powder
-
Posts
478 -
Joined
Posts posted by powder
-
-
If you define moral truths as necessarily universal, then some moral claims will be false, because they won't be universal, sure. You can judge that objectively. But what makes you think that your definition of morality is the right one?
Huh? moral truths are universal, so you can objectively judge some moral claims as not being valid because they are not universal,...
If somebody like me comes around and says that morality is what you feel is right and wrong, how can you possibly say that your definition is in fact correct and my isn't? I could also say that morality is the greater good for the greater number of people, and you couldn't possibly say that's wrong, you could only say it differs from your definition.
like you said, cuz it's not universal.
Maybe this will make things more clear: Take math as an example. You can objectively show that an assertion is either true or false based on the axioms of mathematics, but there is no way to show that the axioms are true or false. They are merely the ones that we find best suit our understanding of reality. If someone else came along with different but internally consistent axioms, we couldn't say that they are wrong, we could only say that they differ from what we're using.
sure, if you arrive at 2+2=4, it doesn't matter what formula you use. If you don't then we can certainly say that the methodology is flawed.
If you have a moral/system system that says it is OK to use someone else property without their consent, your 'axiom' is wrong, not sustainable, not universal.
-
Therefore, prison is immoral.
yes it is immoral to harvest the organs of the healthy man against his will.
not sure I understand your point here. prison is immoral because it is against the wishes of the criminal being imprisoned? It is against the will of the rapist for the person being assaulted to fight back.
-
Not immoral is not specific. Both amoral and moral are not immoral. As I pointed out before, in order for the claim of X is Y to be meaningful, X must have the capacity to be not Y. Where a moral consideration IS present, not immoral IS moral.
The requisites for moral consideration are voluntary behavior (uncoerced) and binding upon another. If this is accurate, then consensual sex being the use of another person's property with their consent would indeed be classified as moral. I think this might sound strange because we've been inundated by those who wish to subjugate us that what they want for us to do is "moral." For example, they would say to you it's moral to feed the poor even though their plan for implementing this is predicated on the immoral act of mass theft. Even just as a prescription, it could not be classified as moral because it's an unchosen positive obligation.
Moral simply means the consistent application/observation of property rights. In consensual sex, I own myself and accept that my partner owns herself also. Whereas rape, while mechanically identical, is the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights. Immoral means the self-contradictory, simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights.
I am not seeing the point of classifying behavior that is not immoral as moral, like lending you my kite. it has something to do with the idea about there being the necessity for moral consideration (property rights), which you term as 'binding' - is that right? So me flying the kite, which is not 'binding' on anyone else since it does not involve anyone else's property rights, is amoral. as soon as my kite behavior involves an interaction with someone else and property rights (lending, selling) it becomes 'binding' and then is subject to moral consideration. have I got that right?
-
Thank you.
This is an absolutely ridiculous misrepresentation. I never said any such thing.
Again, this is ridiculous. The truth is that I think anarchism is contradictory, which means it can never be put into practice, which means those who cling to it will be ineffectual and not get what it is they seek (a free society.)
The thing is, when you pretend to know my motives *and then you are very wrong about them*, you put me in a special position in assessing your own motives in doing such a thing.
I am not interested in the 'semantic anarchists definitions' but what could possibly be contradictory about voluntary interactions between people, we live our lives everyday that way.
-
Hello,
I'm the author of the "Against Anarchism" essay.
I'm writing this post reluctantly, due to the gross distortions and presumptions about my view posted thus far. I mean, someone who'd never read my works might take these misrepresentations at face value, but I the author can testify that they haven't really understood the first thing about what I've actually written.
Do my "critics" here think that it's important to accurately represent those who you are criticizing? From whence does the slipshod criticism spring? Did you simply not read what I wrote, or are you just afraid of viewpoints that might contradict your own?
welcome to the forum thales. Can you list a couple of key points that were misrepresented or not understood and explain why that is the case?
-
If I ask to borrow your kite and you consent, for me to take and make use of your kite is binding upon you. Your consent makes this a moral behavior. Same as if I buy it off of you or trade you for it.
I was of the impression that behavior could be either immoral, or not immoral, but not moral per se. Like rape is immoral but consensual sex is not moral behavior, in the same way that agreeing to sell my kite to you is not moral. I understand that actions can show integrity, courage, honesty and other virtues but that does not make them moral. Do you mean that the behavior is subject to moral evaluation because it is binding?
-
If a behavior is not binding upon another person, it is amoral (it lacks a moral component).
If a behavior IS binding upon another person and violates their property rights, it is an immoral behavior.
If a behavior is binding upon another person and does NOT violate their property rights, it is a moral behavior.
The conclusion that there is no such thing as a moral behavior is an irrational one. By that, I am referring to the fact that for any claim of X is Y to be meaningful, X must have the capacity to be NOT Y. To say that behaviors can be immoral is to denote that they have the capacity to be moral.
I am not getting this. If I am flying a kite, this behavior is not binding on another person and it is amoral. If I take someone else's kite without consent (stealing), it is binding on another person and violating their property rights, so it is immoral. So what kind of kite transaction or behavior would be considered moral?
