Lykourgos

1. I mean that being consists of matter and form, and consciousness falls under the category of form. I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say consciousness, but I assumed you were in some sense referring to the notion of a soul/awareness/a driving life force. 2. Well, I don't have absolute knowledge of the nature of reality if that's what you mean. I'm just a person writing posts like everyone else. I say that I know you can't prove the contention, because I believe that the soul is a form and therefore not ultimately reliant on matter for its existence. If you ground up a person's body into a fine powder, I would maintain that the life persists. Obviously, the matter persists, too, just re-arranged.

We can't, because consciousness is ultimately a form.

Your "time" would be the same if you were dead or alive. I'm not a physicist, so I hate to try and correct someone's understanding of physics; however, I've never heard anyone say that in the theory of general relativity, perceiving events will make them change faster or slower. Your consciousness isn't important to energy and spacetime. It's the degree of energy and momentum in your vicinity that would change spacetime. The energy/momentum changes the curvature of spacetime, and the spacetime determines how things move. On a separate note, time is a property of change; if change didn't exist, then there would be no time. If someone here is great with physics, then maybe they can come save the day. As for homesteading, I don't know what that argument is. I am interested in General Relativity, but I'm not strong in the subject. I just don't see how it applies to ownership.

Wow, you sure can spit the dummy, can't you? The bottom line is, you're totally unable or unwilling to resolve the contradiction that I've highlighted: There's nothing more honest than that. Cry all you want, but rape involves the consent of the moving party, so step one is broken. Fix your account, or take a different approach; throwing a fit doesn't make your mistake valid. All I've seen here so far is an inconsistent, subjective, and self-interested account of morality. No wonder so many people reject it.

It may be "complex", but for anyone to accept this you would first have to do a lot of explaining. I'm pretty sure GR doesn't posit time as a "uniquely personal experience for each observer". GR posits spacetime, which exists independently from observers. As for the concept of time, it's a measurement of change and movement. What any of this has to do with ownership, I haven't a clue.

You actually have to produce that rug, first.

That's absurd, why would I give the definitions for another person's claim? They need to decide what they mean by "better" and "moral" if they want to have a chance at proving their case. So if you say something is better or worse, you just mean that someone likes or dislikes it? So it's a subjective term, and something can be better and worse depending on who's considering it? It sounds like moral is just synonymous with "logically valid", but you prefer to use that term when talking about actions. Why do you write, "why adhere to correct moral behavior" instead of just, "why adhere to correct behavior"? Sounds superfluous.

The whole debate is pointless and incoherent until you figure out what you mean by "better" and "moral".

What's the difference between "should" and "ought" here?

I just received an email from the show, so it seems it's going ahead early next month. The question is different than the one discussed in this thread, but it should still be interesting! Whatever the "different questions" are, you didn't put them in your steps. Here, again, let me show you the steps you gave me to work through: 1) An act isn't aggression if there is consent to the action (i.e sex isn't rape if there's consent) 2) Consent is required by ALL parties affected by the actions, an action cannot be considered consensual if one of the parties doesn't consent. 3) Lack of consent of the victim means the act isn't consensual and therefore it can be considered aggression. Oops, rape does have consent because one party wants it to happen, therefore it's not aggression. Step one is broken, so I can't continue. Here is your solution: "...In question one we're asking "if any single individual consents to an action", in question two we're asking "do all parties consent". Question two relies on question one, logically whether all parties consent is a factor of whether they consent as individuals, the meaning isn't suddenly being changed..." Let's see "if any single individual consents to an action". Hmm, yep, there's an individual consenting to the action. So there's consent. Step one is therefore still broken, so I can't continue. If you want to show me some steps, then make those steps coherent. If you want to drop the steps and do something else, then fine. As for my thoughts on the matter, I don't go in for subjective morality. Wants and unwants do not constitute the basis of my moral compass. I'm happy to keep examining your system, I just ask that you make it consistent. Special rules refers to requirements or conditions that do not follow, or that even contradict, the terms you gave me. If you tell me the basis of morality is the presence or absence of consent in human actors, then I can follow you with no problem. When you add a special rule like, "we only look at the non-moving party to see if there was consent when an action takes place", I have to ask where in the world that condition came from. In the terms you gave me, nobody said that a "moving party" was any less of a human actor. The presence or absence of consent in human actors, ALONE, is no longer the basis of morality. Where is this special rule coming from? Given the explanation up to this point, you may as well say that we only consider the consent of people with pink slippers. I can understand the rule, but it's arbitrary and it breaks the underlying system. It is a subjective system because you are premising morality on the feelings of individuals. It's the literal definition of the term. The only objectivity in your system is whether it is true that something occurred in the past. You haven't even tied time into the picture yet, except as a special rule that the morality of an action is determined by consent at the moment it occurs. Consent is not objective, it is literally a person deciding how they feel about something at a given time. Forming consent, and continuing to feel consensual, is subjective. Whether the tap of consent is to be turned on or off is at the subjective whim of the actor. It's the ultimate subjective morality. The truth of whether something occurred in the past, or currently exists, is objective because it is wholly beyond the power of man. Nobody can turn back time and change what has occurred, or stop it from entering the state that it is in at this instant. As I said, you cannot make any future predictions, because it's based on the subjective will of the actors. Anyway, let's look at your examples: 1. It's only objective in the general sense that the occurrence of everything that occurs is an objective fact. 2. It's only objective in the general sense that the occurrence of everything that occurs is an objective fact. 3. We can't know whether an action taking place is consensual, simultaneous with the act; the moment an actor withdraws consent it is bad, but we need a little while to figure that out. However, again, that something is consensual is only an objective fact in the sense that the existence of anything is an objective fact. Consent itself is not objective; how are you saying that something is independent of human feelings or opinions when it is literally a human thought or feeling. Forming consent, and continuing to feel consensual, is a subjective decision. It is also fundamental to your moral system, as it is this formation and maintaining of feeling that allows you to draw any moral judgment. That a feeling was held is objective, in the sense that everything that has ever occurred is objective, but that will never get you your morality. Your moral judgments are solely derived from the subjective process of forming and maintaining feelings about consent. If you don't want to support your claims, that's fine, but have some dignity. This sort of thing isn't responsive or productive. In my last post, I described my objections in a clear and concise manner. Your response failed to resolve the objections. I have now explained my original objections a second time. I hope you will tackle them, or at least depart respectfully. If you want to support libertarian moral assertions, I would appreciate it. If you don't want to do that, or you can't, then say so. Just don't try to have your cake and eat it. It's not a pretty sight to watch someone storm off while claiming that they could have actually solved the issue. Obviously, I think the issue is unsolvable because you're fundamentally wrong and libertarianism is a power-play, but I'm still considering the arguments.

