Noesis

What does "universally preferable behavior [sic]" mean here? How can moral rules "conform to reality", since they are not about reality, but what we would like (or not like) to happen in reality? There is a difference between systems made to describe reality as it is (math, science), and systems made to describe human choices of behaviour (morality). For math and science, we can make observations and find evidence to guide our thinking in those matters. For human choices of behaviour... we cannot. All choices/actions are all goal-relative. We make X choice to fulfil goal Y. Or we could, instead, make A choice, to fulfil goal B. Nobody can prove that one goal is superior to another. Our lives are our own, and no logical argument can be made that I should prefer peace instead of violence, or life instead of death, or logic instead of irrationality. If I prefer what you think of as "bad things", you must realize that there is nothing in reality that I'm not conforming with. If I like drowning puppies and punching people, that conforms with reality just fine. There is no universal, objective goal that all humans have to adhere to "to conform to reality". They are ALL conforming to reality by pursuing their own goals, even if those goals are directly contrary to yours. I didn't argue that Stef should use logic or proof for his argument. There is no reason he should. Some people prefer illogical arguments; and a lot of the time, those are more persuasive to the general population. Stefan can do whatever he wants. But he is the one supposedly holding himself to the standard of logic and evidence. All I am saying is that if he is aiming to be logical, then he is failing. That implies no "ought" whatsoever. "Flourish" and "fail" are subjective judgments, you realize? Besides, I've said before that I have no problem with societies that use social "property rights", because we all agree those are fictional, and without any logical basis. They are how mostly every society chooses to work. But I wouldn't say it would be "wrong" for a society to decide that that is not how they would like to do things, of course. Just because it's been a popular choice doesn't make it a right choice. I mean, for heaven's sake, Egyptian society "flourished" in certain aspects when they were using slaves to build pyramids. What type of "flourishing" could you possibly mean, and secondly, why do you think that your judgment of what is "flourishing" is any more important than anyone else's?

How are you claiming that the ownership was originally taken by the creator? You are using the same argument for both situations. You cannot say that it works in one case, and not the other. That is beside the point. My point is that under your idea of property, everything would quickly become incoherent. Which matters because...? That's my point: that it is so general it is meaningless. My point is that you cannot distinguish between the kinds of property you care about having rights to, and the other kinds (air you breathe, rocks you stumble over—anything and everything you touch or move). My point is that your definition of what becomes property, when it becomes property, why it becomes property, and how it becomes property doesn't make any sense. But if you'd like to go ahead and try to clarify those, I'd be happy to go over it with you. You own them, socially-speaking. You never owned them, in reality. If a lion walked by and ate your painting, you couldn't sue him, and reality wouldn't care. It is only human societies that have constructed ways of dividing stuff up, just 'cause we wanted to. Philosophically, the universe doesn't care what we think about who owns what. 'Cause it's all just made up rules.

Mhm? My end to that sentence explained that I believe it exists only subjectively (in people's heads). It doesn't exist, objectively. Hence we're only referring to opinions in our heads when we talk about "morality", and should never forget that. exist |igˈzist| verb 1 have objective reality or being

Right. I do not believe morality exists except as ideas/preferences about behaviour, inside people's heads. Obviously I (and most people) would continue to discourage people from doing things they don't agree with, like murder, rape, etc. But I do not think those things are "right" or "wrong" in any final sense. Only "right" or "wrong" in terms of different goals, and perspectives. Mhm.

