june Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 This question you have is almost verbatim asked by the second mailbag asker in the . Did you watch it? If not, why not? If you did, how was that answer not satisfactory? (It start ~8min)This is my thousandth post! Woohoo!im posting through 3g and my data is limited so i cant /wont wastethe bandwidth on videos right now. I will certainly watch it when possible . Just to be clear: are you agreeing with the answers stefgives (im assumjng its one of his videos)?@june: Where does self-ownership come from is a discussion ongoing right here in a thread that you have participated in. If you wish to come to a definition by asking on these boards, that would be a great place to start.In the meantime, you've made the claim that I do not own my body, so I'm asking who does. Your claim did not imply uncertainty, so this question would be easy to answer WHILE trying to "pry from me" that which is elaborate and on display in a place I know you are familiar with. If you can tell me who owns my body and you are right, then it doesn't matter what self-ownership is or the fact that I accept it because it will have been superceded."Where does self-ownership come from is a discussion ongoing right here in a thread that you have participated in. If you wish to come to a definition by asking on these boards, that would be a great place to start."So th discussion we arehaving right now is no longer valid, and you are attempting to redirect it to another thread (which you have left unnamed). Why are you just suggesting this now, its like you are constantly trying skirt the act of actually defining "selfownership". Is it because you do not in fact have a definition for that which you claim to be true?Just to be clear, it was you who stated such in this thread: "Your contesting of it is proof that it cannot be contested. Unless somebody else used your fingers to type that.""In the meantime, you've made the claim that I do not own my body, so I'm asking who does. "Again, that was not a claim, it was an argument against what you stated. I mimiced exactly what you said but changed the subjects (doctor/you) so as to clearly point out a fallacy in your reasoning. You have yet to addres this fallacy. You have yet to define selfownership. You have yet to define what selfownership entails (4th time ive had to bring up this obvious matter). This discussion is futile if you - the person who claimed to hold uncontestable proof of selfownership - cannot define what selfownership as actualy is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 But that seems to argue the other way. We are discussing universality and unwantedness. TDB definitely doesn't want to finish the assignment, it is unwanted, it violates his aesthetic preference. Yet the rules still applies. Last time you asked me, I said that the unwantedness has nothing to do with any standards, but rather is a description of what murder is, and how the universality fail is not concerning the unwantedness, but rather the fact that Bob cannot say murder is UPB and say what's his face should not murder him back. What specifically was lacking in this clarification? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDB Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Last time you asked me, I said that the unwantedness has nothing to do with any standards, but rather is a description of what murder is, and how the universality fail is not concerning the unwantedness, but rather the fact that Bob cannot say murder is UPB and say what's his face should not murder him back. What specifically was lacking in this clarification?So you're saying, murder is unwanted, or it's not murder. Both of the 2 guys in the room want to murder each other, but neither wants to be murdered. So for murder to be UPB, they would need to be able to say "murder is UPB and I think it's fine for the other guy to murder me?" I am still not seeing the necessity. This just seems to toss their opinions about the rule in arbitrarily. Would a supporter of slavery be able to say freeing slaves is not UPB, because the slave owners don't want it? I keep wanting to say there is an asymmetry between the murderer and victim, but both the 2 guys are potential murderers and potential victims. Stef's discussion of murder on page 73 never mentions the mismatch between the universal preference and their personal preferences, he just points out that they have to immediately try to kill each other and if one survives he is then evil again and has to go looking for another victim. I think we could say this much quicker by saying it would be absurd to think "murder is UPB." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 A person's personal preference (like in the sense that I prefer chocolate to vanilla) has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the truth value of moral arguments within the framework UPB. If there truly is an argument at the heart of UPB that relies on a personal preference as the basis for something being moral or immoral, then that part needs to be addressed and re-written or the point conceded. Not to mention that it completely defeats the purpose of the theory: to establish what is true about morality regardless of people's individual preferences. If I say it's UPB to play minesweeper for two hours a day, but I don't want you to because you're better at it than I am (haha, yea right, there's no one better than me at minesweeper), then for me to put forward the moral argument for everyone except you, it's the proposition that has the universality fail regardless of whether or not I did or didn't personally prefer you not to play minesweeper. The context here only provides a reason as to why I'd put forward this moral position, it doesn't actually bear on it's validity. It's not the "unwantedness" that is the source of the problem. It's the moral argument that's being evaluated. Whether or not Bob wants to live and not be shot makes no difference whatsoever regarding the universality. It's the fact that "murder is UPB" doesn't apply to Doug in Bob's formulation that it's