Noesis

May I try? A "right" is: a privilege to carry out the defined certain action (or set of actions) with legal sanction, and/or the assurance that certain defined things will be protected by enforcement to the degree specified, as assigned by the person or group with the greatest power amongst a specific group or in a specific geographic area.

I totally understand about the length of these posts. *laugh* They are definitely impractical lengths, but I cannot in good conscience neglect to be thorough. If you would like, maybe we could have an audio call about this? Skype or something. Up to you, of course. I would first alter your statement slightly for accuracy's sake, because obviously ethics/morality doesn't have a goal that it is trying to accomplish (the same as biology and physics). Rather, morality, physics, and biology are tools (systems of thought, standards, etc.) that humans use in the attempt to achieve certain goals. So, yes, I agree that physics is used by humans to describe the behaviour of matter, and biology is used to describe organic life forms. As for ethics/morality, I would say that ethics/morality is used by humans to achieve the goal of separating "good" from "bad" (A.K.A. "right" and "wrong") behaviours. (Not a subset—but all behaviours. There is no logical reason to use only a subset.) It is prescriptive, because it leads to such conclusions as: "you ought to use force, in order to murder" and "you ought to eat, in order to live". Those do not describe reality as it is, but prescribe what behaviour you must successfully complete if you were to achieve your goal.

Mhm, but just because you believe that "the attempt to murder/rape, if it is required for someone to achieve their goal, is right (i.e. logically correct)" does not imply that you want to be raped or murdered. It only means that you acknowledge that, logically, they must rape/murder to achieve their goal, and so they must attempt rape/murder to have any chance of succeeding in their goal. (But obviously you do not have to care about the success of their goal. There is absolutely nothing logically binding about a person having to achieve their goal, just because they have a goal. It is not a failure or a contradiction for them to not be successful, or not even try to achieve their goal.) So if Joker wants to murder Batman, Batman acknowledges the logical necessity that Joker kill him for Joker to achieve his goals. But Batman does not put Joker's goals ahead of his own goals, since that would be ridiculous and illogical. So Batman's goal is to kill Joker to save innocent lives (himself included). Now, both Joker and Batman can accept (and follow) the moral theory that "the attempt to murder/rape, if it is required for someone to achieve their goal, is right (i.e. logically correct)". And while they are accepting and following that, they obviously are attempting to achieve their own goals. Even if they fail in their goal, they have successfully adhered to this moral theory. And even if they did not try to achieve their goal, because they needed a bathroom break, or because they fear failure, or whatever else, they are still successfully adhering to this moral theory, because all the theory outlines is the necessity in reality that if the action took place, it was logically required for the success of the goal. [Conversely, for clarification: We can also say what are "bad/wrong" actions, relative to a goal. So if your goal was to get promoted at work, and you proceeded to slap your boss across the face without provocation, we could say that "the attempt of someone to slap their boss across the face, if it is not required and not useful for them to achieve their goal, is wrong (i.e. logically incorrect)"] To quote from UPB (p.g. 66): This statement is logically flawed, since inaction (not raping) cannot have any moral content, since morality only deals with behaviour. Non-action is not a behaviour. (The opposite of "rape is a moral good" would be "rape is a moral evil".) So, testing the success of the theory "rape is a moral good" (or the long version: "the attempt to rape, if it is required for someone to achieve their goal, is right (i.e. logically correct)") can successfully be completed by both men, because even if they just sit there and drink beer together amiably, they are upholding the theory. If either one of them (or both of them) attempted to rape the other, the theory would still stand—and if one of them was successful, and the other was not, then the theory would still be upheld. Nobody has the right to success of their goals (as that would be logically impossible). Just because you have the goal to live, doesn't mean that you have the right to have access to food, so that you can eat, so that you can attempt to live. Obviously some people are paralyzed, or injured, and they cannot successfully achieve their goals, even if nobody was in their way. This would be an incorrectly-formed theory, since it is lacking a tie to a goal, and it implies that doing anything other than murder would make you evil, since it is too vague. (Does it mean you must murder once a day? All day? Whenever the opportunity arrises? It is unclear.) So that theory cannot even be put through the UPB tests, or at least it is not useful for it to be, since it is incoherent. Thank you very much for your kind words (and actions), cynicist! That means a lot to me. ___________________________________________ By "right" I mean logical justification. So someone has the right (logical justification) to "attempt to eat, if their goal is to live". This justification comes from objective reality, by way of empirical evidence. It is a requirement of reality, no matter how I wish things were different. Now, this does not say that they have a right to succeed in eating. Only that if they are capable of attempting it, they may, and that it would be logically correct to do so. It is impossible for this conception of rights to ever be violated by anything. Whether it is an impediment of objective reality (there is no food growing anymore, for example), or another human being (who is stealing all your food), or an animal (who injures you so you cannot get to the food). A lack of a right would simply be a lack of logical justification. So above I came up with the example that "the attempt of someone to slap their boss across the face, if it is not required and not useful for them to achieve their goal, is wrong (i.e. logically incorrect)". So in that case, the person had no right to slap their boss across the face, since it hindered the achievement of their goal. To say "people have a right to not be killed" is an incorrectly-formed moral theory. You cannot, logically, have a right to something that is impossible to guarantee. If a tree were to fall on me, by that theory, then my "rights" will just have been violated. It is also incorrectly-formed because it is not tied to a goal, which has been previously established as necessary (see page 30 of UPB for the reasoning behind this if it still unclear to you). I am most definitely using the word differently. I am using it in the only way I can see that the word can be used, while still being upheld by logic and reality. I do not want to stray even slightly from what can be philosophically proven to be true, so that means that I can only use the word in the very narrowest sense of "logically justified". Hopefully my position is clear to you now, that stopping you from defending yourself would have nothing to do with the kind of right I believe is logically sound. Stopping you from defending yourself does not stop you from attempting to defend yourself, and so no violation of your rights will have occurred.

