dsayers

If this were true, you probably would've been quick to point it out the first time I mentioned it. Of course it is. Utilitarianism is judging something by how useful it is, regardless of its moral identity. Useful is subjective. Gang rape is useful to more people than not, so it is for the so-called "greater good." If you were to reference the harm done to the victim, then you are setting aside utilitarianism and conceding that the moral consideration is paramount. If you find somebody passed out at a party, you might have the intuition to take advantage of them. Then reason takes over. The fact that we have the capacity for reason means "intuition" is not useful when determining right or wrong. Optical illusions are a simple way of demonstrating how intuition can contradict reality. And when the interpretation of the evidence of our senses contradict reality, it is our perspective that must give way, not the other way around. Also, don't weasel out of refuting objective morality by calling it mine (asserting it is subjective). Show me where the proof for objective morality fails.

I reject your claim that somebody else owns the body that you used to put forth this claim. But let's assume that somebody else owns the computer you used to put forth this claim. If they gave you permission to use it, this does not disprove property rights. If you're using it without their consent, this is evidence that you've violated property rights, not that property rights are not valid.

Show me, don't tell me. I've made the case for objective morality. Show me where it doesn't accurately describe the real world. Show me how somebody engaging in theft, assault, rape, and murder aren't TELLING YOU that their actions are wrong by accepting property rights for themselves and rejecting it for others. Show me how something can be valid and invalid simultaneously. Show me how you can have a crowd without people. I wasn't wrong. You just don't want to accept reality because it interferes with your bigotry.

I guess earlier when you said you were approaching this with a surgical knife, you were referencing your willingness to cut off any distinction that you feel threatens your position. Animals won't become moral actors later in life. I mentioned this several times. Ignoring distinctions like this is what you've done most in this thread.

Common fallacy. Humans are not fundamentally different when they stand next to each other. People exist, but crowd is a concept. You cannot have a crowd without people. Therefore you cannot claim good for the crowd if it violates the property rights of a person. Gang rape is an example of a crowd's will. And according to you, and acceptable standard for determining right and wrong. You're just saying that you reject what I've put forth. You're not actually articulating why.

I made no assumptions about your character. Your behavior is contradicting your words and I was pointing out that I was aware of this. A person's closed-mindedness in a conversation is NOT irrelevant because it's like talking to a brick wall, which is something most people do not do. I continue to do so because this is public and the most important topic. Take this sentence here. You didn't say "Creating a positive obligation by abducting? That doesn't sound right to me. How did you arrive at this conclusion?" Instead, you just said it doesn't happen. An assertion with no consideration and no case being made. So let me ask you this: Have you ever tried to explain why defensive force is valid? Suppose I stole your bike. In doing so, I've voluntarily created a debt to you in the amount of the value of your bike, plus the value whatever you have to invest in the settling of that debt. Taking the bike back or trying to prevent the taking of the bike is consensual because the thief consented to it with his very behavior. Obviously not. It is immoral to kill a human without their consent. It is not immoral to kill an animal without its consent because it cannot consent because it is not a moral actor because it doesn't possess the capacity for reason. So what you're saying is that children are not hostages because they can engage in behaviors hostages can engage in. This is not an argument. Also, I think you're ignoring the biological imperative. Children are dependent on their parents for SURVIVAL. "If I leave or speak out, I will perish" is every bit a restraint as a ligature. I have overcome the burden of proof on three fronts, explaining how power disparity leads to an increased level of excellence required. Those three fronts were the power disparities of dependence, size, and involuntary presence. You can argue against those cases as you have, but you do not get to say I didn't make them. Comparing fragile, developing, dependent, not there by choice children to an inanimate object is ridiculous to the point of not requiring refutation. First of all, morality is objective. It doesn't belong to me. My understanding and my explanation belong to me, but me saying 2+2=4 doesn't mean it's my math. If you rejected that 2+2=4, then calling it my math would be a way for you to more easily excuse not considering it. I've been forthcoming with the fact that children present the exception to the rule. On the one hand, they're not moral actors. On the other hand, they will become moral actors. It's a complicated topic that I won't go into here because basics like argumentation and chronology do not appear to be competent. Suffice it to say that what's done to a child leads to very real consequences for ALL OF US. Whether it's Hitler growing up to precipitate the murder of millions, or just somebody growing up with dysfunction, consuming excess resources, and being a risk to others.

I didn't put forth a remedy. You started the thread by 1) acknowledging that any system that leads to rape is good can be dismissed outright and 2) sharing that you were considering a utilitarian approach. I pointed out that from a utilitarian standpoint, gang rape is a sound proposition. And I put forth a proof for objective morality. That was my two main contributions to the thread. You've rejected both, but cannot identify why, and seem eager to move past these contributions were made at all. No, objective morality is not an ought. It is merely the acknowledgement that property rights cannot be valid and invalid simultaneously. Theft, assault, rape, and murder ARE internally inconsistent because they accept and reject property rights simultaneously. To derive an ought form an is, you need a qualifying if. As in, IF you wish to be consistent THEN you should not steal, assault, rape, or murder. That's it!