Well, Greek history is always a popular choice. If you want an ancient text, you could start with Herodotus. It's a very fun book to read; it has a great mix of history, sociology, and mythology. Very accessible, too; you can just jump right in. It even has bible-like tales, such as the story of Zalmoxis. There's a lot of editions out there, but if you're buying a physical copy then I would suggest you order The Landmark Herodotus. That edition features a lot of helpful maps, illustrations, and a lengthy appendix. If you find that you really like Greek history, you can continue straight into Thucydides, and then into Xenophon's Hellenica. The style of those two texts is a lot different from Herodotus, but they follow chronologically and continue the historical narrative. Again, you might want to go with The Landmark Thucydides and The Landmark Xenophon's Hellenica. However, the old translations themselves are all available for free. There's a whole lot more to read, but those books should keep you busy for a long time.

As I recall, some terms were explicitly defined in different ways, but for other terms it was only clear from context. The "surreptitiously changed" thing, though, is a different and more serious issue. When I say that, I'm talking about a term being used in two different ways in the same proof, with no explicit acknowledgement or warning. It's just a quiet use of multiple definitions, and the result is that a faulty conclusion has a veneer of validity. I can deal with the first thing, even if I don't approve of it. The second thing, though, spoils the work. There were other issues, like the use of opposites; I noted them in my article. I wrote in a couple of questions to the author, so perhaps I will get to discuss them at length one day.

I can survive the use of multiple definitions as long as it's done in an open fashion. In part, I got fed up with the UPB because I noticed that terms would surreptitiously change meaning, which allowed the the author to reach false conclusions and pass by important objections.

Well, you didn't give up so much as you never really tried. If you won't put any energy into examining your beliefs, then you'll never escape your current ignorance and misconceptions. I hope Stef will follow up on the invitation I was given, but I'm not going to make a big deal of it. I sent an e-mail as requested, and wrote out two questions relating to that thread. It's been a fortnight now, though, so I've stopped thinking about that possibility. Professional Teabagger: (not sure how to add a name to a quote box) Seeing as it worked so well with Frosty, I'm going to cut out everything extraneous and petty. In terms of the discussion, I'll be very substantive and to the point. If you adopt a similar method, maybe this can be turned around and we can get on track like I am with Frosty. If you think I cut out an important point, let me know. Yes, I have seen it. I sent an e-mail to that address, I posted in the thread, and I attempted to add the show on Skype. I haven't received a response to any of those three methods; as soon as I accepted the invitation, things went silent. However, I don't doubt that Stef and others are truly willing to discuss these issues with me, so it's probably just an issue of time and circumstances. As for being a known troll or a member of a smear site, that's definitely not the case. I'm just someone who stumbled upon some youtube videos, read the UPB, and all this followed. The way I see this ending is that I will work through this discussion with whoever participates, and then draft an article. I will have a final discussion on the merits of the article if people respond. The article won't be about individuals; I will just state the topic, list the various explanations, and then indicate why they are right or wrong. It shouldn't be too long, maybe 4 pages at most. Hopefully shorter. I am maintaining that "evil" is required because there is a judgement about violations of the NAP being morally wrong, rather than logically wrong. I don't enjoy the way our thread of the discussion has progressed, either. I just want to understand how you draw this distinction: logically wrong (invalid) and morally wrong (evil/bad/that which ought not to be). When I understand that distinction, then I am closer to understanding the meaning and significance of Libertarians saying that, violations of the NAP are morally wrong. This is important because some Libertarians claim that, because violating the NAP is morally wrong, therefore Libertarianism is not susceptible to purely practical objections. Do you wish to continue along this thread of the discussion? I do not believe it relates to the topic of the thread, but I will respond if you think it is important or otherwise want to discuss my invented morality. What I hope to achieve in this thread is having Libertarians lay a foundation and explain their rule, rather than posit some account of morality that I don't personally believe in. Even though I continue to believe that I posited the rule successfully, and I have a response to your objections, the bottom line is that I don't believe the premises are sound and I don't think rape is morally good. Well, theft is another can of worms, because we're going to get into a discussion of property laws. I think the best way to do it would be to discuss battery, because rape is just a particular type of battery. Constantly typing out lines of text about rape is bothersome because it's not considered a pleasant or polite topic. Punching people isn't pleasant or polite, either, but it doesn't necessarily involve sexual violence and gender issues. Unfortunately, nobody here will define the term "UPB", and the text gives multiple definitions. As for using rape in the test, I re-read that part of the UPB and found it to be riddled with errors. It was such a mess that I wrote a brief article to warn others.

