jpahmad

More acuratley, if I were to hold that position in conjunction with the whole "programming" thing, doesn't that make me a compatibilist? After all, aren't we all genetically programmed to use reason? I don't see how they are incompatible. Kevin, just out of curiosity, and forgive me if I have missed the obvious, but why is it so important to attribute human behavior to either "free will" or "determinism?" What are the implications of one being true over the other? How would this effect humanity? For me personally, it is irrelevant. I don't really see it changing how I myself would behave, or how I would regard other people.

Unicorns don't exist, but the concept of a unicorn exists. Can't we say that? Unless you're programmed to seek the truth.

It seems what we really want to do in this thread is define the word "exists." Logically, one cannot respond to the question "do concepts exist?" without aknowledging a priori that concepts exist. If they didn't exist, how would the question "do concepts exist" have any meaning? If concepts didn't exist, or if they existed only as a subjective experience, then the quesiton would sound like this: "do fliperflappasnickfidlednanks exist?"

I thought this was a very fun style of youtube interview for FDR. i.e., different faces apearing infront of the computer and asking quesitons. I would imagine that this format resonates differently for some, more so, than just watching the one-on-one interviews. It's more "down to earth" (for lack of a better expression) and might just bring a wider appeal, reaching out to those that are not so "philosophically minded." Please do more! That being said, I thought that Stefan could have answered that last question, the one by the moderator, with a little bit more ease. The last question was along the lines of how do we know if mans' nature is good or bad. This of course is implying the statist viewpoint that man is flawed, selfish, and naturally prone to conflict, therefore, he needs to be controlled by government. Stefan did effectly counter this assertion by stating the irrelevance of such a belief. To paraphrase, Stefan states that bad or good, if you want to have a certain result (happiness, peace, etc...) and you have to "learn swahili" to get there, well, good, or bad, you learn swahili. The moderator understood this and conceded the validity of what Stefan was saying. But why didn't Stefan just ask the moderator if he thought he himself was evil? Or his child? Or anyone he cares about? Stefan made his point, but still didn't extinguish the statists' main gripe with freedom. That is we cannot be free because "human beings are selfish bastards." If the guy then answers no, I'm not evil, or immoral, then that whole premis can just be tossed out. Also, it seems pretty obvious to me that if man were innately evil, we would have never developed empathy and would have never survived our plight through pre-history humanity ( cave-man days). We had to be compassionate and empathetic to conquer our early environment. I mean, empathy developed for a reason, that reason is survival, life, flourishing of our species. Now it's very clear to me, that you cannot be empathetic and evil. And the only way to not have empathy, is to have it literaly beaten out of you, or be completely neglected as a child. The second of which is a statistical freak. I think it is very clear and easy to prove logically that man is naturally "good." All you have to do is link "good" to having empathy. Then show how empathy is as much a part of the human organisim as having a heart or a lung. It's a cognitive faculty that has evolved for survival purposes and is present in every human being unless it is removed by force. What do you guys think?

That's a good idea. Just get rid of morality. In fact, agree with him and say that there is no morality, but then ask if he agrees that there is universally prefferable behavior. I would take the Darwinian approach to UPB though.

Thanks for sharing Kevin. I have a lot to add to your theory/analysis, and some experiences of my own that could help shed light. I too am going to mull it over for a bit and get back to you. I'll need time to sit down at type a lot though. It is very interesting that life seems to be a constant succession of chasing mirages in the distance. When arriving at the vision, it just moves on to the horizon, and you keep going...until death. I've thought about this a lot. When I do get to these certain "check points" in life, I do feel a sense of accomplishment, but as you say, it's fleeting, and soon dissipates. I read an interesting book called "morality" some time ago. This was when I was in college about 15 years ago. The last chapter had a very interesting perspective on the above human condition that I described. I'm going to look for it and revisit what the last chapter had to say. I will share it with you as soon as I find it. Just to let you know, the pattern in my life, as far as emotional states goes, concurs with your analysis. Depression had always seemed to follow anxiety

Great, so if we go with Searle's idea, then we can just conclude that concepts "exist" subjectively. This makes everyone happy. More importantly though, it renders listening to someone's subjective concept of "god" pointless and of little consequence to any rational person. So that should take care of the OP's question.

