Anuojat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_exercise#Health_effects ""Not everyone benefits equally from exercise. There is tremendous variation in individual response to training; where most people will see a moderate increase in endurance from aerobic exercise, some individuals will as much as double their oxygen uptake, while others can never augment endurance. However, muscle hypertrophy from resistance training is primarily determined by diet and testosterone.This genetic variation in improvement from training is one of the key physiological differences between elite athletes and the larger population. Studies have shown that exercising in middle age leads to better physical ability later in life.""" REALLY important this part of the artictle on wikipedia

I personally never slice emphaty to bits. To me emphaty is the ability to emphatice to take a part in other persons feelings and emotions as if you were there inside them yourself. SYMPHATY is to understand and wanting to offer help and condolances to other other person. Which i think casuses lot fo confusion. To me cognitive and emotional and compassion are the same. In me the 3 whcih youre talking about split. Maybe i dont understand how they could be seperate in other people, i guess the word Symphaty is needed here... because it sound like what youre talking about. http://www.diffen.com/difference/Empathy_vs_Sympathy And as for effects of therapy: It isint meant to evoke sumphaty to other or emphaty. ITs sopposed to be about YOU. Albeit you might go to theraphy for reasons other than "just" for yourself but it mainly concerns your experiences and your feelings and behavior. You cannot love others before you love yourself also, so doing theraphy will be helpful to emphatice with others aswell. This is my experience on the matter. Also i never "convinced" myself of anything other than waht i really felt and also WHY i felt it. And also why other did what they did and continue to not feel anything about it.

Ive had to deal with this long time too... and personally i beat it with being consistent with one rule: Am i ACTUALLY enjoying this? Am i actually having fun? Because if its fun i am having ill play, turns out it was all sugar high fun not real psontenious fun

Peoples Value of Goods = Price of goods. Artificially inflated price of goods = NOT peoples value of goods.

As a furry myself this strike strong emotional cord with me. Art is better reflected in furry fandom since costumes can often look not as good as the drawn character due to expenses, many opt for cheaper ones but would have more detailed costumes if rich enough. Anyhow, its like i and other furries seem to push/put all or most good attributees of humanity unto these characters, sometimes even bad ones usually with sexual connotations. But the positive one get spinned into "this reflects me" "this is who i am inside" phrases. It is as if humanity is too... bland, hollow. Where as furry characters are colourful, full of personality and character. An identity that resonates with something in us that most havent processed (i have though,) Lastly, i am obviously speaking form MY experience and experience with other furries, but it has often been the case that i feel exactly what youre saying here that it literally is part of us that we try to keep safe that inner child or "true form" or whatever words people use that wasnt appriciated or kindly talked about in childhood. Its not like people wouldt have interest with good childhoods, but it would be vastly differant id think.

Non agression principle say that it is immoral to iniate the use of force on someone. This is justified principle based on self ownership, if i try to use violance againts you when youve done nothing wrong then i am exersising my self ownership (and effects thereof) to rub you of yours. I am using my body and my skills and energy to nullify yours while you arent imposing anything on me. It is the affirmation of MY wish over yours while we both are human and i am (i assume the nuo nazi would) not want you to use/affirm your own self ownership. In other words: Your self ownership is invalid because i trump it with my own! (which has the exact same value so...) This is how i understand it and how i apply it. When it comes to marxism... so much has alewaydy been said by economists of all kinds and in so many podcasts that i wont bother putting it all here but i will say this: "Everyone deceives theyr FAIR due." In this case fair is definaned as the arbitary whims of whomever has political power. So the word fair is sleecy in a way here, sopistry if you will. The market prices mechanism of people trading and exhaning good already palce the value of peoples work and goods value in there for all to see. Noone need SET this fairness. "So we end up with Marx's principle that the only fair way to distribute wealth is to give everyone what they need and ask of everyone only what they can do. This is fair, because everyone does what they can so no-one is having an easier time of it than anyone else. Also, everyone gets what they need, no-one suffers just because their needs are greater." Which is a word salad not an arguement. Also what people need differs, from time to palce and wants and desires failures and successes. Havign easier or harder time doest mean anyhting by itself. And lastly "everyone gets what they need" is merely assumed her and also it is assumed that somehow peoples need should overlap and override theyre wants.

