labmath2

I just realized science is based on the idea that everything we seek to understand must operate in a consistent and predetermined manner, in essence determinism. In that case, it would appear any scientific study of humans would also have to assume determinism otherwise they cannot hope to get any consistent characteristic of human behavior.

I guess i misjudged your position. Your position is that no other process (at least to anyone's knowledge) can accurately and reliably discover anything that is true about the physical world, and i respect that. I do not know how people come up with explanations before the scientific method, but it is fair to say if those processes also produced fairy tales it must not be a very reliable one. However, it still leaves the moral method open for discussion since there appears to be no reality of morals in the same sense that there is a reality of events.

Correct me if i am wrong, but you and cynicist seem to be of the mindset that no matter how well the results of some other process conforms with reality, if the process is not the scientific method it must be discarded. This is what i understood from the idea that the hypothetical tarot weather forecaster must be wrong, despite more accurate weather forecasts than someone else using scientific method, because the tarot forecaster is not using a correct methodology. I cannot reconcile this idea with the idea that scientific method (as you understand it) is based on reality. This is why the idea that one can come up with a moral theory that is based purely on logic is equally confusing since the test of the success or failure of such a theory is based on logic. This does not mean we cannot come up with moral theories, but we must have something other than logic with which to verify the validity of such theories, some of which are the intuitive moral rules (do not rape, murder, etc).

The problem this creates, at least to me, is that the church was right to oppose scientific thinkers. The church believed the only way to know if a theory is true is to pray about it. Which means they would have to pray to know if the scientific method is a better way to know if something is true or not, and i think we can all see the humor in this. The moment we say it does not matter what reality is, it only matters that whatever methodology we put forward is followed, we stop looking at reality, and we start looking at methodology and that makes science no better than religion.

Since the idea of such a thing is ludicrous, it is easy to dismiss as something to not be taken seriously. If you think about it, most theories that are put forward were at one point or the other equally laughable to people whose belief would be affected by those theories. Imagine how ridiculous the idea that the earth revolved around the sun must have sounded during Galileo's time. The only way to validate or invalidate any claim is to see if its conclusion is more accurate than other theories that explain the same things. I do not understand what you mean by methodology, and does methodology invalidate the fact that the hypothetical tarot weather forecaster has been twice as accurate over the last two years? Bringing this back to the topic, i am not sure any theory of morality, no matter how sound it is that makes killing (with consent or otherwise) moral or amoral would be accepted regardless of its logical validity.

I do not think comparing UPB to scientific method is accurate. Assume there comes along a tarot card user who predicts weather and has done so for the last 2 years giving accurate weather forecast, twice as accurate as the best forecasters now, would we say such a person is wrong because they do not the scientific method? No, we might disagree that they are truly using tarot cards to predict the weather, but we must accept that they have a better system. This is because we have reality against which to test all scientific theories, but in morality there is no such equivalence, we can only measure if you violated the moral rules or not.

