dsayers

Having no use for a hammer does nothing to diminish the utility of a hammer. Morality's only utility is to determine the internal consistency of behaviors that are binding upon others. This utility is preserved even when you use it only to enhance the happiness in your own life.

I wish people who were coming from a defeatist mentality wouldn't stand up and try to lead others. Necessary is begging the question. Compromises are win-lose. In our lifetimes is an arbitrary standard. And whittling down is conceding before beginning. Nobody thinks to whittle down cancer or a mass murderer's access to victims. Problems need solutions, not acceptance, tolerance, and co-operation.

This is like saying that people who smoke crack hurt people other than themselves. When in fact the other people are responsible for their proximity to self-destructive people. Like it or not, the process of human reproduction is a huge strain on the woman's body. Being pregnant is no different from having a disease in terms of the risks associated for the mother. Until birth occurs, and the resultant baby is able to survive without the mother host, it is a part of the mother's body, and therefore her property. The man's responsibility is to choose a woman of quality, who would include his position in her decision based on the love and goals they share for their family and future. I'm sorry if this sounds like white knighting, but it is the philosophically consistent position.

Begging the question is a logical fallacy, not an argument. I addressed this earlier: For which you thanked me. How then are you now able to repeat yourself as if no refutation/challenge has been offered?

If you choose not to have sex with somebody, have you initiated the use of force against them? This is one of dangers of using shorthand like "NAP" when you don't understand it. NAP is shorthand for "theft, assault, rape, and murder are internally inconsistent." The only way to determine this is if property rights are valid.

I liked reading your post. From the time I've started pursuing self-knowledge, it's been a challenge for me to talk to others about it because it's hard to describe what it looks like. I think you've done a good job of elucidating one way this can look like. I've recently learned that self-knowledge for your own benefit is only the start of the journey. The next part is using the newly rebuilt you to find and interact with other virtuous people. Once you find that other virtuous somebody, you will be amazed at how they help to build you, you help to build them, and you are each stronger because of what you're building together. It's... quite wonderful.

These are important questions. For me, the basis of self-knowledge is being able to identify what you're feeling and WHY. The more you learn about yourself, the more you CAN learn about yourself. And about other people. By this I mean that some of the more complex experiences you're having might not be able to be sorted out by you right away. Then as you sort out the smaller stuff, what you learn can lend some insight into the more complex stuff. I think "mood swing" is an unfair phrasing. It suggests that a person's experiences are either invalid or unstable. Which even if they were unstable, it would be the result of external trauma. Having new experiences and encounters might change your emotional state in the moment, but if you value self-knowledge and process that, it will give you that much more insight into yourself. Continue this process and before long, other people will not even be able to alter your emotional state. At least not in a way that would cause you to lose control of yourself, and even your emotions.

No no no no no. People of virtue, who possess self-knowledge, know what is actually important. Which includes conflict resolution. In a loving relationship, both people are strong enough to stand up for themselves, while also appreciative of the other person to the point to where trivial shit doesn't matter. "Everyone does that" because "everyone" is dysfunctional. It's akin to saying "everyone assaults their children." While this is true of the majority, there are rational, loving couples that don't. "Everyone does that" is not only begging the question, but passing an is off as an ought. It only serves to conceal, protect, and perpetuate dysfunction.

A person's body, time, and effort is their capital. To use it to try and "resist capitalism" is a performative contradiction.

Nationalism is a proposition. The onus is on whomever is putting it forward. So the question becomes why, not why not. Answer this, and the why not will become clear.

Certainly. I admire your conviction and patience on such an important matter I don't know. I'm more interested in reality than individuals. I think what might be happening is that you're expecting morality to do more than its purpose. Morality's purpose isn't to say what you can and cannot do. It's a tool to interpret the actions that people actually do. Like in your antiquated tribes example. We all understand WHY they initiated the use of force. Morality's purpose is to help us understand that the action was in fact the initiation of the use of force. So you say that tribe A's food supply was burned down. Unless tribe B did the burning, it is not their responsibility, and therefore they cannot be compelled to relinquish their food, meaning that the seizing of the food is indeed the initiation of the use of force. The reason why that is important is because tribe B will almost certainly defend what is theirs, thus providing competing claims. Morality helps us to identify whose claim is righteous.