You said "No one is obligated to positively do anything." I pointed out that there's a polar difference between an unchosen PO and a voluntarily created PO. You respond by talking about not POs anymore. Did you forget that you pinned your resistance on PO being immoral or did you expect me to forget? To bring up the next reason why you reject my case with no acknowledgement of the last is moving the goalposts. It's evidence that you're not approaching this with curiosity. You're telling us that you believe parents are not responsible because that's what you want to believe (bigotry). Or in a matter this developmental, that you NEED for parents to not be responsible. I'm truly sorry for whatever you were put through that leaves you so desperately fighting against reality. For what it's worth, I was abused and shielded from rational thought also. I already mentioned children aren't there by choice. Pointing it out as if it refutes my position when it echoes my position doesn't make sense to me. I believe earlier in this same thread I used the abduction example. I'm not responsible for feeding you. If I abduct you though, I've created a positive obligation to provide for your health and survival. Were I to neglect this obligation, I would be guilty of murder despite it being the result of inaction. It's BECAUSE children are hostages that parents owe them a higher standard. Unlike an abductee, parents are pledging to protect, to instruct, to be training wheels for life itself for nearly two decades. This is precisely why we need to stress how important this is. If we raise the pressure against those who think neglect is acceptable, we raise the quality of parenting in general. This is also the reason why I'm willing to carry on this discussion with somebody who isn't receptive to logic, reason, and evidence: for others reading this who are unsure but ARE interested in the truth. A child isn't a moral actor. Their consent literally could not be secured. Plus it's a fact of biology. Even if it were immoral, like what would that even mean? However, if you genuinely believe this, then you should agree with what I'm saying. Since that would be a pretty huge debt to create another human being and doing something like say NOT ALLOWING YOUR 6 YEAR OLD TO GET MOLESTED FOR 5 YEARS would be a pretty good way to make it up to them for holding them hostage during those years.

Link? Is it that you reject that communication is the responsibility of the communicator? https://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot/videos Nothing here says Oct. 3rd. No frame of reference. ...because they accurately describe the real world. See? I can say true without saying true too By the by, "useful" is subjective and therefore CANNOT be a standard. Axioms are objective.

I would say yes. A child comes into the world unable to survive in it on their own. The ability to differentiate fact from fiction is an essential characteristic for survival. You can still play Santa though. Just double check to make sure they understand it's not real and just something people do for fun. I think the more challenging question would be how to handle having a child who is aware Santa is fantasy but might play with children who think it is real. Obviously you don't want to model for the child erasing one's self for the preferences of others. Or for that matter, how damaging is it to conflate having stuff with happiness? I'm assuming that in a loving househould, the joy of receiving new stuff wouldn't compare to the joy of having a loving, rational family, and therefore not at risk of fostering addiction or becoming materialistic. I digress.

"the call" is undefined. Stef has fielded many calls. Which might include me. I don't know because you provided no frame of reference. If you look at what I quoted, it doesn't seem like a complete idea, so it's hard to reconcile what you posted with any of the calls I've heard. I'ts like having a single puzzle piece with no idea of what the finished picture looks like. I do know this: People who when asked for a frame of reference for a conversation THEY started are hesitant to provide one, it's usually an indication that they're not looking for the truth. ...because they're true. You've just used a different word than true to avoid using the word true. Maybe it's my bias, but your first two posts definitely seem to be trying to ride the "it is certain that nothing can be certain" fallacy. I don't get the 2+2=4 tangent. Numbers are concepts. Valid and valuable ones at that. It seems like all you're doing is saying "how do we know that the concept forest describes an aggregate of trees?" In other words, "how do we know that a = a?" This is a first principle. You cannot engage in rational discourse or logical debate if you reject first principles.

This doesn't address anything I said to you. I won't waste my time trying to have a conversation with somebody who is output only.