I am going to lay out some of the fundamental arguments that i think are confusing or maybe incorrect in UPB. UPB is an attempt to create the scientific method equivalence in philosophy. There appears to be a misconception here since the scientific method is simply a systematic test which still relies on reality. Take Newton's laws of motion, how would you subject them to the scientific method? Well, you would go outside and say if newton is right, then x must be true. With UPB, what would be measured? While this is not very clear, my understanding is that you apply two tests, 1. Is it universalizable, 2. When it is universalized, does it lead to contradictions or is it impossible to be performed by everyone at all times and everywhere. There is another restriction on what we can apply UPB to and that is actions that involve one person interacting with another person (there is no clear reason as to why UPB only applies to humans, the only reason i can deduce from the book is capacity for reason, but there is no proposed way to measure this, so it seems to assume only humans have capacity for reason and i am not sure if it treats everyone equally in this regards or those who have greater capacity for reason have greater rights and those who have lower capacity for reason have lower rights). Then comes the moral theory from UPB which states the initiation of force is immoral and this extends from self ownership. Self-Ownership is a rather complex concept as it implies the self as property and owner. The first apparent concern is can one be owned by others? If the self is a property, then it can be bargained with like any other property, and if i were to enter into a contract with someone saying i owned them ( assuming hey signed it when they were floating in the ocean after a shipwreck and i happened upon them and the price for saving them was for them to sign over their self-ownership or some other situation coercion which makes it moral), would that be moral? The second category of concern is if i own myself and by extension i own my actions (ownership of actions is still a bit hazy, but i assume it means owning the product of my actions), then children as property necessarily follows. I am not familiar with how this seemingly inherent conclusion is avoided, but i think children are a simply put in the special case category where your actions (all the actions that lead to the child being born) is owned by someone else, the child. This also seems to violate the rule against initiation of force (well at least within my understanding of consent as necessary for interaction with others) since the child can never consent to be born. Again, here it seems another exception is added. Under the category of Initiation of force, the sentiment, at least within my limited understanding of it, seems to be "you will know when you see it." It certainly is the case that any action that impacts another person can be put in the moral category, but only few are of concern. For example, i cannot murder, rape, theft, e,t.c. Outside of these uniquely intuitive categories, there are many more categories in between that is just much more difficult to place. Contract violations for example are considered retroactive theft of property or time of another person. Would misinformation that results in loss of time or property also be considered retroactive theft of property or time? What about cases where the effect on others is benign, e.g speaking around someone, or shining a light in someone's direction. I would assume the sentiment here is that since the effect is benign, it may not necessarily count as initiation of force. However, if we take these instances to their extremes, blasting loud music all day and night or shining a laser at an airplane, do they suddenly become immoral or do they remain in the benign category?

To truly apply it equally, we would need a test for rationality that will place people in designated rationality spectrum that determine their rights. The mentally ill make up the lower spectrum and the genius will make up the upper echelons.

I am going to lay out some of the fundamental arguments that i think are confusing or maybe incorrect in UPB. UPB is an attempt to create the scientific method equivalence in philosophy. There appears to be a misconception here since the scientific method is simply a systematic test which still relies on reality. Take Newton's laws of motion, how would you subject them to the scientific method? Well, you would go outside and say if newton is right, then x must be true. With UPB, what would be measured? While this is not very clear, my understanding is that you apply two tests, 1. Is it universalizable, 2. When it is universalized, does it lead to contradictions or is it impossible to be performed by everyone at all times and everywhere. There is another restriction on what we can apply UPB to and that is actions that involve one person interacting with another person (there is no clear reason as to why UPB only applies to humans, the only reason i can deduce from the book is capacity for reason, but there is no proposed way to measure this, so it seems to assume only humans have capacity for reason and i am not sure if it treats everyone equally in this regards or those who have greater capacity for reason have greater rights and those who have lower capacity for reason have lower rights). Then comes the moral theory from UPB which states the initiation of force is immoral and this extends from self ownership. Self-Ownership is a rather complex concept as it implies the self as property and owner. The first apparent concern is can one be owned by others? If the self is a property, then it can be bargained with like any other property, and if i were to enter into a contract with someone saying i owned them ( assuming hey signed it when they were floating in the ocean after a shipwreck and i happened upon them and the price for saving them was for them to sign over their self-ownership or some other situation coercion which makes it moral), would that be moral? The second category of concern is if i own myself and by extension i own my actions (ownership of actions is still a bit hazy, but i assume it means owning the product of my actions), then children as property necessarily follows. I am not familiar with how this seemingly inherent conclusion is avoided, but i think children are a simply put in the special case category where your actions (all the actions that lead to the child being born) is owned by someone else, the child. This also seems to violate the rule against initiation of force (well at least within my understanding of consent as necessary for interaction with others) since the child can never consent to be born. Again, here it seems another exception is added. Under the category of Initiation of force, the sentiment, at least within my limited understanding of it, seems to be "you will know when you see it." It certainly is the case that any action that impacts another person can be put in the moral category, but only few are of concern. For example, i cannot murder, rape, theft, e,t.c. Outside of these uniquely intuitive categories, there are many more categories in between that is just much more difficult to place. Contract violations for example are considered retroactive theft of property or time of another person. Would misinformation that results in loss of time or property also be considered retroactive theft of property or time? What about cases where the effect on others is benign, e.g speaking around someone, or shining a light in someone's direction. I would assume the sentiment here is that since the effect is benign, it may not necessarily count as initiation of force. However, if we take these instances to their extremes, blasting loud music all day and night or shining a laser at an airplane, do they suddenly become immoral or do they remain in the benign category?