Just because I don't believe in Libertarianism doesn't mean that I came here in bad faith. I invoked magic, so to speak, because I was answering an absurd challenge. I did so successfully, positing an objective and valid rule. Baseless rules are those that are asserted without the supporting facts or definitions that they're being drawn from. Cross definitions is the way I describe how texts like the UPB quietly assign multiple definitions to certain words, and then quietly cross back and forth between them throughout the text or argument. This results in invalid conclusions, which are used in forming further invalid conclusions, and the whole system is an utter disaster. If someone loves the UPB and thinks the text solves all the problems in this thread, then I welcome them to come and apply it to the issue we're discussing. If they don't want to use UPB, that's fine, too. What's not acceptable is acting like Torbald and just saying "UPB!" without any real effort or explanation. I'm telling you to cut the childish attitude and not dump one-line insults. I'll respond to your post, I simply didn't see it. This forum has a weird post delay and I'm responding to multiple people. I only have one account on this forum. Here is the thread where I was asked to call in to the show: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/46079-a-brief-trip-around-the-word-with-stephen-molyneux/ I e-mailed a fortnight or so ago. I'm sure he's just busy, but in the meantime you guys are the only ones responding. Anyway, I've seen your post now so I will respond: I'm looking for the justification for the claim that violations of the NAP are objectively evil, and therefore libertarianism ultimately survives any practical objection. You're sure about it, you're not sure about it, at any rate the fundamental fact remains that someone needs to explain morality. The moment you explain your notion of morality, it will no longer be an impenetrable mystery. Let's move on and see if that has been done: I'm shaking my head here; it's for YOU to explain what moral means. You are telling me there is some sort of objective moral basis to libertarianism, after all. Yet, you still haven't done it, you just keep giving circular definitions. I've demonstrated it again and again using your own quotes. Look in this very post I am responding to: "Wrong refers to those moral theories / propositions / justifications / rules, etc that fail the test of logical consistency." Okay, great, wrong means internally invalid. ""Moral" broadly refers to principles of right and wrong behavior, right?" What? Now wrong doesn't just mean internally invalid. It is a moral judgment passed on behaviour. So what sort of judgment is it? Oh, a bad one. What does bad mean? oh bad is evil. What's evil? Oh it's wrong. But wrong's invalid. Or is it. The words go round and round without end. Just cut it out and tell me the meaning behind your terms. What is this evil you are talking about, what is morality??? You are using new definitions because you drew these new requirements, and they are not rooted in the initial definitions. You partially abandon one of your new requirements, but the rest of this is just repetitive. You clearly don't understand the idea of positing something that is objective and valid, as opposed to something that is objective, valid, and sound. I was asked to do the former, and I did it; the facts are assumed. You declaring the opposite of the rule is totally irrelevant; I don't care if god is real or not, but you screaming "god isn't real!" does not affect the logical validity or objectiveness of my invented morality. Let me know if you need me to cut and paste the definitions of objective and valid. Hahaha, "the mental state is not anything to do with rape", oh well if you say so, sir. Obviously I am being sarcastic; you're wrong and you aren't even making an argument. You are wrong when you say "it's like a rule that says "thou shalt steal"." You are changing the words; "rape is good" is not "thou shalt rape". To be good in the first one, you would embody rape by adopting the two mental states. In the second one, you are being commanded to commit acts of rape. You still haven't explained why morality requires that everyone be able to be perfectly good. At this point it is a baseless rule, and it will remain that way until you explain what you mean when you call something moral. "Everyone should have daily sex and be permanently celibate" is internally invalid, because it commands a person to have sex but never have sex. "rape is good", or even this "thou shalt rape" that you have just come up with, is not internally invalid because it does not command a person to rape but not rape. I hope you can understand how your compound command is not the same as the single command. See above for the invitation to the call-in show. I'm done defining terms for you guys. You have to define these terms, because you are taking the side that alleges there is this objective morality that protects libertarianism from being destroyed by purely practical objections. At this point, I don't know who was the first person to ask me to make up a rule about rape. The whole exercise is pointless, rape is just a shock tactic, I did it, and it's detracting from the point of this thread. Not sure where you're going with this. I'm asking people to support the idea that violating the NAP is objectively evil, and therefore libertarianism is protected from purely practical objections. The "rape is good" rule was a weird request from some people here, but if you want to use the "UPB" to attack my response, or prove the bit about the NAP, then please go ahead.

Ahh, so it is possible to break quotes into different boxes. I can do it on other forums, but this one was giving me trouble. I found the button, though, so here we go: The explanation is contradictory and doesn't account for time. Simple explanation of my objection: In your steps, "consent" is used in two different ways: (A) A person's want or agreement in relation to an action. Desire. (B) A property that is present when all the people involved in an action agree or want it to occur. Concord. In step 1 you say that aggression is an act without consent, so I assume you are using definition B. In step two, however, you say that individuals can consent, so you must have changed to definition A. So I stopped the test. Why is this important? Because you are integrating consent into the measure of morality. So am I right in understanding evil to be, "unwant of a passive actor"? I just want to know what evil means to you, rather than be told special rules that don't follow from the underlying account. It has been difficult to say what is evil, because I have not been told what evil means. I just knew it was essentially "unwant", and later a special rule was added without the term "evil" being re-defined to justify the addition. I will say that under the old system, it is obvious that the desires of A alone aren't sufficient to judge the morality. Further, it is equally obvious that the desires of B alone are not sufficient to judge the morality. Personally speaking, I believe the moral system you are explaining is thoroughly subjective, but I'm still working through it with you. Now I think we have the new definition, "unwant of a passive actor", please confirm if this is the case. I'm here because I think the NAP is a subjective rule, and that people who promote it are wrong. I believe that the attempts to defend it are riddled with a confusing mix of cross-definitions, baseless rules, and logical errors. Those conclusions are the result of genuinely trying to understand peoples' positions. The approach I have taken in this thread is to highlight a particular argument made by libertarians like Molyneux, and ask to be shown the basis. That necessarily involves libertarians explaining what they mean when they call something evil, or claim to have discovered an objective rule of morality. Nobody gave me a consistent account of consent and how it is contained in evil. I know that evil is no longer unwant, but we're working on the next step. The special rule about consent/concord is enough for me to come up with a few new accounts of evil, but I want a libertarian to explain what they think it means. I can rattle off possibilities, but this thread would be longer and ultimately I believe they're all false. Finally, no, I don't think it's OK to do whatever you want to do. I'm not trying to endorse libertarian morality, though. I'm here to see if someone can recover it from the scrapheap of subjective moral power-plays. Suck it up, guys.

Hah, you sent me homework? Thanks "teacher", but the answers don't appear to be contained within. If you can't perceive the meaning behind the story of the warriors, then all is lost. Your attempt to support Libertarianism is nothing more than an abject failure.

You still haven't even shown that morality is a test! You won't even define morality or what you mean by any of your terms! You are not an honest participant in this discussion; how can I properly consider your morality when you refuse to show the justification for your conclusions? You can't even attack my morality, because you are using your own secret definitions that you haven't established yet. Long ago, there was a group of warriors who would start each fight by laying down on the ground. They would stay perfectly still until their opponent attacked, whereupon they'd counter and win. One day, these mighty warriors decided to launch an attack of their own. They marched right up to an enemy castle, and threw themselves onto the ground. Some people say their attack never truly began.

Turn the question back on yourself. Are you saying that if you can't get 100% on a test, then you can't get any questions right? The comparison doesn't even work, though. You won't encounter every conceivable possibility in life, and I'm still waiting on that definition of morality that requires a perfect response to all possibilities at all times. Again, though, I ask you: are you part of this debate? You haven't shown any definitions, and you won't show your working; you're just sitting in the peanut gallery tossing out baseless criticism. If you're not going to respond to my requests or my questions, and you're not going to explain yourself or your terms, then you've failed to justify the Libertarian assertions that form the basis of this thread.

