Des

If cycling uphill, hop off, pick it up, and perform fly-swatting motion while screaming. I think my would-be cycle-jacker was either high or jonesing, so this may not work as well on all attackers. Cycling downhill, crash head-on (I simply put out the heel of my hand to the front of his face, but I have been cycling from age 9 to my present 6th decade of life, so some cyclists may have difficulty with doing that). On a busy city street, karate-kick the innocent person in front of you (or his vending-stall). Does not conform to NAP, but it beats dying, and he/she is going to make the noise you can't make when in a chokehold. Noise is important. My scream is inherently scary, and it gets attention. Oh, and that man on the busy city street who makes the faux-sympathetic enquiry as to whether the muggers "got everything" - he's also a predator, restart the screaming.

"the idea that race cannot be a biologically valid category because it is socially constructed is just another example of scientists leading people astray on race." Taxonomy is socially constructed and has scientific utility.

If he is aware enough to start an uprising which threatens my life, I want to treat him as a moral agent. My preference is that we each make treaty with each of them. In that case he is a slave and I advocate his freedom. If he is no threat to me (but the females are), I want a treaty with the females and to specify non-cruel treatment of their pet males in that treaty. Yes, this is about my self-preservation (and about my distaste for cruelty to animals). Is that wrong? If we don't have a treaty and you were cruel to your pet, I'll keep your pet, if I have him and can defend him from you. How would you make your case against me doing that?

I start from my starting point: I want to be alive. There are other people who also want to be alive. I'm willing to make treaty with other people to restrict my actions in return for them restricting theirs. Why? So I am not robbed to death or assaulted to death or defrauded to death or murdered at least by these [good] people. So I reduce my costs of defence, because I can identify the dangerous people as those who have no treaty with me. Given the starting point of a preference for life, it can be objectively computed that a treaty permitting theft, assault, fraud or murder is as bad as no treaty at all (for whichever dumb signatory [untermensch] would sign up a permission slip for his own demise at the hands of other people, whilst he has a preference for life {not necessarily bad for the [ubermenschen] who may rob but not be robbed in the terms of the treaty}). The preference for life is not a singular world view's values. It is scientifically observable, and the exceptions do not affect the conclusion because in the realm of biological science, a horse with 5 legs does not disprove that horses have 4 legs, and a suicidal man does not disprove that men have a preference for life. Each one is an instance of a biological defect or oddity. Besides, I argue that the suicidal man's preference (if hypothetically it were a true preference, not a mere temporary insanity), means that he will either take me with him to death, or not, and morality is irrelevant because he prefers to die. If I estimate I should kill him to save myself, then why shouldn't I kill him? A non-aggression treaty between two trustworthy men objectively increases the security of each man with respect to attacks by the other. The only perspective needed to project that onto reality is the perspective of the non-suicidal man, and there are lots of those, nothing singular about them at all.

These are not answers to the question as stated, because the comments below relate to the treaty and insurance environment in which the arbiter will operate. Comments are: 1)Colossus makes a claim on his "insult/annoyance insurance" and his insurers settle the matter with the drunk driver's insurer. The drunk driver's insurer hikes his premiums for driving while drunk and thereby causing insult/annoyance to other people. The actual repairs are almost free because of plentiful solar energy harnessed by space mirrors, combined with nanomanufacturing processes that convert cheap materials into cheap goods. 2)Each Sentient/arguing apes is a person, all valid moral rules apply. My suggestion is that every person (sentient apes, space aliens, etc), joins a treaty group, in which each person has a treaty with the other people in that group, to act morally towards others in that group. Each person then subsequently ratifies extensions of that treaty to members of other treaty groups. If a particular sentient ape does not have a ratified treaty with me (directly or indirectly), then my hired security is defending me against him (and his defending him against me). If we don't have a treaty then I have not recognised his land claim and can choose whether or not to trespass as my own risk. If we do have a treaty then the treaty resolved the territorial disputes and we refer to the land provisions of the treaty to determine trespass. 3) variation of (2). 4)Is the male space alien a pet or a person? I don't kill or set free other people's pets, except in self defence. In the treaty type future I predict, that restriction of my conduct is because pets are specified in the treaty, with rules for how to treat the pets (pets as distinct from livestock) of other people. If the alien males can start an uprising that can threaten my life, I want them regarded as people, and I want a treaty with each of them. If not, it is fine with me to regard them as pets or as people (if they have the capacity to follow through on a commitment to a treaty).