1. Designs and build explosives 2. Buy and sell explosives 3. Buy and sell explosives to a terrorist group 4. Design and build guns 5. Buy and sell guns 6. Manufacture guns for the US military and police 7. Manufacture drones 8. Help build the atomic bomb 9. make the decision to use the atomic bomb 10. Drop the atomic bomb The goal of the game is to determine if the action is moral or not moral. Edit 9. Make the decision during world war 2 to drop atomic bombs on the Japanese. 10, Drop the bomb in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

The best way to convince others is not to tell them, but show them. A parent trying to persuade their child that violence is wrong by swatting them on the butt must realize the comedic nature of the scenario. The same must be said for the idea of trying to persuade people to abandon the immoral state, while living in the US or Canada, paying your taxes and complaining about it as theft. What better way to show a society free of violence is easier than by starting one and having others model the success. While i understand we do not all have the will of Socrates, but we must not condemn others for doing what we also opted for, stay in the comfort of a statist society, while criticizing it for being immoral. As Stefan told a caller that a parent wishing they had spent more time with their child is disingenuous since they would have done it if they really wanted to, if you really want to live in a libertarian society, you would have left statist society. The difference for someone like me who grew up in a third world country is that i have a conception of anarchy and its not the beautiful picture i often see Stefan paint. It is constantly being on guard for someone who might try to hurt you, having to higher a security guard to keep you safe from others and building giant fences to keep you safe at night. This is not to say the theory is invalid, but until it becomes practice and we see it working, it remains purely theory. Nature has given us rules to play by and anyone that seeks to persuade us to play by different rules has the burden of proof, not merely by arguments, but also by practice. None of can honestly argue that we are being forced to pay taxes since we are not forced to live here. To say we are forced is to diminish the real meaning of the word which insults those who truly have no choice like North Koreans.

Well, let me challenge you a bit if you don't mind. How is "taxation is theft=fact?" The problem is that no one is being forced to live in the US and everyone that lives in the US or Canada knows a condition for living in those places is having to pay tax. If this were North Korea then i would understand that you have no choice. While i know people will jump on me for this, but if you want to live in someone else's house, you have to pay rent. You can complain about how that is theft because you wish to live there without paying rent, but it wont change the fact that you can leave anytime you want and not have to pay rent.

Destruction of the environment is one of those things that you can usually tell when you see it, but is hard to describe. An example would be when BP dumped gallons of coexit, a toxic chemical, to dissolve the oil and have it sink to the bottom of the water. Cutting down of a few trees is not the intention, but something like destruction of ecosystems. Again it may not be specific, but i do not think anyone would consider cutting down a tree and selling it to someone screwing them over. Take something like coca cola selling drinks with high fructose corn syrup that is really poisonous to humans despite knowing the harm and denying the allegations. Or the Tobacco company and cancer. Here it just seems like an attempt to attack me personally, but i am not even sure what the point is. Many people have argued that if you truly believe in the libertarian society, then start it, there is no better way to lead than by example. You can complain all you want, but your actions seem to show that you prefer to be in a statist society than not, since you haven't actually left. It is the same thing with people who complain about Wal-Mart but still shop or work there, it is hypocritical. If you say you cannot go start your own community because you will be threatened by the state, then show us how you will handle such a situation without having to resort to violence, or how you would defend yourself against threats. However, i would not make those arguments since i understand things are not that black and white and respect someone disagreeing with me even if think they are wrong.