not universal, and thus not UPB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 @june: You are being obtuse, so I must ask: What is your purpose in this thread? Mine is to seek the truth.I'm not going to retype that entire topic to satisfy your question for that which was already provided. At the time you posted in that topic (entitled unimaginatively enough: where does self-ownership come from?), these two threads were adjacent.Near as I can tell, you make use of your body and you're capable of reason, therefor you own yourself.Now, you brought up your dad's computer as if usage was the only criteria. I clarified that usage alone was not enough, citing that a surgeon doesn't own your body just because you're letting him use it. At which point you said, "you don't own you" which you've now provided the explanation of I mimiced exactly what you said but changed the subjects (doctor/you) so as to clearly point out a fallacy in your reasoning.As if swapping out words won't change a statement's meaning. To which I've asked you who does own me that is allowing me to make use of it. I'm not going to bother counting the amount of times to throw in your face because this reciting the minutes shit is unnecessary where there's text...Unless the person is being combative or obtuse for their own amusement. So tell me who I'm renting my body from or withdraw the demonstrably false claim. Or argument if you prefer. I don't care of its category, just that it's false and that you don't believe you can just make false statements on a philosophy board and get to escape them by asking people what the word "the" means over and over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 This discussion is futile if you - the person who claimed to hold uncontestable proof of selfownership - cannot define what selfownership as actualy is. Wikipedia says: Self-ownership is the concept of property in one's own person, expressed as the moral or natural right of a person to have bodily integrity, and be the exclusive controller of his own body and life. It's completely irrational to say that someone is wrong about something they haven't in some way defined, because wrong about what? But if they have defined it, at least enough to debate, then they have actually defined it. Either way, you've got some 'splainin' to do oooooooo, gotcha! Also, another podcast about this topic of self ownership and property rights: 67 – Property Rights http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/property_rights.mp3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
june Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 @june: You are being obtuse, so I must ask: What is your purpose in this thread? Mine is to seek the truth.I'm not going to retype that entire topic to satisfy your question for that which was already provided. At the time you posted in that topic (entitled unimaginatively enough: where does self-ownership come from?), these two threads were adjacent.Near as I can tell, you make use of your body and you're capable of reason, therefor you own yourself.Now, you brought up your dad's computer as if usage was the only criteria. I clarified that usage alone was not enough, citing that a surgeon doesn't own your body just because you're letting him use it. At which point you said, "you don't own you" which you've now provided the explanation ofAs if swapping out words won't change a statement's meaning. To which I've asked you who does own me that is allowing me to make use of it. I'm not going to bother counting the amount of times to throw in your face because this reciting the minutes shit is unnecessary where there's text...Unless the person is being combative or obtuse for their own amusement. So tell me who I'm renting my body from or withdraw the demonstrably false claim. Or argument if you prefer. I don't care of its category, just that it's false and that you don't believe you can just make false statements on a philosophy board and get to escape them by asking people what the word "the" means over and over."You are being obtuse, so I must ask: What is your purpose in this thread? Mine is to seek the truth."What is obtuse about me explicitly asking you for your definition of selfownership in a discussion in which you claim that selfownership is uncontestable? And you still havent defined it!!!"I'm not going to retype that entire topic to satisfy your question for that which was already provided. At the time you posted in that topic (entitled unimaginatively enough: where does self-ownership come from?), these two threads were adjacent."I read through that topic. You did not provide your definition of selfownership in it."Now, you brought up your dad's computer as if usage was the only criteria. I clarified that usage alone was not enough..."how does that fit in with your earlier statement (the one which sparked this discussion)?: "Your contesting of it is proof that it cannot be contested. Unless somebody else used your fingers to type that." Have you since recinded this statement of 'proof'?"So tell me who I'm renting my body from or withdraw the demonstrably false claim. Or argument if you prefer. I don't care of its category, just that it's false and that you don't believe you can just make false statements on a philosophy board and get to escape them by asking people what the word "the" means over and over."It was not a claim. I have nothing to withdraw as i never stated anything. You are the one claiming selfownership is uncontestable. You are the one presetenting the claim. I am merely putting your reasoning to test. I pointed out a logical flaw in your reasoning and you are responding with "yeah, well if im wrong, then whats the answer tough guy?!". You do not seem to realise that i have not stated an answer, nor eve that i have one. All i have done is apply logic to your assertation and reasoning of selfownership. All you have done is deflect from having to defend your reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 What is obtuse about me explicitly asking you for your definition of selfownership in a discussion in which you