliminate force, not guns.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of anarchism. Anarcchism does not allow imposition of will. It only allows win-win outcomes. If it is win-lose, then it is not anarchy. Unless the majority doesn't think you have the right to self defense. You really need to check your propositions for internal consistency. Why would you allow everyone to create whatever law they want? This also is not minarchism at all. This is tyrranny by everyone, not even the majority. You attempt to justify the use of force and violence by anyone who wants it and is willing to pay for it. This is immoral and ridiculous. What do you define as ethically good or ethically wrong?

You brought in the majority support for a law thing So If I make a law that I can shoot you, then I can as long as I buy a gun and a bullet? Who decides on these rights or are these majority decided? Or if not, can I just make a law and then pay for you to not have the right to life? What if people disagree on some of these rights who wins? The majority? What if the majority is wrong? (see earlier posts) Especially when you found society on the idea of enforcement by anyone, or by the majority, which I still do not understand what you are advocating in that respect. Usually, they are ones that are logically broken upon conception. The goal is to use logic to prevent this from happening again.

No, for you have a majority clause. Therefore, if a majority think it is ok to kill Jews (more likely Muslims or Atheists in America today) then there is very little chance that Christians would also be killed by a majority of the same population. Just have violent childhoods, economic crisis, and the need for a scapegoat. It would not be surprising at all if death or concentration camps for muslims is the eventual state of America if we go through a major upheaval. The majority rule by definition screws the minority out of their rights. Except you said majority ruled and could throw me in jail for this... If I defend myself against being kidnapped, then I can be shot. You still do not answer why you think this right is available for a majority. If a majority claims they can indoctrinate your kids, why do you let them? If a majority claimed they can kill Jews or rape women, that does not make it right or moral. Why do you feel that the majority has the right to enforce their will on the minority?

This illustration was for mineral rights and housing development. Different common law standards would exist for land that you intend to leave unaltered. They would follow these different common law standards This is a question I have difficulty with. Even today, people make money and property by theft, bribery, murder, war, and other moral abborations. I do not know how to get public property or unowned property justly into the hands of people. I do agree that you cannot blame someone for the sins of their father, however I do not know how to transistion from the crap we have now into a free, just property society. Who has a right to sell the land? Is it possible to preserve land? with current ideas on homesteading? I do not know. I do know that in time, things will be figured out and some number of generations after this, things will be organized justly for legitimate property ownership.

Many anarchists would agree with this, though it doesn't matter. This isn't really a debated point. Interesting, so lets look at this. let's say i'm an advocate of killing Jews. in order to achieve this; i have to be willing to do the following. 1) pay for the imprisonment of any citizen who doesn't want to pay for killing Jews. 2) pay for the court trial to sentence him; if he doesn't support killing Jews. 3) aditionally pay for killing Jews. if i'm willing to do all 3 as well as convice many others to do the same, then this would become the law. --------------------------------------- let's say i'm an advocate of raping women. in order to achieve this; i have to be willing to do the following. 1) pay for the imprisonment of any citizen who doesn't want to pay for raping women. 2) pay for the court trial to sentence him; if he doesn't support raping women. 3) aditionally pay for raping women. if i'm willing to do all 3 as well as convice many others to do the same, then this would become the law. --------------------------------------------------- What, fundamentally is the difference between these circumstances (or any other) and public schools? Why do a group of people have the right to do these things? Just because I pay to kill Jews, rape women, or indoctrinate kids doesn't mean that I justly have the right to inflict this on others.

May I ask what your argument is?

Before you do this debate, you may need to do a lot of research into what positions of various anarchists actually are (namely Stef, whom you are debating). If this is the position you think you are debating against, then you will not add anything to the conversation. Adding to the conversation would be to justly understand the argument and coming up with a logical fallacy or practical problem in it. Straw manning the position was exactly what happened in the debate with Jan Helfeld (and others, but thats the one I can think of) and really is just annoying to listen to.

I think she was talking about dwelling in emotion and letting it control your life. It was a little confusing still, but she conceded that the initial feeling cannot be changed. She may have thought that the guilt was still with me or that the action I performed I had felt was forced by the guilt. She deals I think with many people who are depressed or angry and become consumed by emotion where it is internally generated after some point, rather than a just response to someone eliciting a feeling in you. I still am a bit fuzzy on this, but it should make a little more sense, or maybe someone else can pick up these pieces to make something intelligible.

It is so satirical that they set up a whole site for it: http://www.christiandomesticdiscipline.com/ With all the Jesus quotes and justifications to match:

I did a quick google search and came up with a good 1 page overview on the concept if you would like to look over it. http://www.befriendingourselves.com/Self-empathy.html It is my understanding that you can only have empathy for others up to the point that you have empathy for yourself. The first stage for having empathy for others is understanding and developing self-empathy.

No problem, I know who it is and we contacted you around the same time about the same topic, so it would be easy to mix us up. I am glad you are finding some answers and becoming more comfortable with this seemingly daunting prospect. I hope you find what you are looking for!

Hmm, so these are the kind of debates that happen not on FDR: Comments are so sad sometimes...

Then of course the capitalists will also need to eat the fooded poison, which will allow at least a certain standard of not having food in the poison or the people could eat what the fat cats eat. After all, we wouldn't want the fat cats to have a heart attack! (Muse reference, anyone?)

Most likely be yelled at and verbally abused. My father enjoyed throwing out demeaning words like "stupid" and "dipshit". Well in the dream it was because my mother was talking with the "cat-sitter" who apparently was watching the cat from the 2nd act in my dream when I was away (unmentioned). I think it was often that my mom would get in these long discussions with people where I would be left waiting or working for way longer than I was told. In real life, it would have been me most likely becuase my dad wouldn't deal with it unless he had to and I was the oldest of my brothers. I was often punished for things they did or I was punished more for things we all did because I was the oldest and should know better.