Simplified, don't destroy your environment to make a profit and don't screw over your fellow men to make a profit. I would be hesitant to assume everything that operates under a government is coercive. Everything, by that argument, becomes coercive since government is involved in almost all aspect of society, even the internet. I can argue that you are still benefiting from the coercion of the state as long as you live under some coercive government, so go live in some obscure native American reservation or African village, but that would not be a productive argument.

I have no idea what you mean by the word conscious, meaning, understanding, and experience there, and if a chess bot does not decide, then describe the act of making one move as opposed to the other in a non decision method. Let me add a third category to make this clearer, if a chimp was thought to play chess, would the chimps moves (on a chess board) also be an act of free will or not?

Kevin and cynicist i am going to play devils advocate here because i want to get a sense of what you mean by free will. Chess algorithms have come a long way and some of the best chess bots can compete with some of the best chess players and give them a run for their money. Here is the question: Would you consider a chess bot's decision an act of free will? I prefer non superficial answer. I want you to compare and contrast a chess master (or GM) and a chess bot's decisions as it pertains to the game of chess, and help us understand in what sense they either both have free will, or one has free will and the other does not.

I watched all three TMZ movies and the culture in decline series, and i think some of Peter Joseph's argument about the systems we created are valid. Take something like banking, sure they help people by loaning money out, but the essence of the service is to take money from one group loan it to another group, and make money without adding any value to society. Apply such a system to something like bitcoin where the currency is finite and you see how it becomes problematic since it must lead to a bubble. This is the essence of what happened during the housing bubble where people believed there was a lot more money in circulation than there actually was since most of that money was debt that would never be paid back. Or companies that operate on the premise of maximizing profit even if they have to harm others to do it. Think of fracking, where toxins sometimes gets into the surrounding areas forcing people to leave their houses. Sure we can argue these things will be dealt with in a free society, but most of the time people do not know till it becomes a widespread problem. Take something like global warming, though i have doubts about the conclusion, if it turns out to be true, are the biggest offenders going to be held responsible for fixing it? The idea that we can individually make decisions that aggregates to negative outcomes for us as a species is always there and the idea that we should ignore it because people will always find a solution to it is disconcerting. While i am not a big fan of forcing my opinion on others, i think if we wait till something akin to global warming actually starts to threaten us as a group to work together on the bigger problems, we may not last as a species.

I did not bother to read the guideline, but i am familiar with TMZ and support them in principle, anyone can post my criticism since i am too lazy to do it myself. The success of TMZ is that they realize a problem that i think most intellectuals that have ever sided against an-cap and libertarian ethics realized, people never interact from a position of equality. All interaction begin with parent child, then to the child interacting a bunch of others who he must look up to until one day he/she becomes the one others look up to. This top down interaction always creates potential for exploitation, but i think TMZ like many others, focus on the problem by addressing the effect and not so much the cause. The probelms boils down to incentives. Zeitgeist like many other socialist movements are under the impression there is some "fair" way to share resources. Even if that were true, which i would contend is not, who produces these goods? Would we not then create the same problem on a much bigger scale where the most productive would be exploited by the least productive? Would it not be much easier to tackle the problem starting from promoting parents negotiating with their children, who will then go on to negotiate better when they get into society leading to less, possibly eradicate, exploitation? If the problem is our effect on the environment, the same improvement in negotiation would help resolve the problem much easier without forcing people at gun point.

8. UPB= When someone makes a moral claim,if their proposition doesn't apply to all moral agents, everywhere, for all time (universality), then that person is a hypocrite and you can ignore their bogus claim. You can also ignore it if it has logical contradictions or practical impossibilities. If the moral claim survives those tests, we are justified in enforcing it in some way (it is binding, valid, true). This is pretty good. You see it as the scientific method of evaluating moral claims which is kind of what Kant had in mind with the categorical imperative. I particularly like the part about practical impossibilities.