Yes, supposed to needs a clear meaning. Dictionary definition of coercion refers to threats, which are not specifically limited to threats of aggression, but I would expect in this forum we use the narrower definition (a non-aggressive threat doesn't meet the standard I would expect us to use here). From a podcast I listened to earlier this year, I picked up the tip of explaining the natural emotional consequence of the child's decision. To work from this example: "We have a deal, as a family: I do things for you and others, and you do things for me and others. We each already know what we do for each other, and I am sure that this time you are just trying to escape this thing you do, and pass it over to me (correct me if I am wrong about that, we can go look at the griddle and discuss it if you choose). Now because that is what I am thinking you are doing, I am feeling cheated (say what you actually feel, if it just gives you the giggles even though you have some concern that the child may pick up a habit of laziness, then mention the actual concern and emotion). So now if I feel that way, I might not feel so delighted to do the things I do for you. If this is the way you feel about doing things to help me, you are not expecting me to be like a machine and still feel the same way about doing things which help you, are you? The above is more explanatory and more connected, and more open to further discussion around the emotional issues inside the conflict. Is it about a (rational) fear that the child may become lazy to his own detriment as adult, or about feeling personally cheated, or ??

Actually meet her family before you make babies. If I'd known what I know now, I'd have known that the father of the mother of my children was too habitual with his moderate drinking (it was an addiction), and he had been absent for long periods of her childhood in the Rhodesian war, leaving her, as the eldest child, riding shotgun with mom in the literal sense with an actual rifle for defence against attack by people.

I did study programming. It was challenging, then 14 years later it was boring. I sell stuff with no formal training in sales or marketing. It's boring, so I chat with you guys to give my mind some challenge. Start your own business, and don't ever sell the controlling share of it. It's boring, but you will always like your primary employer (it's his customers and partners who may give you a hard time). If your father owns a business, try working that. I didn't, and I could have my own business if I had.

Of course I care why a thing works. If I don't know why something works, I don't know when it will break down and leave me stranded. Morality is itself computed by computing the effect. The effect, if stealing is universalised as "the good" is that no-one can be good, so the morality of "stealing is good" can be computed to be unworkable - because the effect if "I can't be good" is : "I'll stop caring what is or isn't good". Just tell me what proves the morality or otherwise of abortion.

The difficulty with arguing: action x meets the conditions for murder, therefore action x is immoral, is that the word murder has acquired it's definition through the precedents of law, over time, so that argument becomes equivalent to: people before us thought action x to be immoral, therefore action x is immoral. I am not going to say abortion is murder, because I am aware that legal precedent has it that if a foetus draws no breath and is terminated, this is not murder. If I want to re-define the term murder, I need a general consensus among users of English. Similarly, to cease using my resources to keep alive a brain-dead person, is not murder in it's accepted definition in English. In the case you put forward, to pull the plug is not murder. My position is: I am willing to sign up a code for moral behaviour regardless of what it says about foetuses, and regardless of what it says about the brain-dead. I am willing to ignore incorrectness* in those cases, and sign, because by signing I decrease my odds of being murdered by those who can murder me (foetuses and the brain-dead cannot). *Assuming incorrectness of one position has been established, which to my knowledge has not yet happened, and in my estimate will not happen (but I will stay curious, although without the passion I might have if it were a threat to me).

To support my argument for my resolution of the issue: If we split up geographically, then: Ms XXA who would prefer, if unintentionally pregant, to wait until month 8 and then perhaps decide to abort, would be living in a geographic area where that is quite acceptable. If Mr XYA allows her access to his sperm, he does so, understanding that the people around her, will support her decision to abort even until as late as that. Ms XXB who intends to bring to term any unintentional foetus and live close to the father and facilitate the father's access to the child, may live in an area where that is the only acceptable decision. So let's say she does live in such an area. Then Mr XYB who allows her access to his sperm, is aware of the social influence that will pressure her to make that decision. Those are the two extremes, but I am saying that this splitting up geographically, will address the concerns of men who at the moment are typically in the position that even if they discuss beforehand with a woman, her preferences, cannot predict what influence the people around her, will have on her decision, if she is pregnant. I am suggesting we split up according to the few permutations of preference that are distinct enough to actually attract a significant number of women away from other permutations. If we meet a civilisation of space aliens, will we get involved in assessing their rules for aborting foetuses. If so why, if not why not? If space aliens tell us what is or is not moral with regard to abortion of humans, will we tell them our biology is different from theirs and they should shut up? Is there a principle here that can be applied to thinking machines (self-aware robots)? If different species would not instruct each other on the morality of abortion, is there actually any moral instruction, or is it just preference?