I'll only participate in this thread as an afterthought from now on, but thanks for the welcome back. So if you paint the painting, you "own" the process of painting; you do not own the painting itself. Exactly. Any creation, production, building, labour, effort—all these actions are "owned" by you, which I am not disputing. There is an indisputable philosophical connection between the actions of a body and the consciousness of that body (regardless of whether that connection can be overridden by future technology). But there is no such self-evident connection between the painter and the painting in the sense of some kind of moral claim over it. It is fine to claim that you painted it—because that is true. You did. But just because you painted the painting does not give you authority over the painting. There is no philosophical reason why that should be. You are you. Your actions are yours. But the stuff in reality is just stuff in reality... no matter what you do to it. I should've brought this up earlier, as it is relevant to this discussion: Value is entirely subjective. When you are painting a painting or building a house, all you are doing is rearranging molecules to suit some goal/preference of yours. No one else necessarily finds any value in it whatsoever. To claim that you have clearly created something of value (to someone other than yourself) is ridiculous. You can create something of social value—something that society wants—but what society wants will always be constantly changing, as it is subjective. You cannot create something of objective value, because objective value doesn't exist. There needs to be someone to value it, in order for something to be valuable. My reason for saying the above is to point out that the idea that there is a "right" for a person to have control/use over their "creation of value" is absurd when put into practice. If I set fire to a bunch of trees, by accident, I have changed molecules in reality. The pile of ash that is left after the fire would now be my "creation", which I now "own". If someone comes along and walks through this ash, disturbing it, they have "vandalized" my "property", and according to this viewpoint, should now owe me compensation for damaging it. For an even clearer example of the absurdity: When I breathe air, or walk across sand, I am changing molecules in reality through my actions. According to your line of thought, I now own this air and sand. That doesn't work. This would be an absurd basis for property, even if you could prove it.

I have satisfying discussions with "ordinary folks" (I assume you mean non-university educated) all the time. But sometimes a common ground cannot be forged when the people involved in the discussion are coming from too different of mindsets. Or at least, we could probably eventually get there, but frankly I don't want to spend the time right now. I have my own reasons for wanting my education. It has nothing to do with planning an academic vocation—not that I would find anything wrong with that, although clearly you do. Anyways, I'm sure you'll find another discussion partner.

Those hundreds of posts I made were years ago. I didn't say you weren't up to my standards. I said that the discussion was not up to my standards. I'm used to the academic standards expected in a university Philosophy course, since that is one of the things I'm studying. And that is what I should be spending my time on.

This discussion does not meet my standards for a philosophical discussion, and I have better ways to spend my time.

I am bowing out of this discussion.

*blinks* I have been focused on discussing whether property rights are valid. Is that or is that not the discussion?

That doesn't make any sense, and is contradictory to what Stefan said. If that is how you want to choose to see it, then I cannot help you. [Also, if you think they are two different things, then what exactly do you believe is Molyneux's argument for the validity of property rights, since you think it is different from this? Hint: It is not different. It is this exact argument, because he is addressing the validity.] I am not going to spend any more of my time trying to convince you that you are misunderstanding me. Where did I insult you? Perhaps you took something I said the wrong way, because I haven't intended any offence. And I didn't notice you insulting me earlier. (I wouldn't mind if you did, though. I do not take offence easily.) Stefan believes that self-ownership is the basis that provides validity for property rights. This is the same argument as used in UPB, and UPB is supposed to contain his arguments. Does it, or does it not? Is it, or is it not the same exact argument? Answer that question and you will see that I am not off-topic at all.

A response to all three of you above: Am I the only one of us who has actually read UPB, here? Allow me to quote from it, to illustrate Molyneux's argument. After all, this thread is about his argument (see the title of thread), and none of you seem to be on his side. If you want to argue some other argument, you can go ahead, but this is not the thread for it. Note how he says "moral proposition". Yes, moral. As for the self-ownership business, that is only the first step of his argument. Without it, property rights could not be argued for. But self-ownership , by itself, does not prove property rights. Stefan acknowledges this, as so should you. If you do not grasp this, then I suggest re-reading UPB. Now, on to the part I am disputing: It is this logic (or lack thereof) that I am critical of. First of all, the language used here is confusing at best. Philosophical writing should be more accurate than this above quote. So let me break it down for you: 1) We "own" (read: have exclusive use/control over) our bodies. 2) We therefore "own" (read: are responsible for) the effects of our actions. 3) The material change in external reality resulting from my actions is what I now "own" (read: have a moral claim upon, to use/control it). Note the three different meanings of "own" in this line of reasoning. These three different usages of the word "own" are the problem—since if they all meant the same thing, there would logically be no issue. But because they mean different things, the logical connection is not there. The connection must be drawn from one meaning to the next, in any good philosophical argument. Now, I agree with 1. I also agree with 2. I agree with these because they are inarguable (barring consideration of determinism, but let's not get into that here). I do not agree with 3, because there is no contradiction made when arguing that I do not own such "effects of my actions" like a painting I have produced. If I say "I do not have a moral claim to use/control this painting I made," I am not falling into contradiction, like I would if I were to say, "I am not responsible for this sentence I am uttering right now". If I were the painting (and a talking painting at that ), and I said "I do not own myself," then I—as the painting—would be wrong, and contradicting myself in the action of using myself to say so. But that is not the case as an outside entity (the producer of the painting), saying that he/she does not own the painting. No contradiction is made, because I am not using/controlling the painting in the process of my saying that I do not claim a right to use/control the painting. Do you see the difference? If you still are having trouble with this, then please attempt to pinpoint the contradiction inherent in claiming no right to the material object you have produced. It is the moral connection between the action and the thing being acted upon that must be substantiated.