Please refrain from addressing any further posts to me, as your comments make me uncomfortable, and I do not personally appreciate them. Thank you. ______________________________________________ No you cannot, because the idea of someone having a right to the use/ownership of something is a moral notion. I cannot escape the fact than I am me and I have exclusive control of body, but I can easily escape the fact that "extensions of myself in reality" are necessarily mine to use... because there is nothing in the way of logic or reality that makes that true. Unlike my body. I do not argue that. Instead, I am arguing that "everyone has the right to attempt to achieve their goals", and so "everyone has the right to attempt to murder" and "everyone has the right to attempt to not be murdered". Do you see what I'm saying? They have to right to attempt to achieve their goal. Attempt. (Attempt.) So you want to restrict your reasoning only to "violent" actions—but why? You must first prove that there is an inherent difference between actions involving force, and those without. Your philosophical position is based upon the assumption that people are "violating each others [sic] property or denying the other a right they claim for themselves", when you have not logically demonstrated that. I do not think I am the right person to debate this with you right now, since you seem frustrated with me. Maybe we can take a break and resume in a few days? I am personally finding this conversation too circular for the moment to continue. But I appreciate the effort you have put into this, and I will review your posts thoroughly to try to see if I have missed anything.

Actually, you can universalize it. The mistake is in assuming that both people in the room must be successful in their goal in order to uphold the moral theory, when that is not true. The moral theory of "it is morally right to assault a person" is upheld and successfully completed, no matter what happens in the room (even if neither person attempts to assault the other), because it is the theory that is tested, not the action. So the question is "can this theory be universalized?" and the answer is "yes, because if anyone does assault someone, it can be considered right". The theory does not require everyone to attempt assault or be successful in assault to satisfy the theory's universalizability. All that matters is that the theory can be applied to everyone without exception. By "accepting" that another person has the logically-legitimate right to attempt to initiate force does not mean that you welcome, want, or approve of their force. I do not want you to take away my keyboard, and acknowledging that you have the philosophical right to take it does not change the fact that I do not want you to take away my keyboard. I do not want to be pushed into the mud, either, and even though I recognize your logical validity to push me into the mud, it is still force and it is still against my will when you push me into the mud. Like I said before: Nobody has the "right" to be successful in their goals, so nobody has the right to successfully initiate force on me (and I do not claim to have the right to successfully initiate force against them). But they do have the logical right to attempt to use force against me. If they fail to succeed, they are still achieving their right to pursue their own goals to the best of their ability, just like me. And just like everyone, equally. As for your comment about what the state claims: I am not arguing in defence of the state, and the state does not purport to have logical validity as the basis for its laws, so it is not relevant to this discussion as far as I can see.