I didn't say families. I specified parent-child. You consistently ignore this. Have you at least looked into why you refuse to address what's being talked about without redressing it first? From my perspective, it seems to be an enormous opportunity for self-knowledge for you. What makes humans moral actors is their capacity for reason. Children do not possess the capacity for reason, so they are not moral actors. Because they will become moral actors is why they tend to represent the exception to the rule. Kind of like psychopaths and victims of abuse or head trauma also might not fully possess the capacity for reason and may not be moral actors despite appearing human. We can discuss this another time if you'd like. Here, what matters is the the point of contention you also continue to not address: UNCHOSEN positive obligations are unethical. Having a child is a voluntarily created positive obligation. Using the flawed rationale you're presenting, a person selling a car not relinquishing the car after being paid for it the agreed upon price is only committing an aesthetic violation since not relinquishing the car is inaction and therefore not eligible for moral consideration (amoral). Voluntarily created positive obligations are binding and therefore the initiation of the use of force in the event of not satisfying it. In the example, the person withholding the car is forcibly depriving the rightful owner access to their own car. In this topic, the parent is, without the child's unobtainable consent, depriving the child of the nurturing and protection they pledged. I'm not sure why you bothered bringing up adoption. If a person creates a positive obligation to the child and transfers that obligation to somebody who is willing to take it over, this isn't neglect. Anymore than if I sold my car and then after the sale didn't change its oil, it cannot be honestly stated that I am neglecting somebody else's car.

I already acknowledged that breaking through the window IS the initiation of the use of force. I addressed this scenario. Instead of acknowledging and answering what I put forth, you've just switched to the train track scenario, which is also bullshit both because it never happens and the answer is simple. If you're not going to consider and respond to the input of others, please don't waste their time pretending you are curious or that it is a conversation. And yes, value is inherently subjective. I would even go so far as to say this is axiomatic. Name one thing all people regard as being the exact same value. Since objective morality is valid, there's not even a benefit to trying to pass value off as objection. Since you mentioned sentience, I think you're on the right track. Perhaps I can help you either grasp the concepts better or articulate it better. The way I approach it we know that doctor's centuries ago who did not prescribe antibiotics were not evil because they didn't know of antibiotics. Similarly, we don't hold somebody having a seizure as responsible if their arm should backhand somebody nearby because there weren't in control. Humans possess the capacity for reason; the ability to conceptualize self, the other, formulate ideals, compare behaviors to those ideals, and calculate consequences. We own our bodies and our actions because we are aware of what all that entails. This is where property begins. In other words, we own ourselves. Humans are not fundamentally different in ways that would mean one person owns themselves but others do not. So everybody owns themselves, which is universal and objective. If I own myself and you own yourself, then any behavior that we engage in that is binding upon the other without their consent is a violation of property rights. This is not subjective! Because the person who is perpetrating theft, assault, rape, or murder is using their property to deny others the use of their property. They are telling you with their very actions that their behavior is immoral. It is internally inconsistent. It is a performative contradiction.

You haven't provided a frame of reference, so I have no idea what you're talking about. In isolation, this is almost a meaningless claim. Are you omitting context? Is it deliberate? The definition of axiom is "a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy." How can something that is accepted as truth be void of having truth value? ALL objective claims are either true or false because they either accurately describe the real world or they do not.

Careful. This right here is the fundamental trap. Stealing a pencil, raping somebody, and dropping a nuclear bomb are all violations of property right. Obviously the damage done has a gradation making each step up seemingly incomparable to the last. However, none of them are "correct." They are all immoral behaviors. This is really important to understand because this is how utilitarianism gains a foothold. Gang rape is the violation of property rights for the benefit of more people than are harmed. From a utilitarian standpoint, it is a sound proposition. In keeping with that approach, the flag pole scenario is bullshit. For starters, obviously it's something that never happens. Secondly, the answer is simple, but the very scenario being presented is meant to disarm a person's rational thinking. "The answer seems simple to me, but if it was that simple, who would ask the question? It must be a trick question and the answer is more complex." It's not. The man on the flagpole is going to break the window and save his life. In doing so he IS initiating the use of force against the owner of the window and abode it is a part of. Happy to be alive, he's not going to refuse to pay for damages. And the person who was victimized is likely not going to be an ass about it and might even offer the person a blanket, a cup of coffee, a call to emergency services depending on the circumstances. If the person in the abode was a dick about it and tried to press charges and/or milk the occurrence for more than it's worth, people would recognize this and simply dissociate with them. "That loaf of bread is $1, but since you're that guy who was a dick that poor unfortunate fellow, I won't sell it to you for less than $3." The person would likely publicly apologize and others would be dissuaded from being a dick in the future. This sort of question only comes up in a Statist society. Because it takes a State to fool people into believing we are self-sufficient.

No, because "fittest" is subjective. The truth is that humans are not fundamentally different in a way that I could own myself but you don't own yourself. Theft, assault, rape, and murder are all behaviors a person can engage in where they use their property (body, time, effort) to deprive others use of their property. It's a performative contradiction. A confession of wrong doing. This is an effect of the BELIEF that kings and countries are valid concepts or actually exist. If you tried to kill me, people might stop you. If they couldn't manage to, they would at least hold you accountable, accurately understanding that you have committed murder. If you were a king or performing that behavior in the name of the State, it's mechanically identical, but people BELIEVE it's different because they believe such people are operating in a different, opposing moral category. Where theft, assault, rape, and murder and righteous, necessary, and worthy of praise. I understand your frustration. I talk to people all the time who live their lives, achieving their goals, not directly initiation the use of force against anybody. Which is true of everybody they know. Yet they're convinced that we cannot exist without using violence to achieve our goals. People who believe you need to violate property rights in order to protect property rights that experience no dissonance in this blatant self-detonating claim.