Are you part of the debate now? I would really love to see what you think these terms mean and the steps you took to reach your conclusions. Objective is independent from our individual feelings or opinion. Hmm, whether a man can be perfectly moral doesn't seem reliant on our feelings or opinion so... yep, seems objective. Universal, according to Frosty, means to be applicable to everything within its domain; it's also true by definition for rules. Hmm, can a rule apply to its subject if the subject cannot perfectly obey it in every way all the time? Yep, that's entirely possible. Looks like it's universal, although we already determined that when we decided that these sorts of things are universal by definition. Nice strawman, though, regarding immorality. Nobody said it’s impossible to be moral, only that we cannot achieve a “perfect score”. But let's pretend that it is somehow impossible to be at all moral: the morality I proposed is still objective and valid. You are only attacking the soundness, or otherwise using a hidden meaning for the term "moral". Good idea, let's keep it short and to the point. I'll immediately focus on the points you make rather than the fluff. 1. Steps you ask me to follow: "1) An act isn't aggression if there is consent to the action (i.e sex isn't rape if there's consent) 2) Consent is required by ALL parties affected by the actions, an action cannot be considered consensual if one of the parties doesn't consent. 3) Lack of consent of the victim means the act isn't consensual and therefore it can be considered aggression." Immediately, step one is wrong because one of the participants is consenting. See the definition of consent, which is also used in step 2 (requiring that all parties consent, therefore admitting one party may or may not consent). In an act of aggression, consent is present. Please correct step 1 so that we may continue with the steps. 2. Your definition of morality is incomplete, quote: "Yes, the basic reasoning could be sumarized as Desire = good/want. But what you seem to immediately forget is that this is with respect to interactions between moral agents, one moral agent acting on another. The desire is in the context is relevant to whoever is experiencing the effect of the action, it boggles my mind that anyone would need this explained in a verbose way." So does "Desire = good/want", or not? There's clearly more to it, but it's not in the definition. If there is a special rule that morality is only applicable to the unwanting party, then I am still waiting for you to define morality and the moral measure. The definition I had to draft for you does not include any basis for you to draw this new requirement. If you disagree with the definition, then draft a new one so that your conclusions follow from your proofs. Furthermore, the definition does not account for time. Where is the moment of the desire accounted for in this morality? People change their mind about what they want and unwant. If time is left as a loose string, then things can switch from good to bad depending on the subjective whim of the participant. 3. You remain confused about objective and subjective, quote: "You're struggling with the objectiveness of desire and I think you're just getting confused. Whether any instance of an action is desirable is not something that has an objective truth, it's subjective depending on who the target of that action is. However the fact that in any one particular moral interaction is desired by the target of that action is indeed objective, that's an objective fact of reality that at the moment they either desire or do not desire the action, and if they do not consent to the action then it's considered aggression which makes the instance of that action immoral." The occurrence of a person forming a desire yesterday is an objective fact because the truth of the event is independent from human feelings. Its the truth that the event transpired that is objective. The process of forming that desire is subjective, as it stems directly from human feelings. It's wholly dependent on the moral actor. The NAP is subjective morality not only because it would otherwise violate the principle of non-contradiction, but also because the formulation of good and evil is entirely dependent on human feelings. There is no independence, and for that reason we cannot say that a sex act tomorrow will be evil. Tomorrow, the individuals could become lovers; the measure of good or evil is entirely in the hands of human feelings and has no independence. Heck, until someone accounts for time in the definitions, we don't know if things will remain good or evil. That's what makes it an appealing type of moral power-play. It allows an individual to put himself in a moral bubble and have subjective control to decide if other people are evil. "If this person kisses me it will be evil... now it will be good... now it's going to be evil... Now I'm feeling happy so it will be good again..." Other systems posit an objective foundation that these subjective decisions can rest upon (like the one I was made to invent), but that doesn't exist here. In the NAP, "man is the measure of all things". Are you saying, then, that you agree that good is not totally possible in the NAP? Isn't that the exact reason why you said the pro-rape rule would be broken in your physicalist moral view? Here's how I read your post: 1. You admit there is no good in physical occurrences, because otherwise people would need to reject the good. 2. Therefore, in your system "good" is non-existent, because you believe physical occurrences are the moral unit. 3. There is evil, because you think physical instances of rape are evil. Yet, if the good is impossible to achieve, then you must reject the NAP. Because evil is an unwanted act, good is the opposite (wanted), and you require that it be possible that believers always want all good acts. The latter cannot occur, so the NAP succumbs to your own objection that is based on this mysterious rule you're imposing. Anyway, if someone desperately proclaims they want to kill you, it can be the basis of assault and constitute an immoral physical act in your physicalist system. In my system, if he forms the mental state of wanting to kill you... well, my system was only about rape, because nobody told me to make any other rules.

No, you are adding a step and requiring that people want specific physical acts to occur, rather than wanting people to be good. "Being good" would be to embody rape, because rape is the good. That consists of holding two mental states, and acting accordingly. The physical conclusion that transpires is irrelevant to morality, because we're judging moral actors rather than charting physical objects and the paths they move along. If you want the extra step of requiring that all people be able to want all possible physical events to transpire, then support that claim. Nobody has done so yet. In fact, such a requirement would destroy all moral rules. If you place a hundred people in a room, how would an attacker choose a victim? There are a 99 potential "good acts" under your (as of yet unsupported) model, but he must necessarily reject some to choose others. Hence he would necessarily reject the good despite knowing it to be the good. It's a product of being a human being; actually the idea that we need to be capable of being perfectly good is another unsupported notion.