I think i get your argument so i will try to rephrase it for you. If i am completely off, then correct me. We know that everything we have observed from planetary motion to particle motion act according to certain predictable patterns. We understand how electrons and protons interact, how the moon and sun affects tides, and even how to send rockets to space because of we understand the "rules" that guide these events. We also understand a lot about living organisms, particularly humans. If we assume no particle is exempt from the "rules" that guide particle behavior, then even our particles are following those same rules of mass and energy. That is not to say there aren't fantastically complex aggregates of these particles that seem to defy the "rules," i.e birds flying despite gravity or ice being lighter than water, but upon further inspection, we have come to realize these phenomenal are not proof of exemptions, but rather ingenious circumvention of the norms while still obeying the "rules." If this assumption holds up at every level, then humans must also be no more than ingenious circumvention of the "rule" of cause and effect. Hence, while it may seem we are making decisions, we are no more than cellular automatons that cannot see the "rule" that guides our actions. The problem with this line of reasoning is that at best it suggests strong cause and effect and not actually determinism. If determinism is true, then we cannot know it because we cannot experience the world outside of our deterministic environment. For us to see that it is in fact deterministic, there would need to be some plane of existence that is higher than ours, i.e the God plane or Olympus, from which we can see all the dominoes that have fallen and all the ones that are going to fall. Simply put, the argument does nothing and is at best self defeating.

While i think argumentation ethics is genius, i only have one problem with it, it is one of those theoretical rules that may not work so well when you move from epistemology to ontology. We can argue about what is best for man while there is no direct cause for either one of us to be swayed and we can both walk away in disagreement. In essence, arguments do not need to be resolved and there is minimal cost for arguing with someone else about concepts. However, when we argue about real things, i.e who owns this land, there is a real cost to not resolving that argument quickly and other means might become more attractive than arguing. To address more pressing concern, if i argue that Government should be used to solve social problems, while i violate argumentation ethics, the cost of arguing here is rather low ( at least from the statist perspective, of course, a libertarian realizes the more time spent arguing, the longer they are oppressed by a violent institution). If i lived in a an area where a company is fracking, knowing the time we spend arguing means more time for them to frack might make me less inclined to argue. This is why we argue about those situations in a metaphysical sense before the situation actually arises. It is the same reason we do not let victims or family members of victims investigate or sentence the accused. They can in theory be reasonable, but in practice be much less reasonable.

Kevin's little lecture about subjective and objective was just fantastic. I have always known it, but to have someone communicate it so clearly is refreshing. On the issue of ownership, i think the real problem is in the slight differences in the use of the word ownership itself. I tried creating a thread to discuss it, but i don't think i made much headway. It is why i am still trying to get a sense of what ownership within the libertarian philosophical construct mean. One way to see why some people are having problem is to define ownership as that which one controls to the exclusion of all others. I think this is the way people thought of property rights under a system of might makes right. When central systems of power came into the picture, people agreed to "pay taxes" to the central system so that no one can take property from others without risking a punishment. In this sense, though the property belonged to me, i would let someone else lay claim to it so that i do not get killed or robbed of my property for a small fee (pseudo security guard). Of course in order for this to work, the person protecting me had to be strong enough to fight against any potential threat which means i was at his mercy. Modern day ownership. Now that we are all civilized individuals, in the absence of government threat, i do not suppose a biker gang or the mafia would come and possibly kill me for my property. So why not build a civilized society where property is not that which you have the capacity to control to the exclusion of all others, but that which you control because all others accept you as its rightful owner. With our knowledge of incentives, we can build a society devoid of any central power systems since individuals are much more capable and can cooperatively fend off any potential threat. The statists disagree with this model because they believe there are many out there who will at the dismantling of the government loot, plunder, rape and murder and no one will be able to stop them.

Those who argue for determinism are like those who argue for God, they have lots of argument, but no proof.

Isn't the focus on application a consequentialist approach? If its is, then would you agree that morality is that which results in the best outcome for man as an individual, and for man as a species?