I get that there is such a thing as social "property rights", but I thought I had already clarified that I was not talking about that. It appears I have not yet been clear enough. I understand that societies can make up whatever rules they want to make up, on whatever basis. That is not philosophical question, but rather an observation of what people do. The philosophical question is whether there is a logical/rational basis for rights, that can be logically demonstrated, or if it just a matter of taste. That is the question of "natural rights", as it is most often referred to. I would like point out that you seem to be conflating the philosophical with the non-philosophical, when you say that "You own your argument, your actions, things given to you, things you earned contractually, etc. The proof is the social recognition," because your list contains both social and non-social types of "property". The fact that you "own" (I hate that word in this case, because it is the wrong word, as it really means "are responsible for"), your arguments and actions doesn't need social recognition whatsoever to philosophically prove it. Self-ownership can be logically proven to be true. The problem is that the rest of your list is the second type: the social/non-philosophical type, about possessions and contractual earnings. You must distinguish between these two types, before we move on. And please understand that I acknowledge society's power to do whatever it will do, but that is not what I am disputing, since that contains zero philosophical relevance. You're not necessarily representing institutional reality, unless the institution that rules your geographical area enforces such property rights. So yes, in America, you would be. But you must note that all that saying "I'm giving my ukulele to you" is truly conveying is that you believe that you have a claim of some kind on the ukulele, and that you are relinquishing it to me. Your statement, by itself, does not prove in any way whatsoever that you have a valid claim to that ukulele. Now, as for my accepting the ukelele, that does not imply that I ever believed you owned the ukulele, and it does not imply that I now believe that I have ownership of the ukulele when you give it to me. In my mind, I could just think you have misguided notions, and that neither of us have any superior claim over the object than anyone (or anything) else. (Or maybe I think that Tom owns the ukulele, regardless of what you say.) The important thing you must realize about "institutional/social/societal rights" is that they are subjective, in the sense that they are dependent on people's beliefs, and subject to change. That's obvious. They are ideas held in the minds of people who understand the concept, and if nobody thought this way, then it would not be true. It is entirely dependent upon what people choose to think. Now, it can be true/false that in today's legal system you either do or do not own the ukulele, of course. But I am of course not arguing against that at all. What I am taking issue with is the idea that you have a moral/philosophical claim to any object. This is a separate matter apart from what people think in society around you. This is an objective—not subjective—issue. To make this clear: If property rights were only an issue of social recognition, then if the government decides to take your house and car and money, because they write some law to make it so, then that would mean they are not stealing from you. It would mean you lost your social right to your possessions. But often, people believe that what society decides is not the end of the story. Aside from the popular opinion of society, there is another standard for "rights": a philosophically-based code of justice (i.e. morality), that exists apart from what a society chooses. Whether or not that is true is a philosophical question, and that is the question we need to answer if you want to argue for the idea that theft is morally wrong, or even morally possible. That's not true. It simply means that I understand that statement as referring to the social/legal "right" of property, and not necessarily the moral/philosophical meaning. That does not in any way imply that the ukulele is morally yours to give. It does not even imply that it is socially yours to give, because you might be mistaken in your statement, in the context of the law. You might believe that it is yours to give... but your belief of your ownership is not evidence of your ownership. As for claiming that my statement is mine... sure. Representing it as my own doesn't prove it is my own, though. (For example, if my twin sister makes a statement, and then I claim that statement as my own, I am not correct.) If I am claiming my own statement, I agree with you that I am responsible for it, and nobody else. But that is a separate matter from physical, external property, which philosophically must be treated differently, which I hope you can see by now. All you have proven is that what we already agreed on: That social "property rights" are valid as a standard for assessing a social right to an object, and that self-ownership is valid (so proves responsibility for actions/words). My disagreement is not with either of these things. My disagreement is with the idea that self-ownership is a philosophical basis that can extend to external property, validating some sort of moral right that transcends any social rights. Hopefully you understand my position now. Let me know if you need me to further explain.