On Definitions The definitions still aren’t complete. We have finally boiled the term “wrong”, as you use it, down to three things: Any conclusion that is logically invalid under any system or premises in questionAny conclusion that would be logically invalid under the NAPAny act embodying a conclusion that would be logically invalid under the NAP, when the actor doesn’t know the conclusion is logically invalid.I am still waiting for you to explain the distinction between 1 and 2. What makes the NAP a moral logical rule, rather than an amoral logical rule? I ask this in part because you defined evil as, "evil is when someone knows an action is wrong but does it anyway" Let’s assume you are using definition 2 for “wrong”, because I want to know why NAP is an objective moral system. So a person is doing evil when he knows an action embodies a conclusion that is logically invalid under the NAP, and he does it anyway. Looking at this, the definitions have not been presented because ultimately it leads back into the impenetrable mystery that is your notion of morality. Yet, what if you are playing a joke on me and just using definition 1? Now, wrong is anything logically invalid, and evil is doing anything that could be logically invalid under any rule. So everything is evil in some sense. You are not here to joke around, so you cannot be using definition 1. So, please, after all this back and forth, please define wrong and moral so that I can finally understand what makes the NAP an objective moral rule. Until that happens, I will always maintain that you have failed to define your terms. Without these terms, a discussion about an objective moral system can only boil down to a dog chasing its tail. I cannot know why you think the NAP is an objective moral system, and nobody else can, either, until the information is available. On the relevance of factual determinations Factual determinations are unimportant when questioning the internal validity of the system because the system posits their truth. Attacking the facts is a great idea if you want to show that the system is unsound and the rule is not really in force, but it doesn't help to show that the system is logically impossible. I hope you are sure now that factual arguments are irrelevant here, just like we are both sure that there isn't really an anthropomorphic god. On arbitrary and subjective declarations I went to “God’s will” because it’s the quickest way to show you’re wrong. You challenged me on a point of objectivity and validity, so I don’t need to care if I’ve posited a magical man. Point is that I posited an objective moral rule, not that I think I’ve posited a real rule that is in force. This exercise is pointless because I’m free to define moral how I want, because you still haven’t told me what it means (see above). Next, what are these new definitions for objective and valid that you are using in this section? I don’t understand why you think arbitrary things cannot be objective or valid, or why you think they cannot be proven right or wrong. Perhaps you could share what sense you’re using arbitrary, too, because this whole section just doesn’t makes sense to me right now. Objective is independent from human opinion; yet now this rule-creation that occurred regardless of human opinion… is not objective anymore? Valid is what is logically consistent, but now you’re saying a god’s rule is inherently inconsistent? What happens to all the other rules he created, I guess logic is invalid now, too. As for a standard to show right and wrong… I guess all of reality is now ultimately subjective. After all, there is no standard outside existence to show existence is right or wrong. Luckily, in my system I posited what was right, so there is an internal standard. In fact, now you create a new problem. I really want to hear you define arbitrary, objective, and valid so that your latest statements make sense, but I can’t resist moving forward just a little. The use of the NAP relies on the subjective decisions of the actors within any given example. We say their subjective decision objectively occurred, hence we can say the system is in some sense objective, but now we say that we cannot use god’s crafting of a rule? Oh dear. On the definition of rape It would help if rape was defined in the UPB or by anyone here. Because I was challenged to posit a new rule about rape I went and defined the term using my understanding of criminal law. Simply put, “wanting to penetrate others who you know do not want it” is not a complete definition of rape consistent with the NAP or with the practice of law in states that I’m familiar with. Let’s look at it in the sense of NAP: Suddenly, we can actually want ourselves to be raped, because our opinion of the rape doesn’t matter anymore. Rape is now purely in the eye of the rapist. Let’s look at criminal law: A person goes and commits a sexual act on another person. The other person wants it. Regardless of what the person initiating the sexual act thought, a rape has not occurred. The person only committed an inchoate offense. So, as I explained, rape consists of two mental states: Wanting to sexually penetrate another Unwanting to be sexually penetrated One actor holds mental state 1, the other actor holds mental state 2. This is why punching someone in the back of the head is still battery. Technically, you don’t know if the person wants it or not. Hell, the man could be your friend and you know he doesn’t care about his head. Still, at law it’s a battery if the guy didn’t want to be punched and you willfully slugged him in the back of the head. But the challenge I raised against your argument is being left untouched: You are 100% wrong to say that I am “describing only the action”. I described the universal, which is what the rule is declaring to be good. Rape is a set of mental states. To be good is to embody rape; that is to do the following: Want to sexually penetrate another Unwant to be sexually penetrate The physical motion naturally follows from those twin desires, and in court we examine the particular instances. There is no contradiction, and there is no need to want to be raped. You could have one person left on the planet and still be good, because the person would truly dedicate themselves to rape. Actually, all moral actors could be exterminated and the rule would still be valid. It’s an objective rule. Explain how this moral point is invalid or subjective. I have defined morality and what constitutes good (and therefore, by it’s opposite, evil). I have made the rule independent of human opinion and therefore objective. I have shown the rule to be valid, because actually it is just a single statement which is inherently true and therefore always valid come what may. I then went forward and even took up your burden of it being a valid rule that can always be embodied by humans in every sense at every time. The point is untouched, I have met your challenge, and I want to go back to the NAP now. I want someone, anyone, to explain how the NAP is an objective rule of morality that we ought to follow. On obedience: You claim that “everyone must (be) able to follow the rule in theory.” Why do you think that? The rule posited is objective, it is internally valid, and I gave a definition for moral. As far as I am concerned, I have posited an objective rule of morality that says rape is good; we’re done here unless you cough up a definition for moral and ask me to play through this scenario again. You require me to show that everybody can conceivably follow the rule: “if you make a rule that is logically impossible to follow then that rule is not valid”. Yet, that is not a burden of it being objective or valid. You are drawing on some hidden definition of morality or validity that is distinct from the definition I gave; you are saying that part of the definition of morality is that it must be possible for all humans to be good at all times in all ways. At any rate, I have played along and showed you why my objective rule meets even your standard. But here is the problem: you have an idea of morality that you won’t define. Share this meaning of morality! It is clearly distinct from just logical statements, so please tell me what it is. We are so close to getting to the point where you finally reveal why the NAP is an objective rule of morality. So close. On the UPB: I was invited by Stef to call into his show some time ago. When I accepted the invitation by e-mail and by multiple posts on this forum, I did not receive a response. I can only assume he is very busy. There's no need to act like I’m attacking the UPB behind his back; after all, I'm the one who walked into the lion's den here. As for the term “clusterfuck”, you’re the first one to start slinging shit; I have no desire to get my hands dirty. On what is proven: No, “in a world where it is impossible to posit an objective rule that rape is good” we would still be in a world where you haven’t defined what good even means. You haven’t proven good exists, that there is any morality at all. All you would have done is somehow magically proven that a proposition doesn’t accord with “good”, whatever that means. Now here is the kicker, you are saying, “YOU used the word “good” in this context. Why are you asking ME to define it?” I am flabbergasted. I can’t even believe I just read that. I come to this forum and ask libertarians to show me why they claim that “practical objections to libertarianism are insufficient, because there is an objective moral foundation that says we ought to follow the NAP”. Yet I'm supposed to define morality for you? You asked ME to play some weird game where I posit an objective moral rule about rape. I played along, and because YOU fundamentally refuse to define morality, I made a quick definition and completed the game. Now I am being shit on because (a) I didn’t follow your hidden definition of morality that I still don’t know, and (b) I don’t accept that even if my definition of morality doesn’t work, your secret definition is somehow proven and the NAP is an objective moral rule. Unbelievable! I don’t want to fight, I just want to know what you mean when you say all these words. You haven’t defined your terms, because every time you purport to do so, you just talk in a circle. The morality, the moral unit... you keep passing the buck and coming up with a new word each time I pounce. You can define terms all day long if you just create a circle of words. Yet, this thread will never receive a satisfactory answer until someone takes the bull by the horns. Someone needs to (a) define the terms and (b) proceed from first principles. If nobody can do that, then Libertarianism must offer itself up at the altar of practical considerations. Yet another post, and still no definition of what UPB means! If this were a boxing match, you'd be flat on the ground with the ref counting past 10. Tell me what "UPB" means! Just define the term! I told you I looked at the text and found multiple definitions, so tell me the one you're using! If you love the text and think it's infallible, then give me the page number you want me to read! It's not a trick question. I just want you to define the term and stop using it as a magical wand! On objective and universal You say you object to definition 1)a), but I think you meant to write 1)b), correct? That makes more sense, and you specifically mention ice-cream, so I’m pretty sure you meant 1)b). If so, I now understand what you mean by universal. It seems true by definition, and useful in the sense of correcting someone’s mistaken judgment: Theseus: “this sword will not move when I release it!” Herakles: “no, gravity is universal to physical substance, so it will exert force on your sword and cause it to move”. Anyway, moving on. It seems like we agree with gravity and 1+1=2 and all that good stuff; they are universal by definition because they apply to everything in the scope we give them. 1+1=2 is different from gravity in the sense that it is also a demonstration rather than the name of the principle, but at any rate the system is universal by its definition. On moral principles “Objective truth and universal truth are similar but not synonymous, they're both required in a moral principle for it to be logically coherent and internally consistent.” How can an objective moral principle not be universal? I thought we just concluded that the principles are universal by definition. I couldn’t tell you an objective moral principle that isn’t universal. When you say “logically coherent” you mean the same thing as “internally consistent”, right? As in, it has to be valid? If so, sure, a valid system has to be valid. A lot of this stuff seems to be repetitive, but I guess you double up because you had trouble with someone else at some other time. Maybe it’s like saying “last will and testament”, and “peace and quiet”, or something. Anyway, point is, I agree that if a moral principle is to be valid then it has to be valid. I also agree that objective moral principles have to universal because these are all universal by definition. On definition of rape No, “sexual penetration without consent by accident”, without anything else, is not rape in any jurisdiction I’m familiar with. If you have a new definition for rape, then go ahead and give it to me, but unless it’s statutory rape then each element requires a certain mental state. You’ll forgive me if I don’t trust journos to give me an accurate account of a criminal case; just cut to the chase and give me the statute. Or, better yet, give me your specific definition of rape that you want me to use. Not that I really see how defining and designing a valid but unsound moral rule proves the system of morality that allegedly results in libertarianism. As for whether the NAP applies to accidental penetration… it applies in the sense that it applies to all people. It wouldn’t apply in the sense that there would be no moral judgment regarding the actor in this instance because he acted accidentally. There was no initiation of aggression. Unless you have a new definition of aggression to offer, too. On aggression being evil Excellent, you have started to work through the steps. You say that “aggression is evil” is reasoned from first principles. Then, you tell me you have given an account of this in your 2nd post. Fantastic; here’s what I’ll try to find in your 2nd post: (A) What aggression is. and (B) What evil is. So, let's go back… oh dear. You didn't give a definition for aggression, you just said you liked mine: "force or deceit unwanted by the subject". I point out in that same post, and many subsequent posts, that every act of aggression had two subjects and one wants and the other wants, so the system falls apart. Moving on to your definition for evil... The definition for evil is that it’s synonymous with bad. Bad is... ""bad" is just something which is unwanted or undesirable" So in a roundabout way you reached the ultimate goal of describing morality, which is... Desire. Want being good, unwant being evil. The entire system, as indicated in the post that you quoted on the other page, falls apart because an act of aggression is both wanted and unwanted by the subject. Wanted and unwanted, as you'll recall, are good and evil. So the system collapses. If evil means something else, if morality is something different than desire, now is the time to speak up. Because the libertarianism is broken under these definitions. You'd need to start again and: (a) define aggression (b) define evil and then, if "evil" and its opposite, "good", are just opposite sides of morality, then tell me what morality is! What it is to be moral and not just logical; the entity or measure that gives good and evil some meaning. So no, saying “the answer is in my 2nd post” is not sufficient. There are no answers there, because that post contains the definitions that I gave, and I pointed out that they are boil down to nothing more than a subjective system. If you disagree with the system being subjective, then explain how morality as desire, and good as want and evil as unwant, is not subjective. Failing that, present the real definitions that you've been hiding all this time. On logical contradiction and the scope of the issues You say that I am ignoring the “scope of the issues”, and that one person is committing an action and another is the recipient of that action. The problem is, you have consistently failed to tell me what moral means and therefore how to determine what is evil. The only system I've heard of is that evil is unwant and good is want, which doesn't give any special status to the active or passive physical object. The subject of aggression is two people, and they each hold an opposing mental state, and that makes the aggression good and evil at the same time. It's a subjective system as it stands right now. If the above definitions that I came up with are unsatisfactory, then you are yet to show or adopt any definitions. I am not ignoring the scope. I know that one person wants the action to take place, and one person does not want the action to take place. What I do not know is what you think “moral” means. Therefore, I do not know what you think evil means. You do not define your terms, I have no idea what you are talking about. On skipping ahead to the “meat of the matter” All of this is totally meaningless until you reveal what you mean by good and evil. Yet, you haven’t successfully defined those terms, and you never will until you explain the term “moral” in a way that doesn't result in a subjective mess. I am still waiting after all this time. I don't understand why you think the wants of the initiator aren’t relevant, when the want of the initiator are inherent to something being evil. You say that we don’t need to worry about the initiator, because we only need to check if one party didn't consent. All right, let me walk down that path: Herakles wants to punch Theseus in the face. Theseus unwants to be punched in the face. We look, and... yes, there it is, Theseus unwanted to be punched! Therefore… the act is evil! So evil is unwant, morality is a term referring to what people unwant! Oh no, the opposite of evil would be want… and Herakles wanted! So I guess it’s good! Now we’re in a mess, and it’s all because you refuse to share the inner mysteries of libertarian morality. On subjectivity I have a grasp on objective and subjective. Do you know why? It’s because I actually sought to define the terms. Objective is something that is independent of our particular feelings, and subjective is the opposite. It’s you who has to understand what is going on here. A person deciding to have sex involves a subjective process. It is dependent on the individual forming a particular mental state, you cannot take the individual out of it. All of these wants and unwants are subjective in their creation, they're not pre-determined. Or are you saying that everything is pre-determined and there is no agency, that we are strictly atoms moving in a pre-ordained pattern with no possibility of divergence or agency, and everything past, present, and future is objective? That I could successfully posit that a week from now you are going to want to kick a football, and even if I told you and you changed your mind to scorn me, you would inexorably want to kick the ball when the time came? If that is what you are saying, then what do you think humans are, and what is agency? The definitions need to be totally revisited, because you said and evil is bad, bad is unwant, morality deals with good and bad behaviour... so morality is desire. But what does desire mean in this pre-ordained, materialist vision? Because, so long as we are talking about desire, The NAP is only objective because we are talking about the past. The mental state was formed, and that it was held is an objective fact. The person felt like battering Theseus, Theseus felt like he unwanted to be battered. The process is subjective, but it’s objective that it occurred. As for ice-cream, it can be a point of objective truth that ice-cream is the best food. You just have to define best, first. The reason it doesn’t work in your mind is because you’re probably thinking “best” as a question of desire which… as illustrated above… is subjective. I'm not a relativist, I'll tell you that much. I do find it positively shocking that people who declare that there really is an objective moral rule are unwilling to define what morality is. It blows my mind that anyone would think I'm a nihilist or being lazy here; I am literally fighting tooth and nail to get people to define their terms and show the working that allowed them to conclude that there is an objective moral rule that serves as the wellspring of libertarianism. As far as nasty feelings are concerned, I'm sensing that people here are totally unwilling or unable to explain morality. The ballooning in the size of the conversation is a direct result of people introducing new terms and requirements while simultaneously refusing to explain anything. None of you will start from first principles or give definitions for essential terms. It suggests to me that libertarianism lacks a sound moral foundation. Following that conclusion, the practical objections alone really do constitute a deathblow. Where have I said "you can't prove objective reality exists"? Where? Point to it. Quote it. Or better yet, step up to the wicket and give me something of substance. It's a shame that we've been going back and forth for so long, and still nobody can provide an explanation of the NAP as an objective rule of morality. You can't even tell me what UPB means. Libertarianism suffers daily on a practical level, and now it's being revealed that the fortress of morality has closed it's doors on the movement. I'm starting to think that Libertarianism is just a power-play. The belief grants individuals supreme authority to declare good and evil within their own domain. I don't want to be taxed, so it's evil! I don't want you to regulate my behaviour, so it's evil! I don't want you to wake me up early, so it's evil! I don't want, I don't want, I don't want!