See this is exactly the sort of things msot statist try to desperately tie us up in. Abstract non-specific problems arent problems at all that should reasonable give anyone any pause other than "i dont know" or "why do you care so much." Just pointing this annoying reoccuring theme, becaus ewhen the problem is abstract and not specific you KNOW theyre not interested in finding solutions, merely scared and emotionall triggered by things such as these. Now if this was merely for your own personal curiousitys sake ignore what i said.

I think we are the "less violent parenting" societys. Where things are better on one hand... and worse since government daycare and school ohoy come to crush us badly. Si id say its not that people are happier but deal with theyre issues in ways the give the appearance of being content (which would be contrast and thus give the illusion of happiness).

Dont see many atheist being against gay marriage... dont see lot of atheist conservatices and libertarians being against gay marriage (atleast in principle.)

So in other words: PANIC! Deflation! and ANYHTING BUT SPENDING CUTS! Dramaaa! *yawn*

The amounth of stuff in christmas that is not religious these days is... pretty huge. Currently enjoying christmas and being happily atheist. And everything secular about chritmas nowdays is, technically, pagan in origin but totally harmless and sometimes even (in good company and spirit) joyful

Got into libertarianism trough Lisening to Penn and Tellers Bullshit tv show actually XD And trough that to Stefans "19 tough questions for libertarians". Also becoming atheist was monumental... for growth of reason in my mind.

Exactly the same issues over here! Ive suffered and still siffer from procrastination and i symphatice with you on this. What ive found to be useful is to talk people with calls (skype or anything esle that has barebones vocie chat) about your feelings. Also if you want look up these: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/484220 And check the procrastination search on podcasts too but id imagine youve done that already perhaps? Reason i recommend having lots of voice calls with fellow FDR member is because then youll have your feelings searched AND tended to and you can explore "honesty, loneliness, jelousy and gender" ect. And feeling behind them. Hearing someone elsese voice while poking at your inner critics and inner voices when it comes to dealing with these issues, has for me atleast, been huge relief. It comes simply to knowing yourself trough not only processing the past, processing feelings that arise to nag or deny or block or distract you when youre tryng to improve in the areas you mentioned. Processing emotions with other people and knowing that YOU matter in this instance as individual because your emotions are being tended to.

Id say the state and ideologies are still there... but socialism has been washed up and now drying up again but it is like new short that has been washed too many tiems with blood. Even if it dryes out and is worn by people again the blood and mud irrationality of it (along with communism, facism and nationalism) is starting to permanently smell and thus people stay away from it. From what i see is lot of "useful idiots" for the masters, that are no longer able to shoot each other quite as much if they get glimps of those people whom disagree. Most people around the world need less time to see someone as a person. Sure state still fucks up people in schools, causes general mayhem and stokes people gibotry and so on (and work with companies to create crony capitalism and thus slow down progress of scoiety and especially the young and the family). The internet, technology, science and general sense of being connected in many varied and often radically differant ways seems to have made one things clear for me about human race in relation to ideaologies and state of the world: Humanity is dissillusioned. In dout of masters but is still blind to see whom the masters really are. And about half-blind to see that there are NO good masters.

Well after this my friend seemed to have progress with me Though i am hoping this truly was progress since he sees that self ownership and property rights is/are merely a fact. I am hopinf if this is logical that i told him: "So: Self owenership (havign exclusive control over yourself) > you have control > If you have control over yourself then you have control over your actions > if you perform an action youre in contol of that action because the action was yours > action is yours if you did it and youre in control over such an action > Actions have effects resulting directly from the action itself > thus those effects are also what youre responceable for. Thus you own your actions and theyre effects. Ownership over yourself and somethign is exclusive control. Ownership of actions is both being responceable for it and owning it. This si because = responceability for an action comes from being in control and owning an action comes it being YOU who did such action. PHEW." I hope waht i painstakingly said there is good He is at a point now where he accepts property rights if they mean responceability of your actions and theyre effects. He (and i to some extend) have trough getting the differe between owning and being responceable. If owning jsut means responceable why not just use responceable? Also the issue with CLAIMS over property right to say a chair is being taken care of, though slowly. He now accepts that property rights are valid and so is self ownership, but theres still the issue of ownership claims. "Being responceable for somethign doesnt seem to grant you the right to violently defend your property. Even if youre responceabl for something that doesnt mean you can prevent others from using that." I... hope this isint too brainbending?