I think concepts are like colors. Color is a subjective experience. The color red doesn't exist objectively, it only exists as an effect I experience after my eyes process photons of light.I can sum it up like this: Photons exist. Eyes exist. Color doesn't exist. Couldn't we substitute "color" for "unicorns?"Anything that requires being perceived by a conscious mind in order to exist, cannot exist in objective reality, and therefore, does not exist.Wait, but then I would have to say that pain doesn't exist either. That's weird.

Let me put your mind at ease. The NAP is a principle, not a law. Yes, the degree of aggression is open to interpretation, but what does it matter as long as reasonable people are interpreting it? In a free society, where everybody believes in the NAP, you will find mostly reasonable people, who have no financial incentive to make anyone into a villain. For example, if I were your neighbor and I witnessed you shooting someone for walking on your lawn, I would think you were an asshole and never associate with you again. Even though you were not violating the NAP. In fact, I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who would want to associate or do business with you. You would effectively become ostracized for being an asshole, but not for violating the NAP. In fact, you can bet that you would be dropped by any DROs that provide you insurance. The punchline is that there would be a strong incentive for any individual to use only the amount of force that the majority of people in his/her community would find reasonable if they were in the same situation. It's a beautiful design!

So what are the ethical implications of this? If there are any. Because Rogers parents never fulfilled their obligations

Can we logically sympathize and condemn someone at the same moment? I'll assume that any raitonal person would erradicate who Rogers was as an adult from their lives asap, however, Rogers the child should receive sympathy and intervention. Would you agree? For the recored, I don't sympathize with Rogers at all. I only sympathize with the person he was as a child. Can this be possible?

I am trying to figure out the same thing. There seems to be a certian point when we go from pity to condemntation. What happens at that point and roughly where is it it?

Holy cow! Which one of the questions? Was it a conditional "yes" or just a straight up "yes?"

Has anyone said "yes" to those quesitons for you dsayers?

o.k., don't pin down the age. Obviously it would be different between individuals. But, please tell me, what occurs at this exact moment, this certain moment when we go from the state of being able to receive pity (a child who is not getting their needs met), to scorn and condemnation (a violent sociopath)? I suppose an example answer would be "the point at which one can understand the non-aggression principle."

I watched the video, which was horrifying, and I really got hung up on something Stefan said. Not that I disagree with him, but I think what he said points to an enigma of sorts. Let me try to remember the quote. I think it Stefan said something like this: "As infants, we are owed something from our environment" (nurture, security, affection, etc..) It is also quite apparent from Roger's narrative that he felt entitled to just about everything from his environment, at every stage of his life. Here's my question: If I take the position that we are owed something as infants, and then as adolescents or adults, we are no longer owed anything, then don't I have to determine and explain the point at which this fundamental relationship with our environment changes?

It sounds like you're having an anxiety attack over something that triggered you from the conversation. It could be something that your either consciously or not consciously aware of. My guess is that you felt for a moment how you would imagine it feels to be gay, and it rocked your world. This would provoke an anxiety attack. Also, you're probalby "testing" yourself by looking at pictures of women to see if you are still attracted to them. And when you feel anything other then the good old lustfull feelings towards those images, this further triggers anxiety. Am I right?

Morality concerns ethics, i.e., what one should or shouldn't do given a particular ethical situation. Drinking coffe and shaving legs are not ethical situations. As far as your third example: "it is morally permissible for a person who was violated with force to retaliate with equal force. that does not mean they should retaliate with equal force." Retaliation is not self defense, therefore it is a violaiton of the NAP. Violating the NAP is not morally permissible.

Why does this seem like a contradiciton to me? If it is morally permissible, then why shouldn't they use it? Come on June, tell what you would do if you were the third party observer to what ws going on in my scenerio. When you answer my question, start your sentence with "If I were the teacher in the room, I would...." I'll assume that you're going to say "if I were the teacher in the room, I would let the victim decide what was appropriate" In that case, what if the victim decides to kill the girl with a sharp number two pencil? Would you let this happen? After all, the victim can decide right? No, not exactly. The girl is not a moral agent the same way a tiger is not a moral agent when it attacks a perceived threat. The victim of the tiger does have recourse though; get the hell away from the tiger!