If one posits an objective moral rule that applies to humans, then of course it applies to the speaker. What you don't need to posit is that humans want to be good. Further, you don't need to posit it must always be possible for everyone to be good at all times. Please, if I'm wrong on this point explain why, but as it is I've posited a moral objective rule that doesn't seem to need either of those things. Yet, even if we make those additions, you are still drawing the wrong conclusions. There is no contradiction that destroys the system; let's take it step by step. 1. rape is objective moral good 2. people must want to be good. At that point, you have to ask what rape means. Here, it's referring to the concept, not a particular rape on a particular date and time between two or more particular people. So what is rape conceptually? Two mental states. So how can a person be good? Adopt the two mental states. The end. No contradiction; the person can always adopt these two mental states. Show me the contradiction that says a person can't be good here in all circumstances. Further, evil is the opposite of good, so wanting to be raped would be evil. The claim that a person would want to be raped is logically invalid. So, for your sister, you would want her to fight her best against the sexual assault, and do her best to commit sexual assault on her attacker. Again, it's weird even to single out rape as a moral principle to being with, especially when talking about your sister, because it's just a shock tactic given the availability of battery. The rule that you're actually challenging is totally different, it's "always committing every conceivable act of rape is the good". In that rule, nobody actually needs to want to be like the concept or adopt anything regarding rape. They just want a particular phenomenon to occur as much as possible. Follow that line of thought, and there will be no possible good at all, rape or otherwise. Deary me, how many posts are you going to make before you actually define the terms you use. How do I know if UPB is proof of anything, given that literally nobody will define it and explain why it is somehow necessary for objective moral rules. Even the text UPB gives multiple definitions for UPB. I have never moved the goal posts. I have defined the proof I'm looking for. What I am doing now is asking you to either define UPB, or stop using this made-up term that does nothing more than muddy the waters and keep outsiders at bay. You did claim that the definition of evil is unnecessary to argue that a violation of the NAP is evil, but the ball is being hidden through your unexplained use of words with multiple meanings. You won't take my word for it, so let's look at your words: "I said evil is not necessary to make the argument that the NAP is objective and violations of it are wrong". Huh, you are positing a moral system where violations are wrong. Wrong is being used to characterise actions that can occur, so you cannot mean wrong in the strictly logical sense. It's a moral judgment, of course, so you're using it as synonymous with "evil". Yet, elsewhere you use wrong in the strictly logical sense. "evil is when someone knows an action is wrong but does it anyway" So in other words, violations are evil. But I thought violations were wrong? Well, in this second quote wrong would be logically invalid. So now wrong has served two different definitions in different places without explanation, and here's another example: "It's not specifically the battering of someone that is wrong. That action in and of itself can't be right or wrong." Violation is wrong, violation isn't wrong, I'm getting dizzy here; let's have some consistency and definitions! Bottom line: if you posit a moral system, you necessarily posit morality. Explain how you can posit this moral system without any account of moral measure, or stop this and just give me the definitions so all this double-speak and confusion can end. Anyway, moving on to the substance: 1. I'm assuming the divine rule was not actually from god... Factual determinations are irrelevant here. We're talking about whether I can posit an objective and valid system, not a sound one. If a person screams, "god says battery is evil", it doesn't affect the validity or objective nature of what I posited. I did what was asked of me: I posited a moral system that is objective and valid. 2. I'm not positing any law... If you say rape is morally good then you'r esaying everyone should rape and accept being raped... No, and I want to focus in on something tasty here. Look at your own words: "It's not specifically the battering of someone that is wrong. That action in and of itself can't be right or wrong. It's assault that's wrong." Putting aside the complete confusion as to what you mean by wrong, it looks like you've reached my understanding. Look above in this post, and in my prior posts: I've pointed out that rape is a concept. I posited the concept was good, and if people want to be good they must embody that concept. That is to say, they must adopt the two mental states that go with rape. There is no requirement to desire a specific occurrence of rape, and, in fact, wanting to be sexually penetrated would be evil. As you say yourself, "it's not specifically the battering of someone that is wrong." The moral rule is not a command to commit every single imaginable instance of a crime at all times in all places. So your notion that someone would need to want their own rape is flat-out wrong; if "rape is good" then to be good people must want to maintain the two states of (A) wanting to sexually penetrate others, and (b) unwanting to be sexually penetrated. I will again repeat for the record, in addition, that even the idea that a person would have to want their own rape is not a destruction of rule. It remains perfectly valid, because even though a person cannot want and not want their own rape in the same sense at the same time, the rule is independent from human opinion. The rapes that do go through are good, and the rapes that don't go through are bad, and humanity's inability to successfully achieve a 100% goodness rate is not fatal to the validity of the objective rule. You could only show that the rule is logically invalid by positing these additional rules, which I previously listed and am happy to do so again, and also misinterpreting what rape being the good. It's a totally unnecessary clusterfuck, to borrow your term, that is coming out of the ultimate clusterfuck of all time, the UPB text. 3. Well it would prove... Woah, wait right there. It would not show anything regarding moral justification, because you've not shown anything regarding morality at all. You haven't defined morality, you haven't defined good or evil, you haven't defined or posited any of this. It would not show anything other than that, if a number of unexplained and seemingly unnecessary logical rules are imposed, something cannot be logically consistent.