It is quite easy to imagine how this would work, and you've probably imagined it already: The government is replaced by anarchy, or abolishes all laws concerned with property. There are always two different kinds of property rights: natural, and non-natural (social). We NEVER have natural rights, which is what I am arguing in this thread. It is obvious we can have social "rights", but the way they are made has nothing to do with logic, but rather depends on the subjective values of society. So if it helps you to imagine the social rights disappearing, that may help you to see what I am saying, which is that property rights do not spring forth naturally or logically, but simply are a system that most people like and find useful (for good reason). The fact that they like it, however, does not prove that property rights exist philosophically, and so you cannot use it as a basis for moral ownership.

I take issue here with "I claimed the right of ownership over the window and smashed it". You have not demonstrated logically that putting your time/labour into something thereby gives you ownership of it. I am not assuming this to be true, and it is not a valid form of argumentation for you to use it as an assumption in your proof for it. I cannot possibly be clearer about this: It is circular reasoning to use the concept within your proof for that very same concept. This is a basic logical fallacy. [You may want to see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning for more information.] Note the example in that Wikipedia article about circular reasoning. [A is true because B is true. B is true because A is true.] To try to further clarify, you are saying: "I have property rights because I own things I exert my time/labour on. I own things I exert my time/labour on because I have property rights." Using this pattern of argumentation proves neither claim. You must support your claim of ownership without assuming that it is already self-evident, because it is not. Just because I exert energy on an object implies nothing. There are obviously societies and tribes that do not treat possessions as owned by an individual, but instead objects are simply there for use for the collective group. This implies no ownership over an object just because you spend your time/labour on it. You must demonstrate your reasoning for why spending time/labour on a physical object means that nobody else can claim it—where does your rule come from? You cannot say that "it would be treating them like a slave, so it is bad, so therefore we must adhere to the idea property rights", because that is assuming that something is bad without proving it to be so. Smashing something someone created might be mean, and it may cause them harm, but there is no logical reason that doing something mean/harmful to someone is wrong. That is the Is-Ought Problem: you cannot say something is wrong just from observing facts about reality (like the smashed window). Just because the person who takes the window is profiting off of someone else's time/labour spent, does not prove that that is unjust. There is no rule that we can derive from reality that requires humans to be fair to each other. Just because I am doing something you dislike (taking the window) does not prove that rights exist. You are assuming that rights exist and that therefore what I did was wrong. But that is an invalid logical process. You must bridge the gap between: 1) I take the window, causing you to suffer. -----> 2) Taking the window and causing you to suffer is wrong. You take something. But you have not demonstrated that it was the window-maker's, to begin with. I need a reason from you to accept your assertion that putting time/labour into something thereby makes it yours. You must provide evidence for this claim. There can be no "relinquishing" of something that has not been justified yet. I am claiming that there never were any property rights to begin with, because using your time/labour does not thereby lead to a right to that object. Smashing a window does not "claim property rights over the window". I deny that any object can be owned by anyone, until proven otherwise. All matter and energy in the universe is simply there to use, by anyone or anything, with nobody having any special moral rights to use of it. Since you are making the claim otherwise, the burden of proof lies on you to demonstrate that a concept called "property rights" exists, and that it is logically valid. It cannot be "theft" if nobody owns it in the first place, which is my point. It is not "stealing". It is taking an object that has not been proven to be owned by anyone yet. And you cannot use the assumption that property rights exists in your proof that property rights exist. In philosophy you must be more precise than informal speech requires. If you're unwilling to do that, then the conversation cannot go anywhere interesting for me. You cannot be lazy and say "in some regards they are virtually the same thing"—that doesn't cut it. (In what regards? And "virtually the same thing" is not "the same thing".) That is not good enough. I am not sure we can have a productive conversation if you are unwilling to communicate your ideas to me in a precise manner. ________________________________________________________________________ [There is glitch, and I cannot directly reply to your post, Kevin. So my response to your post is:] I'm certainly not taking that premise as not needing justification, and we haven't already gone over it. If I already accepted that premise, we wouldn't be having this discussion. So no, I do not think it is unreasonable to request that all claims are supported in a philosophical discussion.

