labmath2

No it is not immoral, it is just impossible. for too many people to become immortal.

If people do not die, then we would run out of resources. Or as someone put it, many must die so that one may become immortal.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but i can tell you how it helps me. By seeing the world as amoral, i am less concerned with if people act morally, but with why people act. This makes it easier to act in ones self interest without unnecessary restraint, as many successful people do.

Power is justice Government is God Law is moral This is what the motto of all government is.

I think eye contact is a cultural thing that differs depending on where you go.

Technically, yes, the resources can be reconstituted almost infinitely, but realistically the resources are fixed. Means of production is limited so the owners of means of production have infinite wealth capacity, but there can only be so much means of production. The most fundamental of these is land. There is only so much fertile land, so even if we can produce infinite amount of crops, there is location and time constraint on that production. The most wealthy are those who control those limited means of production and everyone else has to pander to their needs. The sun is the only "unlimited" resource that cannot be privately owned.

How economy works simple version. Imagine there is 100 dollars(total resources) and its divided among 10 people(total population). At zero value they all have 10 dollars and any trade for service or good is a promise to provide service or goods of same value to someone in that society(particularly to the person who now holds the money they spent). If anyone is rich (owed a lot of service or good), then one person or some people must be poor (owing people a lot of service or good). Imagine one person manages to acquire 30 dollars out of the 100, then 9 people must collectively own 70. Simply put, if everyone is rich, then no one is rich and if some people are rich, then some people must be poor. This does not necessarily mean they will have no resources.

I will refer you to what i consider a very good refutation of this idea. https://mises.org/journals/jls/20_2/20_2_3.pdf I do not know what it means for something to be both optional and absolute. Aboslute-a value or principle that is regarded as universally valid or that may be viewed without relation to other things. optional-available to be chosen but not obligatory.

This statement assumes a lot of things. Self-ownership is still up for grabs as it is not the consequence of a physical property, but a value judgement. To assume all those who violate (in some sense disagree with) your principles are criminals, when the question of the debate is whether everyone has to agree for it to be universal, or whether people can disagree is to jump the gun. Going by your example, you would say those in the middle east who do not follow NAP are by definition criminals, even though in their society they are just normal. Going back to the gravity analogy, if we encounter any matter that is unaffected by gravity, we should label it anti science and punish it till it comes to its senses and starts obeying gravity. I think most of us would just say that means gravity does not affect some things ( at least in this case the matter in question).

This is why the axioms need to be explicitly stated, otherwise you will presuppose things that others think is still up for grabs.

There is a problem with the idea of an exception passing a test of consistency since the very nature of an exception is that it does not follow the rule. Even if you insist on the exception being consistent, another exception can just be layered on top of the first exception. The problem of saying something is ethically relevant is to put the cart before the horse. The entire point of UPB is to demonstrate ethics, it cannot do that on the basis of what is ethically relevant as that is the question. There is no obligation to pay back the loan (at least a naturally occurring obligation). People pay back because it affects their standing in society or it there is a system in place to guarantee the lender gets back their money (like putting up an asset). This does not mean people do not pay back because of some internal motivation, but the point is that it helps them accomplish something.

I have read UPB and i respectfully disagree. Here is a quick list of why i disagree. 1. The axioms are not explicitly stated. One of the axiom is that moral principles must be universal and consistent without reference to how we determine the groups under those classifications. Why can't there be a government exception since there are already multiple exceptions. It also only applies to humans which is a very small group for something that is universal (and not even to all humans equally). 2. UPB is not proven, but defined. I think we all agree preferable behavior exist, but to say universally preferable behavior (the category, not the concept) exists is putting the horse before the cart. Categories are defined by some unique quality that they possess, in this case, a behavior that everyone should prefer. Simple example, everyone should not murder. The obvious question that follows is why? The answer, because it violates UPB, but that is circular as it simply states any rejection of something that is part of the category UPB is a violation of UPB. 3. The definition of UPB, "what (behavior) people should prefer," is prescriptive but there is no condition attached to it. All prescription (to my knowledge is) conditional. "You should do X" has an implicit assumption that you are trying to achieve Y, the thing which X helps you accomplish. "You should follow UPB to be consistent with UPB" is not a very convincing argument. 4. Ownership in the moral sense is not well defined. Self-ownership is automatically assigned without pointing to some concrete demonstration of the quality. If self control=self ownership, then control=ownership. Since ownership is not perceived by the human senses, it must stem from something that can be perceived, which to my knowledge is not defined. On the comment of the collective not existing, i agree and disagree. The collective does not exist in the physical sense, it describes the state of human interaction which is necessary for any moral principle. In a world of only one individual, our moral principles are irrelevant because they are only enforced by the fact that we interact with other people.