claim that selfownership is uncontestable? And you still havent defined it!!!Let me count the ways:1) It's a concept you understand whether you accept it or not.2) It's a concept you've participated in the discussion regarding.3) The thread you participated in was right there all along.4) Wikipedia apparently had your answer.5) Numerous sources have information regarding this.6) You are withholding an answer until such a time I do any of that work for you.7) I did define it, yet you continue to claim it didn't happen.8) I did define it, yet you continue to withhold the answer to my question.9) You are now claiming that you never made the claim, even though it's right there in text AND additional text is present where you explain WHY you did the thing you now claim you didn't do.9.5) You are pretending you do not know what it means to be obtuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Exceptionalist Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 This guy who ended up in the desert thursty had a choice, to prepare himself for the desert. He have chosen not to, so he cannot just steal water from somebody without being immoral. Similar scenario, someone smoked like a chimny his whole life and dies from lunge cancer if nobody sacrifices his lunge for him. Nobody wants to help and - to simplify the scenario - there ain't no other options availabled. Killing the neigbour and stealing his lunge would be immoral, because he had a choice. If only the choices availabled at the moment were the foundation of a moral judgement, you could bring yourself into a life-and-death scenario out of poor choices and were free to do anything to remedy your suffering, even by force and murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 This guy who ended up in the desert thursty had a choice, to prepare himself for the desert. He have chosen not to, so he cannot just steal water from somebody without being immoral. Similar scenario, someone smoked like a chimny his whole life and dies from lunge cancer if nobody sacrifices his lunge for him. Nobody wants to help and - to simplify the scenario - there ain't no other options availabled. Killing the neigbour and stealing his lunge would be immoral, because he had a choice. These two scenarios are obviously different. This is like equating "I decided to keep living on still after the day I discovered what suicide was" as a choice in the same sense that someone chose to pull out a gun and shoot someone in some gang war. That's not very honest. And it's really annoying. (Can someone help me find the video where stef is talking in a nasally voice imitating the nit picker in an ethics class talking about flagpole scenarios?) And whatever gray areas there are, they can be figured out in whatever future DRO systems we have set up. The fact that there is some ambiguity at the far edges of the theory is of little consequence that I can see. Nothing against you personally, I don't know you, it's just that your argument is as silly as saying that nobody is responsible for any crimes if they choose to get out of bed in the morning, or at least, you are portraying it as if that's the logical consequence of the theory. It's ridiculous. Imagine if I were to try to take down UPB by addressing the coma test this way: Like the man in the coma, everyone is at least partially unconscious in some aspects or part of the time, so any moral argument should apply to the man in the coma as well. Therefore jumping up and down 24/7 can be UPB, and thus UPB is absurdly false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatrickC Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 The flagpole scenarios are sadly still here from time to time.. But for those more recent to the boards, you'll be glad to know, they're a lot less prevalent.. Man I sound like an old timer.. meh! grumble! & pah! Seems like a great epitaph for my now defunct and used up 2000th post... Grumble away trolls! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Usethem Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 I'm sorry if this has been posted before. If I'm a woman in saudi arabia, and I grew up with propaganda that it is my duty to serve my husband and heir a son, would serving my husband and birthing a son not be what is moral? What if I was born in 1850 on a farm? Would it not be the moral duty of the wife to have 8 children to help with the farm work? What if you were in your 20's in 1776 in america. If you want freedom the moral thing to do would be to join Washington's army. If you want to live, the moral thing would be join the crown? What about today? I would say that its to leave your children with a better world than you received. So why isn't morality relative and subjective? I suspect that I am conflating "morality" with annother word I am unaware of. Anyone care to shed light? I think the problem sometimes is that we associate objectivity with distance, whether that distance is spatial, temporal, real or imagined. Its a lot harder to be objective the closer you get to anything, whether its a quantum state or an individual human being. If you and someone else were blind-folded and walked right up against a painting, the blindfolds were taken off and you were asked to describe what you saw, you'd both have a subjective judgement about a situation. I don't know if this is considered an explanation of anything but I thought your post was worth elaborating on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 (Can someone help me find the video where stef is talking in a nasally voice imitating the nit picker in an ethics class talking about flagpole scenarios?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Haha, yes. Thank you. (It starts around 15mins) Also, I could be completely mistaken and I apologize if I am, but WhoDanny, wasn't it you that said (or at least implied) that any ethical theory that said that a man walking by refusing to save a drowning child isn't evil must be false? This video dsayers linked actually goes into that as well (see YAD principle). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts