Stef's argument for self-ownership = Tu Quoque fallacy?

[MMX2010]

Getting from the facts of self-ownership to property rights is not that hard if you stop looking for those rights in the external world but rather look for them in the logic of human interaction (and I'm not just referring to praxeolgoy).

 

I agree with you, and I think Noesis is setting up a situation similar to the following:

 

(1) If no humans existed, then human love would no longer exist and would, therefore, be impossible to understand. 

 

(2) Therefore, human love can neither be understood, nor be said to exist, because it vanishes whenever I imagine a world without human beings. 

 

But that line-of-reasoning is just a parlor trick, because if you really want to understand human love, you would never consider a world without human beings.  You'd begin with a world that contains human beings, and then observe from there. 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

I agree with you, and I think Noesis is setting up a situation similar to the following:

 

(1) If no humans existed, then human love would no longer exist and would, therefore, be impossible to understand. 

 

(2) Therefore, human love can neither be understood, nor be said to exist, because it vanishes whenever I imagine a world without human beings. 

 

But that line-of-reasoning is just a parlor trick, because if you really want to understand human love, you would never consider a world without human beings.  You'd begin with a world that contains human beings, and then observe from there. 

It's brainwashing. We're all victims of it to a certain degree. Our childhood and cultural experience of ethics is that of externally imposed commandments. It's hard to unlearn it and the supposed is/ought problem helps make it harder. 

[Noesis]

P4 would not just be "humans are interacting with each other" because that doesn't tell you if they're interacting in some relevant way. It's a bit too broad. The further premises could go as follows.

P4: Someone else wants restitution for the effects of my actions (the person who's window I shot).

P5: As the breaking of the window was an effect of my voluntary actions and the window's existence is an effect of their time/ labor I have taken their time/labor

P6: Any justification for that action (breaking the window) will face insurmountable logical contradiction as I am arbitrarily claiming a right I deny another (taking their time/labor against their will while asserting my time/labor cannot be taken in such a way).

P7:  Thus I am claiming the right (behavior for which there's no moral prohibition) to the other person's time/labor and as such ownership over the effects of my actions (Breaking the others window is an effect of my actions and I have a right to break the other persons window)

 

Getting from the facts of self-ownership to property rights is not that hard if you stop looking for those rights in the external world but rather look for them in the logic of human interaction (and I'm not just referring to praxeolgoy).

 

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. 

 

 

You should probably tell me what specific definition of "own" you're using and how I'm misusing it. Other than the fact that "own" is not commonly used to refer to things like ownership of wrong doing, etc I see no misuse. The only illogical leap is the one you are creating by constantly framing how we get from self-ownership to property rights as a fact/value violation. 

It's not necessarily the ACTION of murdering that I would claim ownership over. Actions are just movements in space and time. It's the murder. The moral violation. I would have chosen the wrong-doing and have ownership of it whether I like it or not. One could also say that I have responsibility for the murder and in certain contexts they may mean the same thing. But these words are often used as synonyms for each other for a reason. It's because self-ownership is directly related to property and often there is no clear distinction.

 

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. 

[MMX2010]

It's brainwashing. We're all victims of it to a certain degree. Our childhood and cultural experience of ethics is that of externally imposed commandments. It's hard to unlearn it and the supposed is/ought problem helps make it harder. 

 

That's interesting.  I'm about to say, on the FDR message board no less, that "I find it fascinating the degree to which people cannot explore ethics from an empirical / scientific perspective." 

 

(That's exactly like how I say, so many times, "I can't believe the degree to which childhood trauma negatively influences so many of our viewpoints.") 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

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. 

1) Yes, the time and labour went into the window. If I smash the window then I've destroyed the value that was created. I have taken that time and labor. I claimed the right of ownership over the window and smashed it. The window represented that time/labor and I took that time/labor and destroyed it by destroying the product. 