The problem with objective morality is that it implies there is right and wrong regardless of human judgement which i think most people are hesitant to accept (nature does not place value on actions). I think people are much more willing to accept there are actions that are advantageous for individuals and collective and actions that are disadvantageous for the individual and the collective. Sometimes the individual is at odds with the collective and that is where we need laws. Law is the equivalence of moral economy., the more successful ones stay and the less successful ones are discarded.

I think our disagreement is based on nuance (applies universally vs could be applied universally vs is applied universally). 1. Moral principles could be applied universally and sometimes are applied universally. 2. Gravity applies universally. When you say universal principle applies universally, are you referring to the form of statement one or the form of statement two? If you are referring to the form of statement 2, then it is implicitly implied that it applies regardless of actors.

what does that mean? Nature is what is, it does not validate anything. We use nature to validate our theories.

People do not care about philosophy because it has given way to many new fields that have overtaken it. Natural philosophy has given way to natural science and moral philosophy has given way to law and social science. Instead of trying to understand nature by contemplating it, why not just investigate it. Instead of prescribing what is good or bad, why not just create disincentives for actions that we collectively reject and reward actions we collectively desire.

Well then no need to make arguments or try to enforce principles, they are enforced by nature, the same way gravity is. So the next time you are robbed or attacked, do not worry, the universe will even the score (Karma).

Without anyone applying moral rules, how does it apply universally? My contention here is that principles (universal or otherwise) requires interacting agents to exist (or applied). To say it it applies universally regardless of the actors brings it into the same realm as something like gravity, unless i am completely misunderstanding your meaning of "applies universally."

Conception the way in which something is perceived or regarded.

After contemplating John Searle's lecture i came to the conclusion that he actually makes the question "do concepts exist" even more difficult to answer. The best way to answer the question in light of his lecture is to ask "Do you mean concepts as in the physical manifestation (like trees) or the mental conception (something with root, stem, branches and flowers)." If it is a concept with a one to one representation (a particular fish or tree), then yes it exist. If it is a concept without a one to one representation (patience, perseverance or even a generic tree), then no.

ok

What does it mean for a principle to be universal if no one applies it and it is not compulsory? Morals are inherently a consequence of interaction. To say it is universal is to say it is independent of interaction.

That is tricky because it creates the situation where we blame victim for doing certain things that aids the criminal. Examples: If you were not dressed like that you would not have been raped. If you were not stupid enough to invest in a fraudulent business you would not have been duped. If you had moved out of the bad neighborhood, your wife and daughter might still be alive. IF you lived in the wilderness by yourself, then other people's actions would minimally impact you. Lets just say it is not a good road to go down.

There are two ways to screw up, either by failing to provide adequate definition or by using invalid logic. Start from things that are true, by definition, by observation or by collective interaction, then logically construct (as simple as possible, easiest way is syllogistically) the arguments till they arrive at your conclusion.

I have seen a lot of anime, personally i like ones that posit less of a good and bad character as i feel the world is not so simple. One of my all time best is death note because it features the complexity (with psychological focus) of most struggles. A lot of thing have to go wrong for evil to persist and a lot of things have to go right for good to persist. The murderer Light Yagami who believes he is doing good in the world by killing off a few bad people, although occasional collateral is permissible for the good work to continue. The detective L who could care less why someone is murdering others, he simply wants to solve the case and would himself go to great lengths, including putting others in danger, to solve the mystery.