Last things to ask then for now from my friend is: "Why and how is being responceable for an action same as "owning it"? Is property rights then simply not stating the fact that i am responceable for soemthing and jsut that fact alone?" so I was responsible for an action and now I own it what does that own mean other than it explaining a fact of me having caused something

Well the reason why people lisen to the politicians like this (in this bandwagon manner) id argue is due to parenting. Thye take that authority of childhood (also teachers and other harsh and irrational peer included at side) and instinctively move and chatter like sheeple because what the politicians says must be important or the topic evokes strong position in those people and they want it done NOW. With peaceful parenting and rational arguements and emotional connection can people really be internally chanced like this and even then its theyre own decision, some people will cling to statism even if theyre childhood is exposed or rational arguements accepted... that is because the last one is neve done; connection. True genuine connection with someone who hopefully and more than likely has to possess self knowledge. Promoting not just anarchism and libetarianism is of massive importance if one wants chance in society; bitcoin, parenting, self-knowledge, theraphy, friend and love one genuine connection instead of brainded friends around one or money grubbing and/or stuck in childhood abuse/neglect prone husband/wife around you. Your life needs to be better in order for make others see the light of reason and the masses chance like this when they see something importtant that cannot be denied, using ethical norm they have we should utilize "againt me" arguement mroe often too. And as for the first question: Popularity aint the truth, we muhc mod rule thinking if someone says it is. The way leaders/priests/intellectuals manipulate people prior abuse/neglect and lack of reason at home is why state persists. Anarchism is not "popular" among zombies who have thant constant need for a leash of comformoty or that personal leacsh for imagine "safetynets"

All of which my friedn agrees, but from the post i just made. He has trouble taking any of them to be soemthing we should adhere to. Ive made i clear to him several times that there is no ough until IF and still he keeps insisting that merely by being empirical and logically consistent doesnt mean he or anyone should respect anyone propert of that anyone "shouldt" murder. I guess he has tied ethics in his mind to oughts so hard that once you try to propose ethics and morality without and make it optional just like scientific method... he feels its not "binding enough" to choose over anything else (plus his continue confusion regarding property as seen from above and rearlier posts iver made)