Okay, so then you will tell your small child: "don't snatch toys from other children, because if you do, I may hit you, because I want you to behave how I say you should behave". Is that your plan? At which point do you change your stance on the motivation for your child to avoid stealing, from fear of you, to some other motivation, and what motivation and explanation do you offer? Also, will the child you have hit and threatened, care enough about your view of his best interests, to listen and conform enough to social standards, to avoid being ostracised or killed? Will you have to create an imaginary deity to continue the threatening into adulthood, and what happens if your adult offspring discovers that the deity is not real? Going back to the beginning of the chain of questions: If you will tell your child it is bad to snatch toys from other children, what will you mean, and how will you explain that meaning, as the child grows older? Because you would be sued for medical malpractice, due to bruising and splintering not at all appropriate to the medical procedure that is the valid reason for breaking the leg. If you were not breaking the leg for valid medical reason, then it is bad for your reputation with other people. Oh, there we have it, that is the uniting reason. Reputation. It's bad for your reputation, whether or not there is a medical reason to break the leg.

I grasp the intention behind the law: Reduction of demand would reduce supply, reducing the number of children forced to participate in production. If I follow the underlying principle: If I kill off everyone other than me, I reduce the number of people other than me, doing immoral things. This would imply that my doing of immoral things is not taken into my consideration. To reduce the number of adults immorally producing child pornography by increasing the number of adults immorally locking in cages people who have done nothing immoral (by looking at already-produced child pornography), is to show no concern for the morality of the action done to stem other immorality. It is, in short, hypocritical. Hypocrisy is not (to my knowledge) illegal in any jurisdiction, and is not immoral per se, but you won't get my signature to a contract/treaty where we agree to act morally towards each other - but with a hypocritical standard for morality. Send emails to people comfortable with hypocrisy, for signatories to that.

Do you mean: Is it moral for you and 1000 others to buy up a small town somewhere and all sign a contract that specifies how you will vote for a town council to manage the town? Sure, that part complies with morality, now what can the town council do, without acting immorally? They can collect management fees from contract signatories as per agreement in initial contract. They can spend the collected fees in ways permitted in the initial contract (provided that they are not procuring some immoral action). Do you need them to do something outside of that? If so, what? Should you sign the contract, if you will lose part of your investment if you leave the town? No - I would advise against you doing that.

This topic ties in nicely with motivation for being moral. It is not always convenient in the moment to be moral, so I only prefer to be moral in order to get the benefit of moral behaviour from others. I would prefer a contract / treaty with others, that we each confine ourselves to moral actions. Since I would be making this treaty with other people capable of making adult decisions to aggress against me, I have to go with whatever the consensus is about the non-adults and those who are not capable of aggressing against me. I can't make a treaty with children, mentally-disabled people, or foetuses, so it is up to others to tell me how I must treat those (who can't aggress against me), in order to qualify for non-aggression against me (by those who can). Can I get an adult woman to agree to a pact in which we both set out that there is some penalty or ostracism for harm to a foetus inside her body? If so, will I get that from all adult women? Is my no-abortion society limited to some portion of the total of adult human females, thus limiting the number of men who will join my no-abortion society, and getting the result that there will be a some-abortion society next door? If I were a woman, would I sign up with men, to a treaty in which there is a penalty (e.g. ostracism) for an action which men cannot do?

How I see borders working in future, is that owners (of like mind) sell and buy until they have a piece of territory that does not have islands of "other people" in it. Then they emborder, and whoever changes his mind, has some choices, including: Sell and buy outside the border. Sell in middle of territory, buy inside of but on the border, re-draw the border. Influence all the people between himself and the border, so they can re-draw the border without selling, buying, moving. So I would advise that when joining an embordered territory, a person should check that the contract (with the neighbours), allows at least those options.

I have no dislike of your preference expressed here. However: You gave no argument why early term abortion is not immoral (statements of belief are not philosophical arguments). If we had an argument that proved abortion to be immoral, it would not follow that the most moral (or most self-interested in an enlightened way) course of action for me, would be to pay a contribution to a group of people that use force to prevent or punish abortion. Not causing suffering is a personal preference, which I share with you, and as I expect you do, I tune out some of the suffering so I can get through my day (and when it comes to animals, through my evening meal). Foetuses are not going to rise up in arms against ill-treatment of their in-group. Those of us who are not foetuses are not part of their in-group, I predict we will remain divided in our preferences with respect to defending this group to which we do not belong. If you can resolve this so that all non-foetus humans either defend or do not defend the rights of foetuses, great. If not, why don't we split up: those who accept abortion under one set of conditions, go live with like people, and those for whom the conditions for acceptance of abortion are different, or for whom there is no such condition, go each into his part of each geographic area and at least live without getting into disputes with neighbours within the same borders. The absence of a threat of uprising by foetuses, is why you can't make the case that I must defend* them in order to defend my own self-interest. I'll be glad to hear argument why that statement is incorrect. *Be on record as having the position that an action to harm them is an action against me / hold myself ready to use force personally or by hired agent, in defence of them. By contrast, already-born children in general have some adults who want them to be alive/defended, and I want a set of children I care about, to be alive/defended, so to defend* already-born children is in my self-interest, when reciprocity is included in the computation. South African legal principle captures this difference, without explaining it in any meaningful way. The South African constitution's bill of human rights is the rights of "persons", not "humans". A foetus, in regard to his human rights in South Africa, is a "human" but not a "person" (unless he has drawn a breath). He qualifies as person when he breathes. I may have missed a fine point somewhere, but that is the essence of the legal position here.