I'm sensing some frustration, which I am sorry to have caused you. I feel as if I have answered your question already, and you do not. Allow me to try again. Would you consider an acceptable definition of theft to be "the taking or use of something without the permission of the person(s) who previously claimed a right to it"? I do not agree with your assessment that I am "taking ownership of the wallet" when I take it, since if I am denying all property rights for everyone to all things, and so I cannot abide that description, since it doesn't accurately portray my views. I understand that you see it as an assertion of my goals as superior to Bob's goals, but that would be mistaken. See, all I believe is that everyone has a logical right to act in pursuit of success of their goal. Obviously the actual success of their goal is their own responsibility, and they can fail even if nobody else is trying to hinder them. For example, if I were alone on a desert island full of coconuts, but did not know how to open them, I could die of starvation, even though I was trying very hard to eat so that I could live. Similarly, when I am in society, and I want to get a good grade on a test, I could study really hard, but accidentally study the wrong material, and therefore get a bad grade. Now for an example with opposing goals: If I want to have first prize in the science fair, but so does Tom, we are both right to pursue that goal, even though we cannot both have our goals successfully achieved. You would not say that I would be in the wrong in the circumstance of the science fair, would you? So then why you would apply it to another instance, involving theft, does not logically make sense to me. The logical validation is only supporting the right to act in pursuit of your goal. Notice that it does not imply that you ought to be successful in your goal. The logical formula does not say: "If you want to live, then you should eat—and then you should be successful in your goal". It also does not say that you should put anyone else's goals ahead of your own. I am not putting my own goal AHEAD of anyone else's when I assert that we all have EQUAL validity to pursue our goals. That is putting all of our actions on the same level. I respect Bob's goal to defend his wallet, and I acknowledge his logical right to take my wallet, if he so chooses. That is not putting the pursuit of my goals ahead of his in any way. They are equal to his pursuit of his goals. Only one of us will be successful, however, and logic says nothing about being fair about that, because that would be impossible. Obviously it is logically impossible for everyone's goals to be satisfied at the same time, because goals conflict with each other. You haven't logically proven that "an extension of [your]self into reality" means anything significant, logically-speaking. That also is not clearly defined at all. I mean, when I extend my arm "into reality" does that mean that I now forever own the molecules I touch? You would first need to establish a solid definition, that would clearly outline what is and isn't "an extension of one's self into reality" before you begin defending a philosophical position on those grounds. Secondly, I do not deny the "property rights" of the self. That is the only type of right I do agree with, and hence, I am not contradicting myself when I use myself to deny rights to things other than the self. I am not using the wallet to deny Bob's right to his wallet. Hence there is no preformative contradiction. (If you still think there is a preformative contradiction, please demonstrate how. Please use logical form, if possible.) You cannot validly attempt to prove that property rights are valid while assuming that my use of an object is evidence of property rights. That is known as circular reasoning (AKA "begging the question"). You must prove the conclusion that "property rights exists" using premises that do not depend on property rights being assumed as true. That is the only proper way to do logic. If you do not believe me, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning. What is your definition for "rape"? If it is "having sex with someone without their permission" (as any dictionary will show a similar definition), then rape happened, regardless of the understanding or lack thereof of the rapist. The reason we do not punish people who do not understand their actions is: a) They do not understand that what they did hurt another person. b) They would gain no benefit from any punishment, since it would be meaningless to them in terms of teaching them anything. I regret your assessment of my position on this as "digging my heels in", as I am only trying to be accurate. The victim would not ask for permission from the rapist to rape them, and therefore they could rape him in turn if they wanted to. As for ignoring other people's goal satisfaction—as I hopefully have explained well enough above—that is perfectly valid. If I want the light switch on, and you want it off, only one of us can have our goal satisfied. That does not thereby make it wrong for you to achieve your goals when I fail mine, since there is not logical support for the equality of goal success. There is only logical validity for everyone's equality in their pursuit of their goals. Hopefully that is very clear, now.

I personally see nothing wrong with your photo at all, Ivan. There is nothing in it that would put me off, and I expect that goes for many other women as well. Obviously your photo would put off some people, but that is only because of subjective tastes in that regard. My advice would be to just be who you are. I personally could care less about what is currently "fashionable". I would rather find traits of intelligence and compassion in a potential mate than a "fashionable" haircut and a confident manner. I am not the only woman in existence who thinks this, I'm sure. The odds are not spectacular in terms of finding a non-religious, philosophically-interested, psychology-interested, attractive, healthy woman who also happens to be available. But they do exist. You just have to expect that it is going to take a lot more effort to find one and interest one. Don't be discouraged! (And I would personally recommend befriending women in real-life and online in philosophy/psychology forums.)

If both of them have the right to use force, and both of them use force, then they are both in the right, and they are both successful in practicing the moral theory without contradiction. This is not a logical problem at all, because their right to the use of the force does not infringe on anyone else's right to that same privilege. Anyone and everyone can use force without a contradiction occurring. This is because you cannot say that anyone doesn't have the right to use force. Just because I have a right to use it does not mean that you cannot use it. While I am adhering to the theory that "it is right to use force if it is necessary to satisfy the chosen goal" I am upholding everyone else's right to use force—even on me—as long as it satisfies their chosen goal. Hence there is no contradiction.