Need more info. "Unionist" to me is referencing somebody solely on their affiliation with a union. It does nothing to indicate if any specific behavior they've engaged in is the initiation of the use of force or not. Though I did provide what I felt was a philosophical analysis of "if so, then..." What did you think of that?

No. No dancing around. Either you accept the consistency in property rights being valid or you do not. Entertaining utilitarian arguments is you saying you're okay with violence as long as it's used in the way you would like or can pretend to justify (which cannot be universalized). I've pointed this out already and you haven't addressed it.

From the article: If a human made it, a human can unmake or break it. This addresses the symptom, not the problem. Which is ironic because between being funded by stolen monies, children being placed there against their will and against best practices, and being subjected to other victims of these same aggressions, these schools ARE part of the problem. I'm all for making schools look more like the prisons they're meant to be. This just means the next generation will be less likely to accept the lies they're fed. It really sucks that people have to suffer in the meantime. I would give them credit for funding the project voluntarily, but they forgot to get the consent of the children who will be intimidated and locked down by these things. I only glossed over the second half, but I have to give credit to the author for pointing out the political motive and the interests in parties involved. It's like seeing a whiteboard representation of a football play showing how complex something that's over in a moment really is.

This can't be the greatest of lies because it is a symptom, not the problem. The greatest of lies is that humans exist in different, opposing moral categories. You have to subscribe to that lie before you can subjugate another person before you can convince the subjugated that there is a god or a king or a country. From the moment we are conceived our prime directive is to adapt to survive. This begins with identifying the world we live in and its properties. If you develop with beliefs like gods, kings, or countries exist, then to face the truth would mean the world you thought you understood isn't the world at all. That the people you trusted, who were responsible for your well-being, lied to and failed you. From a survival standpoint, these realizations can be catastrophic. It's easier to live in fantasy than reality. Especially when there is no shortage of people who will confirm your bias.

What is meant by "your economy"? Your meaning possessed by the individual. Economy meaning the aggregate of all voluntary exchanges by individuals. If you sell product/service Y and either people don't want Y or they can get better/cheaper/more accomodating Y elsewhere, then you'll have to increase the value of the Y you offer or shift your resources into product/service Z where you're able to serve demand more efficiently. Say you have a small hardware store you sell TVs in. Then along comes some place like Wal Mart. You're unable to compete because they have a more established distribution network and buy/sell on a larger scale than you, allowing them to do the same thing at a lower price. This benefits everybody, as evidenced by most people buying from Wal Mart when they could be buying from you. Sure you might go out of business, but that's a result of not being able to do business as efficiently as somebody else, meaning you're wasting resources. If you had a hardware store because you genuinely wanted to provide your community with appliances and are good at it, you can work for them and they will compensate you for your expertise in that area. Or find something else that you can do competitively. Does this at all answer your question? I must admit I wasn't sure what you were asking.

Was a unionist violent? If so, they should be held accountable for their transgression in the amount of whatever the wronged party lost in damage plus whatever value they need to invest in settling this debt. Assaulting somebody doesn't accomplish this. This is the difference between defensive force and retaliation. If a unionist is not in fact violent and only guilty of not conforming to somebody else's preference, then obviously the initiation of the use of force against them is immoral.

Mob rule. Gang rape is an example of public good.

I asked you how you got what you think I said from what I said. Since you refuse to answer, my answer to this question is no, I will not repeat myself. You can read what is written and try to engage in a conversation once you have things like an open mind and curiosity. Then why do you reject that violence is the only thing we can accomplish with violence that we cannot accomplish without violence? Which has been your position from the moment I pointed it out, as seen here: You're asking how initiating the use of force differs from not initiating the use of force. Choosing not to sell you a loaf of bread is different from taking your loaf of bread. If you say to me that I HAVE to sell you the loaf of bread because you have to eat to survive, you are inflicting an unchosen positive obligation on me, which is unethical in proposition and immoral in practice. You are free to make your own loaf of bread. If you want bread that others have, you will have to exchange value for value with them. If you offer then a penny or a smile, they may ask for more as is their prerogative. They might ask you for $1,000 or a car, you can ask for less as is your prerogative. As long as both parties are free to decline, there is nothing binding upon the other without their consent, and therefore no immorality.