labmath2

Your post reminds me of Galt's rafio speech. Though i think his was more impactful.

The red parts i either do not understand or I fail to see the link between the two propositions or you are assuming the thing you are trying to prove. For example, "It [morality] stems from the fact that there are indeed property rights since no other person can control another's body." First off all, you will have to define morality, property rights, control, and body. Second, demonstrate that in fact no other person can control another's body (i.e. does organ transplant count as someone else controlling your body?). Then, show how the fact that no other person can control another's body logically demonstrates property rights. For the yellow part, Can you point to the person that said that so i can try to read their proposition to understand what they mean by it. Does that mean all things with mass are subject to gravity in the same way?

Dsayers i cannot accept that everyone roughly undetstands what you mean by humans. I used standard definitions to show you just how ambiguous the word human is. If we are having adscussion where me slightly misunderstading you leads to bad conclusions, then i would rather not assume anything. It may seem trivial, but i see this a lot in discussions. I did read the book and if i do decide to call in, this is precisely the discussion i will be having with Stefan. Despite his attempt to clarify certain issues, the built in ambiguity in language still reared its ugly head.

Koriviev, i just noticed you said in another thread that i ignored you. I did not mean to, but i did. Can you please rewrite your critisism this time do not state what Stefan said, unless you think i misrepresented or misinterpreted him, just address the points. When you do address the points, any proposition you make must either be a true axiom, refer to part 2 and 3, or provide empirically true. The reason i am not doing a irect address out s because i dont fully understand most of youfr comment.

While i enjoyed your post Des, i feel like getting into that discussion strays from the main point of this thread. Unless you want to make the. Case that what yiu proposed is ethics from principles.

dsayers, i love you brother which is why i have to do this to you. List of concepts/words that you have to explain/define as precisely as possible before the block of words that is this can begin to take on any concrete (not abstract) meaning. Humans, Possess, reason, conceptualize self, the other, those ideals, own ourselves, fundamentally different, everybody, theft, assault, rape, murder, property rights. Just to show what i mean, since many of those concepts/words can seem rather trivial. Human: 1. of, relating to, or characteristic of people or human beings. 2. a human being, especially a person as distinguished from an animal or (in science fiction) an alien. People: 1. human beings in general or considered collectively. 2. the men, women, and children of a particular nation, community, or ethnic group. Person: a human being regarded as an individual. Do you notice the problem? Apart from the second definition of human and the second definition of people, we basically just get a tautology. Now simple case, i will list variations of humans and you can tell me who counts and who doesn't: Dead human, Mentally impaired human, Child human, Human in a coma, Black human, white human, Deformed human, Human with a gun to his head, regular human. I decided to stop since i think i have illustrated the point. Now imagine i did that for every single word/concept i listed.