1. You absolutely did what I described; there's no strawman. If you feel so strongly about it, then quote your initial post and tell me how it can be interpreted. Maybe the definitions are hidden between the lines, along with all the steps you took to reach the conclusion that a violation of the NAP is morally evil. At any rate, it seems worth moving on because you've offered me a little substance now. 2. You say that defining "evil" is not necessary to make an argument that... a violation of the NAP is evil. I don't know whether to laugh or cry, but I am glad that you have taken the time to give me definition now. Thank you, but let me explain the problem with the definition: If evil is the term that refers to an actor performing an action that he knows is "wrong", then what does "wrong" mean as applied to an action? Here is what I am saying: "Lykourgos is wearing a hat" is a wrong statement, because I'm not wearing a hat. Yet, if someone batters someone, how is that wrong? I guess it's right, actually, because now it's a reality. So I guess battering people is right... but seriously, does "evil is when someone knows an action is wrong but does it anyway" mean anything different than, "wrong is when someone knows an action is evil but does it anyway"? Please just give me the definition of this moral measure, whether you want to call it evil, bad, or wrong. Until then, you're barely at the first stage of showing why the NAP is an objective moral rule. So, moving on to your handling of the divine commandment: 3. You give two arguments against the validity of positing a divine pronouncement as an objective moral rule. (A) You say that the divinely created rule "rape is morally good" is impossible because... "someone" will declare that the opposite is true? What? Who is this powerful being that will contradict god, and why would god care about someone making a declaration? It's an objective rule, who cares if humans say things. (B) You say that if rape is an objective moral good, then everyone must agree that being raped is good, and willingly be raped (which is an impossible desire). Why do you think that logically follows? It's wrong for a couple of reasons: i) You are positing an unnecessary law that requires man to necessarily want the good. Here, good is what is in accordance with god's will; it's objective morality and whether people want it or agree with it is irrelevant. Humans could all be dead, or amoral, or pure evil for all it matters. Hell, let's pretend humans do necessarily want the good; their inability to achieve it in all instances doesn't invalidate the rule. Even if we accept this unnecessary law of yours, and we further accept that the impossibility of 100% of humans to be 100% good would somehow invalidate the divine decree, it still wouldn't matter: ii) There is rape the concept, and then there are the countless instances of it occurring. "Rape is good" is a moral rule stating that the universal is the good; it's not a direct and continuous command to commit every possible rape at every specific time and location. If (a) rape is good, and (b) there's a further rule that all people must be good, then we need to discuss what rape means. Mentally, rape consists of 2 different states; wanting to commit sexual penetration, and unwanting to be sexually penetrated. So if people must always want to be good, then what they actually want is to always hold these two mental states: - to want to sexually penetrate other people - to not personally be sexually penetrated Thus, if you put two people in a room together they would want to sexually penetrate the other person while not wanting their own body sexually penetrated. There's no necessity that a person want to personally fall prey to rape. At any rate, it's largely besides the point. I don't need to posit your additional law; there's no logical clusterfuck. The divine rule is a valid system, but it's factually unsound. On the other hand... what does good/right mean in your system? What does evil/bad/wrong mean in your system? It's not based on god's pronouncement, so what's the measure of this objective morality? Moving on to the final point, "universally preferable behaviour", 4. Still no explanation as to what you think this is or why you think it's an essential measure of any system of objective morality. The hidden definitions line is just as true as ever; there's a total failure to affirmatively show anything about the NAP. Please, show me the proof that the initiation of aggression is evil. What's absurd here to me is that even in a world where it is impossible to posit an objective rule that rape is good, you still wouldnt have proven anything. Nothing affirmative has been shown; I could just as well throw my arms up and say there is no morality. There's just physical objects, movement, and mathematic/logical consistency. Libertarianism would live or die by practical concerns and personal desire. Instead, people claim that there really are objective moral rules, and that they protect libertarianism from practical and personal objections. So someone needs to step up and affirmatively show that the foundation is real. Yes, I've read it, but I've found no proof within its pages. So now I am here, hoping that a libertarian can offer some defence or other proof of the claim regarding the NAP. Theatrics are not as absurd as having a libertarian refuse to give proof, which is what you did; It seems you have given up on explaining, defining, or presenting anything.