Okay, if that is correct, then those of us who think better, protect ourselves (and perhaps each other) from what is to come, and when the inconvenience reaches the sheeple, we are ready to explain to them how to get back to convenience (of a different style).

To add some precision to this : typically destroys credibility, and not necessarily with all audiences. Arguments in favour of the deception by Miep Gies in the matter of concealing Anne Frank might lose the author (of the arguments), credibility with the Ordnungspolizei , but with other audiences, would improve the author's credibility. Excuse me using an example which we would expect in an ethics 101 course discussion on lying. I would expect it to make me more credible if I admit honestly that in some instances I may lie (and arguing in favour lying to avoid harm), whilst making clear that I aim to be honest where honesty will not lead to harm. Now that I reflect on this, though, I think my reputation for actual lying and truth-telling in the past, would be a more correct guide in determining my credibility.

I have a male cousin in Norway, who makes Google+ posts against Trump, and a nephew here in South Africa, who responded to my Trump FB post from yesterday. Trump is a current topic, and entry point for a rational discussion about government. When my cousin typed that Trump is unsuited to lead, I asked him if he personally needs a leader. I know the answer is that he is a Christian, so by his own standards he should follow Christ, not Hilliary Clinton.

How? Perhaps by: Giving warnings based on reason and available evidence. For example warning people of the negative results of threatening children rather than connecting with children; and warning people that government "solutions" are in fact new problems. Giving correct interpretation of causes when negative outcomes arise from warnings going unheeded. Avoiding manipulation as far as possible (and in my experience this is hard for me to do), so that people have a standard of kind-hearted consequence-prediction to compare with the psycho lying manipulative gaming. If warnings prove incorrect, admitting it, analysing it, issuing apologies and explanations as appropriate. Asking interesting questions such as why are multiculturalists embracing anti-multicultural Islam (Mohammed as poster-boy), but not multiculture-tolerant western masculinity (poster-boy Donald Trump) Stating clearly and openly that this is our plan - because a clear statement of the plan is a non-manipulative and honest communication.

"Take what you want - and pay for it, says God" is a nice punchy line, which Google tells me may be a Spanish proverb. If you've heard of the Spanish Inquisition, you may think to enquire what price God has set, for what you want. I think people who understand about paying (almost every person with a brain), is capable of grasping that a price may be too high, for example if you must pay with your life. This proverb is about a reality of the universe: there are many things (tangible and intangible) that a person may be able to take, and there may be costs associated with taking any thing. If you haven't even estimated your payment before you take, you are one of those with a poor grasp of the universe (and of this proverb). Common sense would suggest that if the thing is owned, you would ask the owner what you must pay, if you take it. Edit: That said, clearly many people either underestimate the cost or don't really grasp the principle, or there would be a lot less crime.

Yes, who would sign a contract by which his landlord could lock him in a cage, or execute him? If States are fancy landlords, let them evict "tenants" who misbehave. If the country I live in (South Africa), is a large rental property, how can I purchase a subdivision unencumbered of taxation by its former owner?

What is wrong with the state is not merely that it steals, but that you could die. If it steals your savings and can't or won't, or in error does not pay you a pension, you will die. If it mistakes you for a murderer, you will die (in some states). The exemption of officers of the state, from the rules which protect you from death by being attacked, is the problem.

If there are atheists who say "Government is good" and "Those who oppose the institution of government are evil", how can you test those statements, so you know if they are true or false? My take on UPB is that there is only one universal preference, which is the preference to stay alive. If a person does not have that, then, like a horse which does not have 4 legs, we don't count that as a disproof of the biological universality of 4-legged horses or the biological universality of the will-to-live, but as an instance of defect. It is the will-to-live that drives our preference for not having our bodies killed, assaulted, or deprived (e.g. by theft) of the goods needed to sustain life. I estimate that the best way to conceptualise morality is to ask what rules you could sign up to if they applied to you and all other signatories - specifically to ask what rules must be included, for you to have a deal that is compatible with your preference for life. If the aggressions [Murder, assault, theft] are not prohibited for all signatories, then you have a deal in which you could lose your life, negating all possible benefits. UPB (plus Hoppe's covenant community proposal) informed the above paragraph, and the above paragraph succinctly describes the test you would apply, to determine what actions objectively are evil, and distinguish them from those which can be considered evil by a particular group of signatories. So, that is a neater-than-UPB way to wrap up the complexities of evil, is it not?