UPB is just logic applied to theories pertaining to human behaviours. And of course I believe any statements I make are subject to logic. By all means please subject my statements to logic. If my statement is that "action A satisfies goal B" it seems logic is on my side. UPB supports moral nihilism, because it cannot refute it. It is not self-contradictory to accept the fact that no action or goal can be proven to be superior than any other, outside the context of a specific goal. If UPB tests moral theories, then test this one: "It is right to use force if it is necessary to satisfy the chosen goal." Not only is that an objectively true statement, but it satisfies universality.

If we agree that social justification is "subject to" logical justification, then it is ultimately only logical justification that matters, and not the social justification. Correct? Then we agree. You were the one to introduce "social justification"—I just put a name to it. You brought up social justification by asking me to justify to Bob my taking his wallet. That is not a question of logic, because I had already given you the logical answer: That any justification cannot be separated from its goal, and therefore that the thief's logical justification lies in his/her goal. Therefore, asking me to justify something outside of the context of one's own goal is asking for a different kind of justification, other than logic. That is what I've been trying to get you to understand, and at times it sounded like you have understood that. But then you go and try to say that it is logical justification to separate goal and action again, and so I do not know how to make further progress. If you want to stay on this topic, then sure, I'm willing to try. But it is my suggestion that we try not to focus on the disagreement we have there, but rather we focus on what we do agree on: That logical justification rules. You established no such thing. You only asserted it as your opinion/belief, without any reason to take your word for it. I am committing no contradiction when I deny rights to things in reality, so logically my position is valid. Therefore I maintain my position until you can demonstrate where my logic is not sound. How does satisfying a personal goal—which is something allowed to everyone, universally—break with universality? What do you mean that "a person who cannot understand their actions cannot rape"? That is not true. Where did you get this idea from? It only means that they do not understand what they are doing, even though they are doing it. And I already acknowledged that rape was a violent action, done without permission. That is all there is to it that is "more" about it than love-making. Now that I have acknowledged that fact I can still logically validate it with goal-satisfaction. You are wrong about that, because I would accept the logical justification of rape, or theft, or whatever else. I still would think it is repugnant, but that is a separate matter from what is or isn't logically valid. Do you mean anything more than "logical justification" when you say "moral justification"? If so, please explain this difference and its validity as a concept.

Firstly, I don't want anyone to be intimidated by me! Maybe that doesn't come through here, but I am soft-spoken, shy, and amiable in real-life. If you guys would like to have a non-philosophical conversation some time, about movies, or whatever, I would enjoy that. Perhaps the seriousness in which I treat debates is obscuring my humanity for you. I am a flawed person, like everyone else, and unashamed to admit that. But as far as being "damaged" and "brutalized" I will have to disagree. It saddens me that you are concluding this about me without asking me, and talking as if I were not even here. Could I offer an alternative explanation for your feelings? Maybe you like being challenged. Maybe you like people who treat philosophy seriously. I know I like those traits in a person.

No, no. "Social justification" just means that the society you are in or the company you are in accepts what you are doing. It may or may not have anything to do with logic. They do not need to base their acceptance of it on logic. (They could accept it because they hope to gain from it, for example.) If something is logically valid of course it is separate from whether people accept it. That is my point. It didn't matter that people accepted slavery; slavery was still inhumane and unfair. Can we get off this line of discussion? I think it is only hindering progress. It suffices to say that I accept only logical validation as proof for the "rightness" of an action—I do not accept social justification, nor any other kind. I do understand. But: 1) You haven't established, logically, anyone's rights to property. 2) You haven't established, logically, that it would be "wrong" to take a person's property. Even if I acknowledge that it were theft (which I don't, but for the sake of argument, assume that I agree), you haven't demonstrated that theft is wrong if it satisfies my goal. I, as the thief, have logical justification on my side to defend my action of theft, if my goal is to "take money, by force, from Bob". What logical justification do you have that I shouldn't satisfy my own goal? They are just actions. I haven't "reduced them", but am only acknowledging that fact. What are you claiming they are, if not actions? Also, I do acknowledge differences amongst those actions. Obviously rape is different than love-making, because one involves force and the other doesn't. That permission was given or not given is demonstrable in reality. It is true that the only possible logical justifications for those actions are goal satisfaction, as far as I can see. If you see another way, then by all means, please enlighten me?