False. To steal takes effort. Effort that could be put into earning. Plus the person you would steal from must not be in a position of starvation in order to have food to steal. In what way are these two people fundamentally different that one of them can provide for their own need for food while the other cannot?

If I steal your bike, I voluntarily create a debt to you in the amount of the value of your bike, plus whatever resources you would need to put into settling that debt. When you ponder whether collateral damage is acceptable, it's unclear if you're talking about reality or made up "rules." Your language isn't very precise, so I'll try one more time to help by pointing out that "crowd" is a concept. People exist. If you want to know what's acceptable amid a crowd, you must look at what is acceptable between individuals. Because individuals don't fundamentally change based on proximity to other individuals. The language you're using seems to assume that the State is valid, which it is provably not specifically because of the un-universifiable violations of property rights that it is predicated upon.

I find it helps to look at these things in terms of property rights. When person A initiates the use of force against person B, they are voluntarily creating a debt to that person. If that includes irreversible acts such as bodily harm or death, it is reasonable to expect that person B would give their consent for others to collect upon that debt if they could. As such, it is morally justifiable for persons C, D, and E to intervene. Does that make sense? You need to define your terms. What do you mean specifically by "war"? Also, countries do not exist, so you can not engage in behaviors directed at them. It's this sort of obfuscation by way of language that allows these horrific behaviors to be carried out at all.

Where do you draw the line? This only serves to reveal that you're not referring to a principled conclusion.

The right to live and the right to not be murdered are different things. Unchosen positive obligations cannot be ethical because they ignore consent. For a more thorough explanation:

We have reason, which means we can conceptualize self, the other, formulate ideals, compare behaviors to those ideals, and calculate consequences. A person in a seizure hasn't assaulted you if their arm strikes you, because they weren't in control of their body. A doctor in the 1500s is not evil for not prescribing antibiotics, because he didn't know about them. However, if somebody knows the consequences and engages in a behavior, they are responsible for that behavior. Does this help to explain that?

Thank you so much for sharing your honest experience! I completely understand. When I found my virtuous somebody, I was at a point in my life where after all the abuse and unhappiness before self-knowledge, I didn't think I'd be able to have a truly happy life. Self-knowledge provided a contentedness, but it's nothing compared to finding somebody who is virtuous and is uncontrollably drawn to your virtue, and the way that can instantly change your life. Just knowing how the thought of that has provided for you an emotional avalanche, I REALLY hope you are able to find this for yourself. So keep up the great work, keep being honest, have the difficult conversations, and don't be afraid of the possibilities. I hope you find your virtuous somebody too

How does problem solving by way of violence lead to being a productive member of society? See, this position begs the question of whether violence is the only way to achieve that goal. But the only thing you can achieve with violence that you cannot achieve without violence is violence itself. For the record, I understand you're playing devil's advocate. My efforts are to demonstrate how easy this is to see through when not starting from their position that violence is necessary, or else the fantasy they have of their parents/society is shattered.

These things are easy. Just substitute child with spouse, and watch people get rightly appalled in unison. Only a spouse is there by choice, relatively equal in power, and is free to leave.

Wait until you meet that virtuous somebody else who will appreciate all the work you've put into reconstructing yourself as a virtuous person. Talk about testing the limits of the imagination!

I'm not sure how this addresses "The person committing theft, assault, rape, or murder is telling you their actions are evil."

Me too! Self-knowledge has given me all of the best things this world has to offer. Was this what made yours so comparatively pleasant as well?

Husbands, males, bachelors, triangles, and shapes are not behaviors that are binding upon others. In terms of morality, the (lack of) presence of consent is what matters. Rape and love making are mechanically identical. What makes them moral opposites is that the presence of consent is opposite. "Contract" denotes consent, whereas "social contract" dispenses with consent. Revealing the invalidity of "social contract."

I don't have to posit this. The person committing theft, assault, rape, or murder is telling you their actions are evil.