Part 3: The well chosen test I think this will be the final part of the problems with ethics from principles. I will like to open with a joke. John: Are you gay? Peter: No. John: Does your mother know you're gay? Peter: ... Now to more serious stuff. In this part i will mainly address the point brought up by dsayers, but it should be apply more broadly. Moral Superiority: Moral superiority is the belief or attitude that one's position and actions are justified by having higher moral values than one's opponent. It can refer to: Morality, when two systems of morality are compared. Self-righteousness, when proclamations of moral superiority become a negative personal trait. Law of noncontradiction: It states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive. Steal: take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it. Theft: the action or crime of stealing. Property: 1. a thing or things belonging to someone; possessions collectively. 2. an attribute, quality, or characteristic of something. Belong: 1. (of a thing) be rightly placed in a specified position. 2. (of a person) fit in a specified place or environment. 3. be the property of. Possession: 1. the state of having, owning, or controlling something. 2. an item of property; something belonging to one. Own:used with a possessive to emphasize that someone or something belongs or relates to the person mentioned. Related:belonging to the same family, group, or type; connected. Relate: 1. give an account of (a sequence of events); narrate. 2. be connected by blood or marriage. Have: 1. possess, own, or hold. 2. experience; undergo. Control: 1. the power to influence or direct people's behavior or the course of events. 2. a group or individual used as a standard of comparison for checking the results of a survey or experiment. Hold: 1. grasp, carry, or support with one's arms or hands. 2. keep or detain (someone). Hold (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hold):to set aside; reserve or retain Retain:continue to have (something); keep possession of. If reading through all those definition was as exhausting for you as it was for me to find and post them, i sympathize with you. I have a problem with words whose definition eventually leads back to them. If your property is your belonging and your belonging is your property, then what is property? Without a simple definition of property that is not a tautology, then its hard to have a discussion about theft. We can speak about theft as a performative contradiction. Performative Contradiction: A performative contradiction (German: performativer Widerspruch) arises when the propositional content of a statement contradicts the presuppositions of asserting it. An example of a performative contradiction is the statement "I am dead" because the very act of proposing it presupposes the actor is alive. When a thief steals property, does he necessarily engage in performative contradiction? Yes, if he believes something is both true and false at the same time. Now if the thief accepts property rights for himself, but rejects them for others, this is not necessarily a contradiction. If the thief accepts he and others are identical when it comes to property rights, then yes, it is a performative contradiction. If however, he puts himself in a different moral category when it comes to property rights, then he is not. Now you can argue he is not being consistent or universal. Consistent: 1. (of a person, behavior, or process) unchanging in achievement or effect over a period of time. 2. compatible or in agreement with something. 3. (of an argument or set of ideas) not containing any logical contradictions. Universal: of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases. Let us assume he is not changing his definitions over time, then he is consistent. Well, that is easy, his use of property right is not universal. The problem there as i stated in part 2 is that you will have to subject his principles to your grouping, which he can refute by rejecting your grouping. Then it becomes a battle of opinions. The alternative is some objective standard that is independent of anyone's moral axioms or propositions with which we all evaluate our moral propositions. This is where empiricism seems to be the only answer. Empiricism: the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience. Stimulated by the rise of experimental science, it developed in the 17th and 18th centuries, expounded in particular by John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume. Read the wikipedia page on empiricism for more info. The video in part 2 is actually the wrong video, disregard that, watch this instead Now coming back to Walter Blocks comment about data about spanking being utilitarian, I will like to end on this. If empirical evidence is not the test of ethics, then what is?

I suppose pragmatism is many philosophers' answer to how we test the superiority of a moral proposition. The alternative is to accept moral propositions without external proof.

I typed two long responses last night that are stuck in limbo. Before those come in, i will quickly address the notion that you ought to believe anything. You do not have to subscribe to any philosophy, but there is a reality around us and the only processes we have of understanding it are philosophy and scientific method. Do not take my principles or propositions as true unless i give you adequate data on which you can independently arrive at the same conclusion.

That is true, I thought it would be funny, It was supposed to show the arbitrary nature of propositions that are not empirically true or true axioms. To get slightly off topic, I think your comments really need to be broken down for me to get unambiguous meaning form them. "Truth and logic is derived from the consistency of the matter and energy in our universe." Consistency: 1. (of a person, behavior, or process) unchanging in achievement or effect over a period of time. 2. compatible or in agreement with something. 3. (of an argument or set of ideas) not containing any logical contradictions. If you are referring to consistency one, then i am not sure what you mean. "Truth and logic is derived from the consistency (unchanging in achievement or effect over a period of time) of the matter and energy in our universe. Do you mean truth and logic do not change over time? If you are referring to consistency two, then i have to ask what is matter and energy consistent with. "Truth and logic is derived from the consistency ( compatible or in agreement with something) of the matter and energy in our universe. If you are referring to consistency three, then i do not see how my hypothetical world has logical contradictions. "Truth and logic is derived from the consistency ((of an argument or set of ideas) not containing any logical contradictions) of the matter and energy in our universe. Remember Law of non-contradiction: It states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive. So if gravity reverses in this hypothetical world at a particular place and time, it does not contradict gravity doing something else at every other place and time. This would certainly mean gravity is arbitrary and weird, but i do not see why it is contradictory. You use the word consistency in the statement "So in order to determine what is true in our universe, it must be consistent (universal)." Universal: of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases. The problem with that is grouping, Who determines what group is relevant and what group isn't. In science, this is achieved by taxonomy, In moral philosophy, how do you determine moral categories? To play devils advocate, Why shouldn't children be treated different from adults? Why shouldn't government officials be treated different from non officials? Why shouldn't doctors be treated different from non doctors? Do not make the mistake that i advocate moral relativism or subjective morality. However, you cannot claim moral superiority where there are no objective standards.