I chose those numbers simply to demonstrate that you get a false/incoherent answer when you separate otherwise correct answers from their proper formula. Huh? You are misunderstanding the rules of logic. First of all, Q is not a conclusion. It is a operand, like P. (And the same goes for my examples above.) Secondly, I'm afraid you're misunderstanding the use of the truth table in this circumstance. You cannot get a "true conclusion with a bad argument format". That would be illogical. Let me try to explain what I think is confusing you. In the circumstance of logical implication (modus ponens), when p is not satisfied, the truth of "p—>q" remains intact, regardless of whether q is satisfied or not. For example, if we let p represent "it is raining outside" and q represent "you will get wet if go outside without an umbrella", then just because it is not raining outside right now does not prove either: a) that you will not get wet if you go outside without an umbrella, for a reason other than rain, or b) that if it were to start raining, you wouldn't get wet if you went outside without an umbrella. The truth value of "p—>q" remains, even when it is not raining, and when you wouldn't get wet if you went outside without an umbrella. Do you see, now? Because if it were raining, then you would get wet if you went outside without an umbrella. That was my point. That "you must not use force" is a command, without truth value, for example. It only has truth value in context of the correct goal. So, for example: "To be a pacifist, you must not use force." An example of where it would be logically correct to use force: "To assassinate the Teletubby named Tinky Winky, you must use force."

Why would social justifications necessarily require logic? There is no reason they have to, which is my point. Logic cannot be illogical, but social justifications can be, because they are subjective. They would be invalid logically, but not necessarily socially. That is my point. People accepting them as true makes them socially justified, since that is the meaning of "socially justified". Whether it is logically justified is a separate matter. What do you mean by "moral justification"? Have you departed from "logical justification" or not? If not, then I have already given my logical justification in the form of goal satisfaction. My justification is my goal that requires assault, whatever that may be. For example, if some creepy guy kidnaps my children and tells me that I won't get them back until I assault a police officer... then I'd assault a police officer. If my goal was something different, for example, like I enjoy assaulting people, then that also would be valid if my goal is to have enjoyment. If you don't take this as a valid justification for such actions, then tell me what you take as a valid justification for self-defence? I hope you will see that self-defence is just another action to satisfy a goal. And goals are freely chosen.

A social justification would be something like "he purposefully trampled my prize-winning flowers that took me twenty years to breed, and now I will not be able to enter them in the competition to win $100,000, so I was angry, and slapped him, because he deserved it". I might also try a tactic of "he was much bigger than me, and stronger, and I felt threatened by him, so I hit him," which is more or less a socially-acceptable justification, since I am a very small and weak woman, who wouldn't be injuring him, anyways, by hitting him. Logic is something entirely separate from people's beliefs about what they find to be convincing. Logic is formal. Something is either valid or invalid, and that is it. If you want to use logic to justify actions, the only way that philosophers have thus far been able to do so, as stated above, is by tying them to a goal. You cannot separate the two. So, logically-speaking, "you must eat to live," is true, but "you must eat," is not true. Hence, "you must hit someone to make them scared of you," is true, but "you must hit someone," is not true. Just like math where 2+2=4, a statement is either logically valid or it is not, regardless of your opinion about it. Social justification is different, because it depends upon the society or company you are in. What is considered persuasive or acceptable depends entirely on the views of the people you are trying to convince. There would have been a time (not too long ago, unfortunately) in history, where I could try to justify owning slaves by saying "lots of people have slaves themselves, and it is legal". That might've worked as social justification at the time, but has nothing to do with it being logically valid. By the way, I have not been using social justifications in correcting people in this thread. I am only bringing up the difference between them, now, because when you are asking that someone justify their own actions to someone else with a different goal, the only possible way you can mean that is socially, because logically the other person's goal is irrelevant. Allow me to demonstrate: 2+2=4 and "If you want money without having to work, you should steal Bob's wallet" compared with 1+1=2 and "If you want to keep your money, you should defend yourself against theft" All of the above are logically true. It would be a mistake to mix up the conclusions from the source. When you are asking for me to prove to Bob why I should steal his wallet, when that is not Bob's goal, you are essentially mixing up the logical coherency. You are saying, If Bob wants to keep his money then why should you steal Bob's wallet? If you do that, your logic would look like this: 2+2=2 and "If you want to keep your money, you should steal Bob's wallet" 1+1=4 and "If you want money without having to work, you should defend yourself against theft" See what I did there? I mixed up all the conclusions with other sources. Obviously they become false, because their truth is only true insofar as it is attached to the correct question/goal. The correctness of "4" is true insofar as the question is 2+2 (or 1+1+1+1, or 3+1, and so on), and that you should steal somebody's wallet is only true regarding the goal that requires it. To ask to justify stealing Bob's wallet to Bob is tantamount to asking me to justify 4 as the correct answer for 1+1.