Well he went unto talking about social contract and how only trough agreements with other people could any form of property right exist and thenw e went unto tlaking about democracy.... and he said that it was basically mod rule but could see any other way of dealing with thing in society at the moment. So... in doing this he did remind of something we had agree upon earlier: That since neither model "to him" seemed to be be logically sound only emotionally pleasing or not and pracmatically working, he would probobly go with capitalims and free market if "need" be. Hmmm this seems to be steering slightly away from the initial questiosn psoed by my freidn. And i did add another part to my friends answer in my last post which sums up every thing so far quite well: [21.10.2014 17:55:37] Friend: yeah well UPB invalidates ethical theories based on it's own criteria [21.10.2014 17:57:03 | Muokattu 17:57:24] Anssi Jauhiainen: Well the use of the word "its own" criteria here is bit strange IF its "own" critarea is objective and valid. [21.10.2014 17:58:40] Friend: I mean you still have to provide reasons for why we should use the UPB criteria to invalidate ethical theories [21.10.2014 18:01:05] Anssi Jauhiainen: Well do we want to debate ethics at all? Thats the first question. If yes then we msut ask do we use reason and evidence and logic in our debate? And if yes then we cannot have two conflicting criteria for ethics. [21.10.2014 18:01:17] Anssi Jauhiainen: ITs like having 2 scientific methods [21.10.2014 18:12:09] Friend: Well I mean it's a good question. What is the purpose of ethics anyways? What is the goal? If we don't have a goal then it seems kinda useless. The goal of science is to find out more about the world. It doesn't claim to say anything else. I don't understand how you can say the same of ethics? I mean you can apply logic in the sense that you do to check wheather a ethical theory is valid according to UPB standards, but the fact that we should use such standards in ethics, I don't understand. [21.10.2014 18:13:08] Friend: like I think that you have to look at consequences in a way [21.10.2014 18:14:46] Anssi Jauhiainen: Well that is because if ethics is to be objective it must be universally preferable behavior. And the goal of ethics is (in my mind i am sure to get rolled over by stef and other philosofers) is to achieve moral exelelnce or atleast aim to that goal. If someone says they dotn care waht is right and wrong... well theyre free to do that ofcourse but then cant complain back either [21.10.2014 18:15:41] Anssi Jauhiainen: If it aint universal morality, universality differentiatess morality from opinion and science from religion/supersticion ect. (well one big differance anyhow) [21.10.2014 18:28:17] Friend: But I mean, why must ethics be objective in any way? What does it even mean, I don't really understand. It's just a mind bending concept to me. You say that we can tell from nature how nature ought to be basically? Surely it is only from a human perspective(or other sentient life perhaps) that ethical questions are of value. Then how can nature and logic tell us anything about what is good or bad without us first deciding on a goal. [21.10.2014 18:30:19] Friend: like it's as if science would be able to answer the question of how things ought to be [21.10.2014 18:34:09] Anssi Jauhiainen: 1. Again with the ough thing. Didnt i already tell you i fully accept that we need an IF first. 2. True it is of value same way mathematics... dont exist in the real world. But theyre still valid and also objective. (not to say ethics and math is exactly the same though) 3. Scientific method, theories about physical reality are valid or invalid. UPB, thoeries about ethics are valid or invalid. Both are optional to use, both are objective. Both are binding once person uses scientific method or upb and ocne person uses IF+something. [21.10.2014 18:35:10] Anssi Jauhiainen: Now you can have alternative to upb jsut like to scientific method if youd like to propose one, i would be lisening with the rest of the philosofy/scientific community. If you dont want to use either be my guest. [21.10.2014 18:36:03] Friend: well yeah I mean you can use UPB, once you accept it as the standard for sure [21.10.2014 18:36:26] Friend: the thing with science is that it provides real life solutions and applications [21.10.2014 18:36:47] Anssi Jauhiainen: Ahhh [21.10.2014 18:37:03] Friend: there's no way you can measure how good an ethical theory is without using said ethical theory [21.10.2014 18:37:09] Friend: it's kind of arbritrary [21.10.2014 18:37:20] Anssi Jauhiainen: hey so i claimed that upb is BOTH logically consistent and emperical rihgt? So is this the part where we look at the empiricality of upb? [21.10.2014 18:38:19] Friend: well sure, but it's like I kind of agree to it already I think [21.10.2014 18:38:41] Friend: but you still have the same problem [21.10.2014 18:39:49] Anssi Jauhiainen: Well you can measure how good is ethical theory, logical consistency and how empirical it is. Like same tests for upb itself (even though upd evuluates morel theories). [21.10.2014 18:40:19] Anssi Jauhiainen: Try to think it this way: Scientific method vs superstation or religion, both make truth claims about reality right? [21.10.2014 18:40:57] Anssi Jauhiainen: Same witrh ethics, if one claims murder is moral see whcih framework is the best (and work and is logical) then do the same with its own application [21.10.2014 18:41:22] Anssi Jauhiainen: Like scientific method itself has to be valid not JUST the thoeries it validates [21.10.2014 18:42:04] Anssi Jauhiainen: And upb is nto an ethical theory once again. [21.10.2014 18:43:09] Friend: but how do you measure what moral theory is the best? [21.10.2014 18:43:29] Friend: like as soon as you use upb for that purpose, you've accepted upb as that standard [21.10.2014 18:45:33] Friend: where does that standard come from? How do you logically go from: "the world is this way" to "we should use upb to determine the validity of moral theories"? [21.10.2014 18:47:29] Anssi Jauhiainen: Well i didnt say ""the world is this way so we should use upb to determine the validity of moral theories"". What i am saying is... [21.10.2014 18:48:41 | Muokattu 18:48:56] Anssi Jauhiainen: IF you prefer reason and evidence (+logic) and if you want to debate ethics AND if you use upb to make any arguements then upb is both valid and the preferred methodology for ethical theories. [21.10.2014 18:57:07] Friend: well I do prefer reason and evidence. I want to debate ethics, but first we have to establish how we want to debate ethics. Like we could debate if ethical questions are objective or subjective and what makes them that, or we could debate the internal logic of some ethical system. And I don't understand what it means to use upb to make arguments and how from using it it necessarily follows that it is the preferred methodology to deal with ethical theories. WHICH i think is the direction towards understand goals and underlying causes for holding cetain things true or valid. (or invalid or subjective ect.)