I am in a bit of a transition at the moment so i am not in a position to call in, but maybe some other time. Part 2: I have been thinking about this problem due to reading bugzysegal, but what really tipped me was the debate between Stefan and Walter Block. Stefan opened the debate by laying out facts about spanking, which Walter does not refute. Here i might not do Walter justice, but he rejects the value of those facts as it would mean taking a utilitarian approach to ethics. Even if that is not quite an accurate representation, it strikes me as odd that data would be neglected in a debate about behavior. This is just my opinion. Why does it matter that UPB itself is an axiom and that "there is no UPB" is not self detonating? It means UPB must also be subjected to some standard, just like any other method or theory. Before i go on, i will like to define a few things (if this seems trivial, you can skip the next few lines. By the way, i am using google defintions where i showed what i typed in). Axiom (axiom definition philosophy): An axiom is an irreducible primary. It doesn't rest upon anything in order to be valid, and it cannot be proven by any "more basic" premises. A true axiom can not be refuted because the act of trying to refute it requires that very axiom as a premise. An attempt to contradict an axiom can only end in a contradiction. Method (method definition): a particular form of procedure for accomplishing or approaching something, especially a systematic or established one. Test (test definition): a procedure intended to establish the quality, performance, or reliability of something, especially before it is taken into widespread use. Empirical (empirical definition): based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. Sorry that i wasted your time, Now to the main course. Any proposition on which a moral philosophy is based on must either be a true axiom or be empirically true. If you have bothered reading this far, i think you deserve a good joke, read Ontological argument on wikipedia. This quote is taken from that wikipedia page. "...there is an evident absurdity in pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact, or to prove it by any arguments a priori. Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing, that is distinctly conceivable, implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no being, therefore, whose non-existence implies a contradiction. Consequently there is no being, whose existence is demonstrable." - David Hume. Now if UPB is not a true axiom, then it must be true empirically. If it is a methodology, it must accomplish something, which should be testable or at least observable (other than to show that something is incompatible with itself). Likewise, If self ownership is not a true axiom, it must be true empirically. The descriptive form of self ownership is empirically true, however, the normative form is not. Now professionalteabagger brings something important to the table "Do i own my comment?" Here i think own becomes ambiguous. This statement can be interpreted in multiple ways. Let me do the honor. 1. You own your comment=You typed the words = true. 2. You own your comment=These are your ideas/opinion=true 3. You own your comment=The comments are your possession=unclear 4. You own your comment=The comments are under your control=unclear I do not know where this quote is from, but i think its a good way to end this post. “Words are like eggs dropped from great heights. You could no more call them back than ignore the mess they left when they fall.”

Ethics from principles are debates about axioms. The three laws of logic are not sufficient to demonstrate the logical failures of the many moral propositions put forth. I will deal with two axioms in Libertarian philosophy to show my point. 1. UPB cannot be rejected without being asserted. This is the proposition that makes UPB unassailable. Lets take the statement "there is no UPB," and figure out what is being said. A) It is universally preferable that there is no UPB. This is obviously self detonating. B) UPB is like a pegasus or yeti, it simply does not exist. Its a myth. C) UPB is an empty set. Otherwise stated as an abstraction without a particular instance of it. There is the option that UPB like the scientific method is not a claim, but a way of evaluating claims. How is it different from principle of non-contradiction. 2. Self ownersip as a self evident axiom. A) Sure I concede that you control yourself, but that is distinct from the normative claim of ownership. The moment you move from the descriptive "i control my arms" to the normative "i ought to control my own arms" you are describing two different things. B) self control is subject to other considerations, like the good of society. Now Stefan says its a contradiction to say gravity should point down except on thursdays in the middle of the ocean. Actually, its not. Remember for it to be a contradiction, it must say A is not A in the same way and at the same time. It turns out such a claim is untrue, but it could be true in some bizzare universe.

Unfortunately, i at work now, i will fully respond to you tomorrow, but are you familiar with the three laws of logic?

If i understood you correctly, then your argument is about the axiom upon which UPB rests on. One UPB itself is not a moral proposition, but a system of evaluating moral propositions. Even if i were to concede UPB rests on certain fundamental assumptions, you will have to point to those assumptions and ask us to prove or validate them or show us they are incorrect. So which axioms do you have problems with in particular.