I'm having difficulty with your premises in the following ways: 1. For (P5), how do you figure that you have taken their time and labour, when that time and labour was already put into the window? It was the window that "took" the time and labour. The window is an effect of that time and labour. [is that your proposed definition for the basis if property, then?] Why don't you think that if you break it, which uses your own time and labour, that you do not now own the window, according to this idea? 2. In (P5) you are begging the question, because you are assuming that the window is the property of the person who made it. You cannot validly use the concept of property within the proofs you are using as your justification for property. That is circular reasoning. 3. In (P6), you say "taking their time/labor against their will while asserting my time/labor cannot be taken in such a way". Where did you get this idea that I would assert that my own time/labour cannot be taken in such a way? I am not making that claim. The window-smasher thinks that anyone is free to smash or break anything they have put their labour/time into. 4. (P6) is not a premise, but a conclusion that needs its own set of premises for logical support. You cannot assert that an insurmountable logical contradiction has taken place, without first demonstrating that to be true. 5. (P7) incorrectly assumes that a right is being claimed. It ignores the alternative: that all rights are being denied. The definition of "own" which I was using was "the moral/legal right to use, control, or destroy". Obviously this has a different meaning than responsibility. Are you claiming anything else aside from responsibility for the murder when you say "I would have chosen the wrong-doing and have ownership of it"? If you are, then please explain what more you are saying about it, other than it being the result of your consciousness.

The Is-Ought Problem is not surmountable, which is the whole reason it is a problem. Just sticking in another step is not going to allow you to get a moral prescription from descriptive statements. So, sure, let's add in as a fourth premises your new statement: P4) Humans are interacting with each other. ... What rights do you believe are "activated" from this occurrence, and why? Where do they come from? Why are you saying that you "own that murder"? That is a meaningless statement, because you are incorrectly using the word "own". The word "own" has a specific definition, and you cannot use it there as a synonym for "responsible for". I agree that you are responsible for the murder—and that is all. That is all you are saying and all you can say, without making an illogical leap. To use the word "own" is unnecessarily confusing, and you have no reason to introduce that word in this case. If you insist on continuing to use it, then please give me the definition of the word "own" which you are applying to this case of your action of murdering, since a past action is not something you can have control of or possess.

If you pick up an object, or move an object, then you are simply using your own energy. By what argument does the fact that you are producing an effect on the object thereby mean that you own the object? If this is the definition for "ownership" that you are using, then if someone produces an effect on a possession of yours, they would now own it, according to your own logic. You cannot have one definition for a word in one moment, and suspend it the next. What exactly is the distinction you are attempting to make between "ownership" versus "exercising ownership", and what reasons have you for drawing it? Where do you get this idea that applying energy to something means you have the right to keep, control, use (etc.) it? By what chain of logic can you reach that conclusion? If you could write out the premises as you understand them, that would be very useful.

Ah, allow me to clarify. They believe that no objective right to property exists. They can (and should) believe that "property rights" as a human construct, however, does exist. Hence "stealing" is a specific circumstance that you can be caught and punished for, regardless of its moral status (or lack thereof) in reality. Also it is simply not sound to say that because I have no right to exclusive control to any possession that I cannot defend my ability to control it simply because I want to. I need to give absolutely no justification for it. If I do not believe that you have any moral rights to property, or that I have any, that means that we are on even ground. You may try to take it from me, and I may try to take things from you. That is a perfectly valid stance to hold even when you do not believe in the mystical "natural right" to property. "Taking someone's property against their will" isn't quite the correct definition for "stealing". It means "taking it without their permission, when they have the right to it, and you do not have that right". But the "rights" that are referred to, for example, in today's society are those that need not have any moral basis. Laws are laws, and rights within the law are fictions that are created and enforced, through the process of the system. These type of "rights" should not be confused with "natural rights" which are supposably derived through logic, merely by acknowledging facts of reality. If a law was made tomorrow that everyone has a right to take whatever they like from anyone, that would mean they now have the legal right to do so. It says nothing whatsoever of the moral right (if there is such a thing). I have every legal right to protect my stuff from you taking it, and I will do so. That does not mean that I am somehow implicitly acknowledging a moral right of mine to protect my stuff. I am not. I don't. I have no such moral right. But you also, in my view, have no moral right to just come and take my stuff. There is no basis for that, either. Hence it is the way things are in nature: it is a free-for-all.