Neither am i my last question related to the fact that in no point did my friend say that "he needs to be able to own other people or for other people to have a greater claim to him than he has." And my friend did add to that something which ill add at the end of mu large post. If youre done i understand if youre feeling like this is pointless but i do not see why id its matter concerning me. I havent seen it in the while so i cannot remember. But while i may do that i cannot assume this to be the case. I cannot dive unto his mind to know that he has this as his reason for anot accepting my arguements. From what i gather and his latest psot especially spaks to this, he say that i have nto shown link between things. Have i erred in my answers which you can see above? As you can see its the connectiosn he is confused about, how can one logically get from A to B. He is in bit a pickle as you can see when i mentioned scientific method... because he cannot see why thing happening mean anything other that they happen. This includes human action. And i dont how youre able to see somehting which is in his head that he hasnt revealed yet. *SIGH* Well i didnt say ""the world is this way so we should use upb to determine the validity of moral theories"". What i am saying is...[18:48:41 | Muokattu 18:48:56] Anssi Jauhiainen: IF you prefer reason and evidence (+logic) and if you want to debate ethics AND if you use upb to make any arguements then upb is both valid and the preferred methodology for ethical theories.[18:57:07] Friend: well I do prefer reason and evidence.I want to debate ethics, but first we have to establish how we want to debate ethics. Like we could debate if ethical questions are objective or subjective and what makes them that, or we could debate the internal logic of some ethical system.And I don't understand what it means to use upb to make arguments and how from using it it necessarily follows that it is the preferred methodology to deal with ethical theories.