Thanks for your reply Infinite Limit. I don't think we can consider this a "lifeboat scenario" because it happens everyday, all day, everywhere in the world.That being said, I think the only moral recourse of action for the teacher is to first see if the kid is ok, then simply ask the child who aggressed against the other kid if they would like to go somewhere else instead of being here in the classroom. They will probably say they want to leave, or something. Usually you can compromise with them by asking them if there is anything in particular they would like to do inside the classroom. They might say, "I want to play on the computer", or, "I want to play with the blocks." At the point, you are morally obligated to let them do it or let them leave.You are morally obligated not to force them to do anything. If they want to sit by a friend and talk, let them. If they want to dance, let them. If they want to leave, you should let them leave. This obviously becomes a catch-22 because if you can't convince them to stay, and you let them leave (you would be violating the NAP if you don't let them leave the room), then you can be liable if something happens to them. This moral catch-22 is one of the main reasons why I'm leaving public education for good.The kids are in prison and they don't even realize it. The absurd thing is that these idiot teachers scream and yell at the kids for not liking the fact that they are in prison.In a free society, as soon as a child becomes old enough to understand the non-aggression principle, they then become moral actors in the world. This is because in a free society, there is no slavery.Slavery is the state of being coerced into doing something. Someone who understands the NAP but has a gun pointing at their head is not a moral agent while in that state.I would further argue that a slave can not be a moral agent either. Since prisoners are slaves, they are not moral agents. And finally, school children are not moral agents because they are effectively prisoners. Therefore, that girl in my above scenario is not violating the NAP when she acts out for being in a prison. This goes for high school kids as well

I absolutely agree with this. Dysfunctional kids can often just be broken. If they are not immediately removed from the poisonous environment, they will rot to the core. The next question would be: is there a point of no return? I'm still confused here. Are you saying that after witnessing the act of aggression, the teacher should or could slap the kid back? I'm asking you what the teacher should do, not what the kid who got knocked out of the chair should do. I didn't say anything about self-ownership. I'm talking about moral condemnation.Furthermore, I said "due recourse" not "just recourse." Very different. I want to know what corrective course of action should be taken by the teacher. Please answer this question.

I think your initial sentence was incoherent. You said "the due recourse is that it is morally permissible to slap the child in return, with the same amount of force that they used on you." "Due recourse" means corrective course of action. "morally permissible" is an adjective. After beginning your sentence with "the due recourse is" you then need a verb. So I really can't tell what you advocate to be the next step in the situation. I did explain why. Look at quote below: "How can someone, who is not yet a fully formed human being (infant/baby) be morally condemned for anything they do?" "How would hitting a child who is acting out solve anyone's problem? Retaliation is neither self-defense or corrective behavior. It certainly won't stop the undesirable behavior." Finally, could you please respond to my two hypothetical situations above?

I was being sarcastic What you are suggesting is beyond irrational to the point of beign absurd. How can someone, who is not yet a fully formed human being (infant/baby) be morally condemned for anything they do? How would hitting a child who is acting out solve anyone's problem? Retaliation is neither self-defense or corrective behavior. It certainly won't stop the undesirable behavior. I once had a baby headbutt me because he wanted to be put down (I was holding him close to my face). Should I have headbutted him back? So please tell me. How would you handle the following two situations: You teach Kindergaten. A five year old shows up in the morning in a bad mood and proclaims that she hates this school and doesn't want to be here. She says she wants to leave and you tell her that you are not legally permitted to let her leave the classroom. You already know that she has a disfunctional family and has a history of abuse. You ask her to sit down and she reluctantly does so for five minutes. She suddenly becomes agitated again and thinks that the kid sitting next to her is making faces at her. She stands up and knocks him out of his chair. What is the appropriate recourse of action? The second situation is identical, only make all agents in the senario highschool students. Is the recourse the same?

That's funny. Thanks for the help That's Funny. Thanks for the help

O.K.. let's get right to it. What's the "due recourse?"