I'd like to add my two cents, if I may. First, I will preface what I am about to say by agreeing that "self-ownership" (in the sense of "exclusive control over one's body" and in the sense of "being responsible for the actions of my body") is true, so that hopefully nobody will be confused about my meaning. Now, on to addressing this line of reasoning. I find it ineffectual for the same reason the other people in this thread find it so as well: Self-ownership (remember: exclusive control over your body/actions) is not the same as property ownership. They are different things, and so it is not sufficient, logically, to say that if I "own"—a better word would be "control"—myself that that somehow proves that I also am entitled (in the sense of having rights) to something that is not something that only I have exclusive use of (i.e. property). The concept of self-ownership ends where the self ends and the external world begins. So, here is the chain of logic as far as I understand it: P1) I control myself exclusively (as nobody else can get inside my consciousness to control it). P2) I am responsible for all my actions (since they are a result of my consciousness, which I control). P3) I am responsible for the effects of my actions (because the window would not be broken if I hadn't shot at it). Now, here is the disconnect. The assertion that the above premises prove: C1) I own (in the sense of having rights to the use and control of) the "effects of my actions", "results of my labour", or "unclaimed stuff I come across and lay claim to". There is no such proof for this contained in any of the three premises. They are merely talking about your inner consciousness and what that consciousness is responsible for in the external world. But responsibility for is not the same as ownership of. Those are two distinct things, requiring two distinct types of evidence. Even if I am responsible for the chair existing, all that means is that the result of my internal consciousness' choices led to the rearranging of some molecules in the physical, external world, through action. The exact same thing happens when I breathe air. Or walk along a beach. That does not imply or prove that there is an ought that exists that gives me ownership of that sand on the beach or the air that I am breathing. It simply means that I am using the sand, or the wood, or air, or whatever it is that I am interacting with. Using it—for whatever reason—does not mean I therefore own it. As for society's understanding of "property rights", yes, that is quite a different matter. But it is entirely disconnected from the self-ownership argument put forth. If people believe that private property is a good concept to adhere to for a well-functioning society to prosper, and it is enforced or discouraged by some structured means, then you can say that you have a "right" to your property because everyone (or mostly everyone) believes that you do, according to the law or contract or whatever. But this has nothing to do with the self-ownership argument, as what people believe is not something derived through logic from reality. The self-ownership argument being used to try to prove that property ownership is true is therefore an incorrect use of the argument. To make this extra clear: the way that the word "ownership" is used in the concept of "self-ownership" is to mean exclusive use of. To extend this concept of "ownership" to possessions in the physical world is misguided and non-sensical, as possessions like cars, wood, and land are not things that any human has an axiomatic exclusive control over. Any person could come along and steal it, or use it without us knowing (and if they are using it/controlling it, according to the misguided notion, they would now "own" it, which corrupts the concept of property entirely). And when we die, these things do not evaporate out of existence due to the fact that we "owned" them, used them, created them, or stumbled across them first. They have absolutely no tangible tie to our consciousness. Reality does not care or have a moral code embedded in it that requires that the person who's actions resulted in some change gets to profit upon that effort. That is entirely a human concept. It is not an objective, reality-based phenomenon, like gravity is. "Ownership" is not something that can be observed through physical evidence. Ever. And it is also not something that can be arrived at through reason/logic, as many philosophers have acknowledged via the Is-Ought Problem. I hope I didn't repeat myself or ramble. If anything is unclear to anyone, please let me know where the precise issue lies. Also, one last thing: It is entirely possible for someone to never write or utter the statement that "self-ownership or property rights do not exist", and yet they may not believe in the idea (for example, they may feel as if they are being controlled by voices in their head, by a witch, etc.). Then this person may go around stealing. At no point do they contradict themselves, since they have not made any claims. Therefore that argument is irrelevant. If you think that it doesn't matter that he has not made any claims, then clearly the over-used argument of someone acting in contradiction to their stated claim is an irrelevant argument, and so it should stop being repeated as if it has something to do with the matter at hand. No matter which position you take (you agree with me or disagree with me on this reasoning), that argument is irrelevant.