Also here is the whole conversation TODAY so far: Ummm [18:01:25] Anssi Jauhiainen: If you debate youre using and exersising self ownership and if you wish to be responded to youre demanding i respect your property rights. [18:01:35] Anssi Jauhiainen: That would be one thing. [18:02:58] Anssi Jauhiainen: Second: you cannot argue againts upb wihtout using upb... and if you debate and talk with me and then CORRECT me on soemthing then youre sayign i should prefer truth over falsehood. [18:14:12] Friend: Well I mean I AM responsible for my actions, if that's what you mean. I don't claim that I own my body as property in any meaningful sense. The fact that I choose to hold my body to the standard of what appears to be property comes down to an emotional response for for example not wanting others to attack me etc. It's only a descriptive statement of how organisms act, and I don't see how property rights follow from that. And yeah I could perhaps agree with the second statement. But since upb seems to be descriptive, it just describes what happens. How does it go from these observable facts to ought claims? [18:15:40] Anssi Jauhiainen: It... doesnt. It responds to people claims or justification, upb is both framework and methodoligy for evaluating ethicsl/moral theories. And by the by if you deny self ownership... well you cant argue againts self ownership by using it. [18:16:23] Anssi Jauhiainen: You exersise self ownership when you use your body to speak, to type. Self ownership again is simply the fact that yuo control your body and that you are the sole exclusive owner of yourself. [18:19:52 | Muokattu 18:20:04] Anssi Jauhiainen: Ive never once said you "ough to respect my property rights" ive said that you cant argue againts them if youve already affirmed them trough your actions and if you dont care that you have then... youve jsut violated upb and dont care of being consistent or rational so in that case youve totally screwed over any idea that it is a debate or exhcance of idea trough reason. [18:31:36] Friend: So it doesn't actually claim to solve the is ought problem? So I might not have any problems with it in that case. I'm not denying self-ownership as defined by me being responsible for my actions. But what I have a problem with is the second thing you said. I must once again then ask for a definition of own. If self-ownership is a descriptive statement, then I agree with it, if it is anything else, I must ask for further clarification. And you say that I can't argue against property rights without using property rights. Then again I must ask how these rights are anything other than descriptive and how these rights being descriptive can we logically determine what other things beside ourselves we own as property? [18:32:33] Anssi Jauhiainen: Waht do you mean by descriptive? [18:32:59 | Muokattu 18:33:12] Anssi Jauhiainen: As in "gasses expand when heated" or "1+1=2"? [18:33:55] Friend: both are descriptive [18:34:01] Friend: fact claims [18:34:05] Friend: basically [18:34:19] Anssi Jauhiainen: Ok. [18:34:57] Anssi Jauhiainen: No siis en mie ole paljon muuta sanonut kuin että "theyre valid" So... [18:35:59] Friend: well for example UPB might be logically valid internally of itself [18:36:04] Friend: and it probably is I don't know [18:36:34] Friend: but it's still an ought claim if you apply it to what ought to be done as moral behavior [18:37:04] Anssi Jauhiainen: But that isisnt waht upb is. [18:38:16] Anssi Jauhiainen: Universally preferable behavior means that it is behavior which can be universally be preferred. Waht claims other than "self ownership is valid, property rights is/are valid" Have i amde? If you mean thigns like: [18:38:40] Anssi Jauhiainen: The iniation of force is immoral (aka it is immoral to steal, to murder, to rape and so on...) [18:39:36] Anssi Jauhiainen: Theyre not immoral because upb says that you ough not do them... theyre immoral because they are logically inconsistent and invalid ehtical proposations. And yes a thief in stealing has argued for HIS property right and denied yours. [18:40:11] Anssi Jauhiainen: If i take you phone i am saying that i ought/should own thsi keep this and use this for myself while you should not. [18:59:51] Friend: Sure, but I mean everyone doesn't agree on the fact that that's what makes them immoral. I mean ethics still needs that if-statement if we want to make an ought claim. Like I don't see how you can logically go from "if you want to be logically consistent you ought not to murder" it still doesn't follow? Now if you say "if you want behavior that violates the UPB to be immoral you ought not to murder" that's fine I think. And yeah I still go back to my previous post where I asked if property right is a descriptive statement or not and if it is, how can it logically follow that I can have "ownership" of something outside of myself. The fact that you take my phone is just a statement of what happens. Now whether or not we should consider this phone as something that I own as property still needs to be argued for. I mean I might hold the view that it is my property, because I happen to believe in some concept of property rights, but I wouldn't claim that you can argue for them logically as being anything else than preferences. [19:07:37] Anssi Jauhiainen: "if you you want to be logicall consistent you ough not to justify murder or moral" (either good for just you and not anyone else or for all). Its not up to me, if one violates upb then it is immoral objectively. Saying that one can ignore upb and debate ethics is jsut as similiar as one can ignore the scientific method and amke scientific claims or truth claims of facts like it. Because 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. I am taking your phone wihtout your consent, which is theft and by the by so long as you keep using the work "my phone" it really doesnt make sense to tlak about ptoperty. Property rights are valid logicall an empirically; thus theyre objective and not subject to personal opinion. Jsut like the sientific method is objective. [19:09:53] Friend: hetki teen ruokaa vastaan koht [19:10:35] Anssi Jauhiainen: ok [20:01:22] Friend: I don't understand how it is logically inconsistent to try to justify murder. I mean obviously you can't universalize murder, but why is that the criteria of something being logically consistent. Don't you need an ethical theory of some sort to evaluate if it is logically consistent or not? The mere justification of murder by itself doesn't seem to imply any sort of logical contradiction. And here you claim that moral claims are objective? I don't understand how it can be equated to science. Science only deals with descriptive statements whereas ethics imply oughts. Nothing in science says anything other than what factually happens in the world. An ethical theory that doesn't say anything about oughts is a useless one it seems, since it only says whatever happens happens, doesn't it? As for property, I can't still understand how you go from these is statements to rights claims over something. It just doesn't seem to logically follow. Like, I can't see anyway how you can get to that conclusion logically from just the fact that we are responsible for our actions. From which premises is the conclusion of ownership derived? The scientific method is objective because it is only a way to desribe something. Ethics would be objective if it was for example just an observation of how murder was committed, and facts around the circumstances surrounding this murder or something. The moment you start talking about what ought to be done, it ceases to be objective, precisely because there is no logical way for you to get from an is statement to an ought statement. [20:13:35] Anssi Jauhiainen: 1. The justification of murder is this: "murder is upd/moral its good to murder" and thus it is wrong to not to murder. If fails on multible levels as you can probobl acertain. If its not universal it aint mroality, for soemthign to be immoral or moral i must be universal otherwise its opinion. 2. No ethics of the past have implied ought (such as religious ones), trough upb we deal with justifications of that which is upb/moral. No it doesnt, upb evaluates things like these: Is it immoral to steal? If its not upb then you cannot universalise theft and thus things like government are immoral. Theyre base operations are cut down. Same with murder, religious peopel might claim a murder in certain situations to be jsut, but since murder cannot be upb and they claim murder agaisnt innocent is ok at differant times youve jsut violated universality. 3. It is the same thing to be responceable for somethign anf owning it. If one murders he owns that murder. Just liek with makign chair out wood, now reason one cannot sell his murder is because in order to sell an action one must be willing to take it and also the victim msut also agree to it since he is part of the murder but since murder renders him dead the person committing the murder is infinately tied to it unlike soemthing positive/neutral liek making a chair. For the chair als, it wouldn't exist without you, so of course you alone own it. Same with YOUR hands How he'd feel about me stealing your arm after you built and nurtured it all the years? (parenting is custodianship not ownership btb) If you have exclusive right/ownership/use of your arms, then what you do with those arms belong to you also. 4. I have not said ough until if havent i? Also no, scientific method is objective because it is emperical and logically consistent. And thus isint subjective which is personal opinion,. thats how we know its objective. Friend: 1. Here again you're assuming that UPB is what's moral. It's fine, but I feel that its just as arbitrary as any other definition of morality. And I can't see how morality can be anything other than opinion. It can be argued for based on definitions that people agree upon, but if you claim that it is anything other than opinion, then the burden is on you to prove why it is the case. Also if the reason why we should accept UPB as the thing that determines what is moral is because anything other is opinion, well isn't that just an appeal to emotion?2. Well here's the same as the first point. You're still assuming that we've gotten over the problem of defining what's moral to that which can be universalized. Which I don't necessarily agree with anyways."Is it immoral to steal?", well what is the definition of immoral? "An action that cannot be universalized", why should that be the definition of immoral?3. I understand that one is responsible for ones actions. I don't think that too many people would argue against it. What I don't agree with is that you own your actions in any meaningful sense that could be derived logically from the fact that you are responsible for your actions. You are part of the causal chain that caused that chair to come into its current state. How does owning the chair mean anything as a factual statement? I don't see how there's some logic that is being violated by not accepting property rights.4. Well what is the if then? "if you want to be logically consistent"?Yeah sure I might agree with that, but my point is that science deals with factual statements about the universe. The reason ethics seems subjective to me is because until you agree upon a definition of what makes moral and immoral behavior, there's just no way to determine how a particular theory is better than any other.5. Still if you by self-ownership mean that you are responsible for your actions, as in you have caused them into being, I can't see how any rights can follow logically from that fact alone. It might be that there is some other step in the logic that hasn't been mentioned, I don't know.Like I can't understand how the fact that you are part of that particular causal chain is anything else than a description of the world how it is.And I'm definitely not saying that there is some great desire in me to have claim to other people or for them to have of me, but it seems that that is more so based on empathy and an instinct to want to defend myself than anything else. Wait where did he say so far that he need to own other people or for someone to have greater claim over him?