I'm sympathetic to the practice of putting the conclusion first and then proceeding with the details of how you reached that conclusion. In my experience, there are posters here who call it "poisoning the well", but I don't have an issue with it. The problem, though, is that you didn't offer the essential details required to make sense of what you're saying. All you did was declare, "the NAP is objective. So if you violate it then your behavior will be unable to be morally justified", and then immediately conclude that nobody can prove that rape is justified. Are you kidding me? How in the world does that prove that "Aggression is evil" or any other formulation of the claim that the NAP exists as an objective moral rule? You won't even tell me what the term evil means, or what morality is. You use this special term "universally preferable behaviour" and won't define it or relate it to any concepts we're discussing. You even invent an action called "not-raping"; I would love you to tell us how a person performs the act of "not-rape". Basically, the proof you offer is unintelligible at this point. I'll even play along and posit objective rules that say rape is good if that will help stimulate your mind and get us back on track. Anyone can posit an objective moral system that says rape is fine; crafting valid rules is not a great feat of logic. Here: "God created a divine rule above man that says, "rape is morally good", therefore there is a moral justification for rape." Logically valid, but factually unsound. Are you saying that anything logically valid is true and exists objectively, without any concern whether it is sound? The question is whether the objective moral system is sound; whether there really is morality and what constitutes that morality. You won't even tell me what morality is; eventually you say it's UPB, but then you won't define that term. It's enough to suggest that libertarianism is nothing more than a confused collection of criss-crossed definitions. According to libertarians like the host of this site, the NAP is an objective rule of morality and it's evil to violate it. Hence, even though libertarianism is subject to practical objections, some libertarians try to shield their philosophy by claiming a foundation of moral truth. Well, what is this truth? Show me the reasoning, reveal your hidden definitions, please! I hate to see libertarianism being left to die on the side of the road like this, for want of a person willing to share the details.