Even if this is true, granted i read the wikipedia page and it was hard to see how that his theorem applies, we still have reality with which to test theories. If you take the time to listen to David Friedman and Milton Friedman, i think they make very good cases for freedom. In the case of doctors being forced to treat patients, you will run into all kinds of problems. I am willing to go down this rabbit hole with you, i just want to understand your motive in all this.

When you say there is no chairness in them, you are merely showing the limit of abstractions.

I started a thread to address this point in particular, but since its lost in limbo, might as well discuss it here. The question about preferences is one about categories that matter. In our society, people get treated differently based on species, race, gender, emotional state, mental state, disease (mental), IQ (below 80), occupation, relation, nationality, e.t.c. UPB does not explicitly show why any categorization is wrong. Going back to the eye color example, an edict that states killing of blue eyed persons has no moral content is wrong because its arbitrary, not because it can't be universalized (stated otherwise, their preference to live counts as much as a chicken's preference to live). Now going by what Stefan said in my call in show, capacity for language matters in determining if UPB applies or not. I also imagine we do not apply the same standards to children or mentally deficient people. The problem lies in the fact that people accept categories such as government, for which different rules apply in the same way they accept limitations on children's culpability or behavior. When i ask whose preference matter, why does it matter and when does it matter, i am trying to pin down which categories count and which do not and why. Simple case, for killing, we only check the preference of the victim to see if it is moral. If the victim prefers it, its assisted suicide, if he does not, its murder. The perpetrators preference is irrelevant. The victims preference matter because the action infringes on his person and he is a UPB relevant actor. His preference matters anytime someone else's action infringes on his person or property. When the same exercise is done for government, you get really weird answers. Preference of government officials matter more than the citizens. The government officials preference matters more because of the powers invested in him by the citizens. The government official's preferences always matter more than the citizens. Granted i don't think even the most avid statists like those answers, they accept it to be true because they see government as a special category that is superior to the citizen. How can we disavow them of this natural tendency to ascribe moral relevance to arbitrary categories?

The fundamental problem with engaging a statist is moral categories. Rven if he could concede universality, he still holds that government is a different moral category from citizens. I think this position is the result of living in a society where standards change based on arbitrary factors (race, gender, age, emotional state, relation, intoxication, wealth, religion, occupation, mental state and disease). How do we get from that to something more concrete?

Forcing the man to be respondible for the child should also be a violation of the NAP based on that standard.

Here is a funny moral situation. A man with IQ 146 thinks people should be free to murder anyone with IQ two standard deviation or below him. Is it UPB compliant? Again the fundamental difficulty that exists with UPB is with the notion of preferability. Outside of the three laws of logic, that is the only addition UPB seems to add. So, whose preference matter, why does it matter, and when does it matter?

I have considered this topic, though without realizing it. A good place to start is to define moral or good in an objective way. The standard use of good seems to rely on collective preference.

I was wrong, its not patent, its worse.

I think this case is a patent case. Aparently, he purchased the patent off another company for millions of dollars so he has to regain the investment. Its a common practice with old drugs that have no alternatives. Instead of people asking why no one else is coming to undercut him, they blame free market.

I find one thing that works effectively is to show how one viepoint they hold contradict snother one. This usually help separate evil from unreason. In the case of the person that think someone should go to jail just because one person accused them of rape, ask if innocent people not going to jail is important to them. I think the unreasoning masses will pause before trying to reason out how those two positions are compatible. However, someone that is evil will simply dismiss you. Simply put, actions have consequence.

After reading Atlas Shrugged and listening to positive psychology 1504 by Tal Ben-Shahar, i realize just how much work i need to get from where i am now to a good place. Reflecting on the experience, i now think it is hard to criticize people for their choices. Sure, they have capacity for change, but change is hard. Many people choose government over integrity, not because they are blind, but because of the expediency of the moment. Try telling a single mother choose integrity over the well being if her child. It is hard to let go of the pleasant illusion when you do not know what is on the other side. I know that Stefan says it did not matter how the cotton will get picked post slavery, but it mattered to those whose life depended on it. While i hold people fully responsible for those things they chose, i look back now and can see why i made those decisions.