Ok we have done to this point so far: My friend keeps insisting that all these are mere action and descriptions of actions that dont say anything else. He says that theyre descriptive statements and thsi wont follow unto anything else than being descriptions of actions in reality. Me taking his phone again: "The fact that you take my phone is just a statement of what happens. Now whether or not we should consider this phone as something that I own as property still needs to be argued for. I mean I might hold the view that it is my property, because I happen to believe in some concept of property rights, but I wouldn't claim that you can argue for them logically as being anything else than preferences." "I'm not denying self-ownership as defined by me being responsible for my actions. But what I have a problem with is the second thing you said. I must once again then ask for a definition of own. If self-ownership is a descriptive statement, then I agree with it, if it is anything else, I must ask for further clarification.And you say that I can't argue against property rights without using property rights. Then again I must ask how these rights are anything other than descriptive and how these rights being descriptive can we logically determine what other things beside ourselves we own as property?" And so on. I did explaint to him that upb is both methodology and framework and that it doesnt say "ough" anything like you ought to respect property rights which seems to be the contention point. To him IF statement is required. In other words just because someone takes something from someone else and jsut because this cannot be justified as upb he doesnt undertand how its immoral. I told him this was because in stealing a thief is affirming his property rights and denying mine. Thus the conversation about the phone examplea gain.