-
The highest standard would be 'virtue'.
You discover these virtuous principles as you learn self knowledge.
Each individual may have different things to learn about themselves, but principally they are the same as a whole.
what would the 'philosophical' definition of virtue(s) be?
-
well done Yagami!
-
good luck with your idea, yes, I do know about those families, esp the Medici.
-
About the magazine, I want to know what people think of it? Because I want to use some of their concepts for something I'm working on.
Do you read it? What do you think it of it?
first I've heard of it. I looked at it online, looks very slick.
-
-
I am not sure what is going on here anymore. Anoujat, the last question you asked says it all. You either really have no clue what has been said, or you are on about something that you are not being honest about. In any case, I am done, good luck.
-
good metaphor Nathan
-
I do agree that it is good reading and an incredible eye opener. Lately I have been reading about how the Venetian oligarchs started the protestant reformation and controlled both sides of the war to further their hegemony agenda. controlled opposition, brilliant plan, cost the lives of millions. there are lots of them out there if you like learning about this stuff.
I have got lots of blank stares when I would introduce people to some remarkable facts about events in history that go against the mainstream narrative. I find it more effective to bring it down to the personal level of everyday life and relationships, where people can really relate - like the 'against me' kind of stuff.
What test did the 'mean, motive, opportunity' formula pass?
how are all these people who are convinced of the truth and implications of a story like this going to go about "bringing down the whole motherfucking establishment?" Put them on trial perhaps in the oligarchs own court system? Shoot them all and make an example of them so that other psychopaths will think twice before trying some evil stunt like that again?
You cannot fight the monster, you can only starve it to death. You cannot fight evil, you can only turn away from it.
-
I understand your position philbert, I spent many and hour reading and learning about the hidden adendas of the ruling elite. the Yamashita gold story is a compelling one for sure. the assumption that if people only knew the truth they it would bring down the oligarchs evil house of cards is just not the case. People knew that communism in Russia was responsible for millions of deaths, they received it with open arms in china and millions more were slaughtered. everyone knew the war in iraq was a lie, how did that help stop the carnage? there are countless examples of history repeating itself after the truth has been revealed.
people need principles, not information and facts. give a person, or group, the authority and legal right to steal, murder, and create/control a nation's money and all manner of evil will flow from that delusion.
like dsayers says, revealing the truth behind the gold cover up, like all the other conspiracies, is like a giving a parking ticket to a mass murderer.
-
1
-
-
I think the state is a manifestation of our psyche, it exists because people want it to, because they believe it is necessary and good. If children are raised by adults that abuse, coerce and manipulate them with fear and violence then those children will grow up and internalize the notion that coercion is a valid form of human interaction, they will be very prone to bow to authority without question. so yes, I think a stateless society full of frightened angry manipulators would not be sustainable.
-
1
-
-
Property rights have been explained, accepted by you and your friend, clearly not.
How is being 'responsible' for murder and "owning" the effects of your actions (murder) different?
Consent is necessarily connected to the understanding of property rights. Taking 'ownership' of someone else's property; their body thru assault, rape, their time and productivity thru stealing things that they have acquired thru the effects of their actions... is immoral. This
is universal and not subjective or subject to social contracts of any kind.
PS. Also quotes:
"""Like what is the logic that takes you from you being responsible for creating a chair for it being wrong for someone else to use the chair."""
"""How do you esbatlish property right without mutual understandin between people?"""
You own your body, therefore you own the effects of your actions. simple, easy to understand.
"""Oh sure I would probably complain. But the way I understand that I own my phone is by some form of social contract. There's nothing inherently about my relationship with the phone that makes it mine, I would argue."""
You used your body, your time, your skills and effort etc (all of which you own) to acquire the phone, therefore it is yours.
"""The fact that youre responceable for something leading to you having some right to deprive other the right from using or utilizing something requires still the explanation i havent gotten."""
If you own something, as outlined in the explanations already given in these posts, then you must consent to other people using or taking possession of your stuff, if they do so without your consent then they are violating your property rights and that is immoral.
Your friend is full of prunes if he says he would be annoyed and complains if someone took his phone and still believes that there is nothing wrong with that. That is not honest. If he does think it is perfectly OK to use other peoples stuff without their consent then I would expect that he would have no problem taking money and resources from others at will to satisfy his needs and desires. It is inconsistent, so cannot be true.
-
If you take your chair and go to an outdoor concert and plunk in down in front of the stage beside all the other chairs and towels on the ground, or put a towel on the beach, or your coat over a chair at a banquet, you will find that people instinctively and automatically respect your right to that property, even if only temporarily. the towel, chair and jacket, they will respect as your property and consider it theft if anyone were to try to take them.
Ethics is simple to me because it seems so automatic and intuitive to us, even as toddlers, everyone gets it. that is, until the political pundits get involved and start with the propaganda and euphemisms related to property rights, words and phrases like 'the greater good' and 'taxation' (theft), and so on.