The conversation moved on and my freidn seemed to grasp better waht i mean by all of these relations with tiem and actiosn and property rights... however we went straight to upb and thei is waht he said: "scientific facts are objective because they are descriptive claimsethical questions aren't, and if they are you have to demonstrate that upb is descriptive following upb as an ethical theory isn't" Should i start a totally differant topic? Sicne it seems that upb was really his main problem after all and/or also having objective morality.

Well just because people respect it intuitively doesnt mean anything when it come to validy of property. My friend has trouble understanding how one goes from doing something like making a chair froma tree and then it becoming his property that he can exclude other from, this is because while true one doest make the chair simply by making someto him is differant from owning the body since it is "you" while the chair is still not. And pouring ones time and energy is jsut action in reality doesnt follow to owning anyhting. Now when i asked about murder and theft and so on... and owning those. He said that youre jsut responceable for murder, but dont "own" it. Infact the whole concept of "own" was to him (and soemwhat to me too) foggy. Well he didnt really give any example other than: "You claim property as your own like chair that you made, someone else comes to the scene and wants to use it. You say its yours and he cant just take it. He says what gives him the right to deprive him of using it?" Well its the "just because there was an action of creating a chair by you doesnt mean that therefore you ought to have property right to it or that you ought to respect that persons property" He considers arms to be his since its his body and arms. But chair is totally outside of him and thus no matter how much energy and skill one pours unto it he doesnt see any reason who one should "own" it. He accepts self ownership but doesnt accept property rights of objects persay and relies social acceptance and social interactions with others to establish property right but doesnt see that theyre objective. Outside of social interactions he has no moral qualms of me taking his phone evidently... he would still get annoyed and complain but wouldnt try to claim that i am stealign from his other than in the context of social contract with other humans in society. Also look up my reply to the other quate for mroe information 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?""" """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.""" """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."""

[tried to psot this earlöier by evidently somethign went awry] Hello, I’ve been talking with a longtime friend of mine about property right and philosophy for some time now and we have run unto some questions which I could not properly explain to him. His question were around these: How does one bridge the is-ought gap? And how does ones self-ownership (he was also asking for proper exact definition of this) and the fact that one is responsible for the effect so ones action mean one now is entitled to exclusively use the item in question? (like chair created from wood in state of nature ect.) In other words he does not seem to see the connection between being responsible and having the ability to exclude others from using objects. Like if I create a chair from wood how do I now “own” it? Any help would be appreciated. J