If you accept that we own our bodies then we are necessarily responsible (have ownership) for the effects of our actions and we own our time and labor and the effects thereof as well. If I cut down a tree and make a chair out of it, its mine.
can you give an example that shows how he thinks there might be an exception to that?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-m6vc7lsmE#t=133
I think this is a great example for the argument against "Who will build the roads". I would love to hear what you think?
didn't watch the vid, but my response to the question is simply: "why not the same people who build them now?" the government doesn't build roads or bridges, or do anything productive for that matter.
-
Let's say dominance being "utilizing your power and influence over others to their detriment." Exploitation being "the acquisition of resources from another to their detriment." I'm sure an Acom might have better definitions, but that's what I'm thinking they mean.
'dominance' is not a moral category, the question is only whether it is consensual, voluntary. people even pay money to be dominated. do you have a problem with the definition of evil that I gave in my post? you have not defined power or influence, or detriment for that matter so it is hard to know what you are talking about.
I am hesitant to answer this because that seems more of a logistical question that would be solved once the moral idea is established. Similar to, "what are we going to do about the roads?"
No, it is question of morality. I am actually asking you to establish this moral 'idea' and you have not. I can only assume that the distribution of resources is going to be decided upon and carried out by some sort of hierarchical dominant class, that have some magical formula for figuring out what is fair and egalitarian, and enforced somehow.
I would assume for the same reasons that people are entitled to be treated without force and aggression? Entitlement just means a right to something. If we are looking at rights being based on UPB then if it is universally preferable to not be dominated and exploited by those with the capital, then the entitlement comes from that.
You have the right to defend yourself and your property, how are you entitled to anything? these words are not interchangeable.
I think there is this assumption that our business dealings are voluntary when they are not. As I said in the first post you must enter into a business arrangement with someone in order to survive, meaning business arrangements are not voluntary. Sure you can chose which one you want to engage in, but you must engage in one. And you must engage in one with someone who is going to profit off of your labor, putting that person in a higher position. It seems that it is universally preferable to not be in this situation. So abolishing the acquisition of capital sounds like the moral thing to do.
You are making assertions, not arguments. You are not forced to do anything in a free society. I would certainly say that we can rely on each other to make our lives more comfortable thru voluntary exchange of goods and services, it is just more practical that way. You could go off and be self-sustaining if you don't want to submit your labor for the profit of others, or start your own enterprise, or seek charity, whatever.
When a baby is born they can not survive without the assistance of others. This assistance does not have to be dominating or exploitative. I think Stefan makes many points about how domination and exploitation as parents is an awful thing and immoral. Hierarchies are bad in families. By my definition, feeding a dependent baby is not "to [the baby's] detriment" and thus not dominance or exploitative. Now, if you forced the kid to do your dishes with use of fear and punishment, then that is dominating, exploitative, and immoral.
Different moral category - the child parent relationship is not voluntary. the parent is then morally responsible for the child's well being and the use of coercion is immoral.
I would just like to add that, as usual, I think dsayers did a much better job than I did in his last post of responding to these issues. I hope this stuff helps you with your desire to sort this out.
-
OK, I'll bite.
evil is the initiation of force and violating property rights - assault, theft, rape...
how do you define 'dominance' and 'exploitation'?
how do Acom's plan to re-distribute this capital?
why are people entitled to anything, esp other people's resources?
what is wrong with people working hard to acquire more resources, success, responsibility, opportunity? If that puts them in a position of hierarchy in relation to other people involved in the same business or endeavor, how is that immoral if all interactions are voluntary?
-
I feel like people conflate disagree with violate. The answers i received are similar to what i hear from statist who do not have a problem with people being forced to pay taxes when a libertarian is arguing about the morality of taxes. Again, i give the example of someone who is a communist and doesn't believe in individual's right to own land and trespasses on someone's land. He would not care if you walked on his land since he doesn't own one, neither does he believe in the concept. However, you can forcibly remove him from your land because you believe in private ownership of land.
I think you are conflating 'believing' in something with truth. a communist can say or believe whatever they want, they are simply wrong when it comes to understanding property rights, as Gavitor exemplified with his question above.
-
His idea of discipline was to shout very, very loudly. He would literally go red in the face as if he was going to burst. Strangely this caused my 2 sisters and my brother to break down in tears and broke their spirit but I seemed to have an inner strength that made me able to stand up to him.
I don't find it strange that your siblings were visibly upset by your fathers abusive, bullying behavior. It upset the heck out of you as well and its certainly a very good reason to want to find a better 'dad'. I think that answers Josh query. I had a father who did the same kind of thing to us. I don't know what 'inner strength' is but I learned to 'suck it up' or suck it in as well and come off as stoic and tough, and I don't call that strength anymore. I would guess that your relationship with your father helped you develop your capacity for forgiveness as you describe it as well.
is morality subjective?
in Philosophy
Posted
property rights are objective, moral behavior is based on property rights (violations thereof). can you refute that axiom? you keep asking how can we know that the moral tenet is the right one and it is because of the validity of property rights, this has been stated.