Let's say I stole the window (to sell or use in my own house). The person has used their time/labor to create the value of the window. The window is a product of that time/labor. When I take the window I take the value but I did not create the value. I essentially have retroactively enslaved the window maker. I have taken their time and labor. It's the same as if I made them work for me against their will. If I destroy the window then it's the same thing. What I do with or to the window is not the point.

 

You can't OWN the window just by expending time and labor smashing it because that time and labor did not create the window, only the smashed window. If you chose to smash it then axiomatically you must have claimed the right to smash it. You now own the effect of having smashed the window.

 

2) There's no circular reasoning. I said "As the breaking of the window was an effect of my voluntary actions and the window's existence is an effect of their time/ labor I have taken their time/labor". What part of that is untrue or unproven? The window IS an effect of their time and labor, right? If you smash the window then you're taking something from the window maker, right?

 

3) The window-smasher (assuming they're not insane) does not think anyone is free to smash anything they have put their time into. That would require a total relinquishing of all property rights. But they axiomatically claim property rights over the window in order to smash it. It is logically impossible to claim property rights while rejecting property rights. 

 

4) I did demonstrate it to be true by pointing out that the window smasher would be taking someone's time and labor while asserting (implicitly or explicitly through behavior or statements, etc) their time and labor cannot be taken that way. The breaking of the window is a form of theft (vandalism). The thief takes from another against their will but the thief CANNOT voluntarily allow others to steal from her because then it would not be theft. No one can voluntarily be raped, murdered, robbed or assaulted. Therefore no one can assert that others may rape, murder, rob or assault them. BY DEFINITION these things must be unwanted. That's why your objection 3) above is especially preposterous. 

 

5) I'm not sure I understand this objection. How can all rights be being denied if the window-smasher is not being denied the right to smash the window?  The window-smasher smashed the window. Obviously they are claiming the right to smash the window. Even if they are a dumb thug who hasn't ever thought about ethics they are still claiming the right through their actions.

 

 

There are some distinctions between ownership and responsibility but in some regards they are virtually the same thing. Phrases like "Own your own shit" and "take responsibility for yourself" are basically the same thing, right? The fact that ownership and responsibility can overlap to the point of being indistinguishable is further evidence for the legitimacy of the link between self-ownership and property rights.

[Kevin Beal]

[X] is not a premise, but a conclusion that needs its own set of premises for logical support.

This is totally nitpicking, but premises are themselves conclusions. It's just that either the premises are first principles, are supported by other premises or are otherwise taken as not needing justification, like if we've already gone over it, or if denying it makes you look crazy or something, haha.

 

The form is simply "if you accept X, then you ought to accept Y".

[Noesis]

1) Yes, the time and labour went into the window. If I smash the window then I've destroyed the value that was created. I have taken that time and labor. I claimed the right of ownership over the window and smashed it. The window represented that time/labor and I took that time/labor and destroyed it by destroying the product. 

 

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).  

 

 

Let's say I stole the window (to sell or use in my own house). The person has used their time/labor to create the value of the window. The window is a product of that time/labor. When I take the window I take the value but I did not create the value. I essentially have retroactively enslaved the window maker. I have taken their time and labor. It's the same as if I made them work for me against their will. If I destroy the window then it's the same thing. What I do with or to the window is not the point.

 

You can't OWN the window just by expending time and labor smashing it because that time and labor did not create the window, only the smashed window. If you chose to smash it then axiomatically you must have claimed the right to smash it. You now own the effect of having smashed the 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. 

 

 

2) There's no circular reasoning. I said "As the breaking of the window was an effect of my voluntary actions and the window's existence is an effect of their time/ labor I have taken their time/labor". What part of that is untrue or unproven? The window IS an effect of their time and labor, right? If you smash the window then you're taking something from the window maker, right?

 

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.

 

 

3) The window-smasher (assuming they're not insane) does not think anyone is free to smash anything they have put their time into. That would require a total relinquishing of all property rights. But they axiomatically claim property rights over the window in order to smash it. It is logically impossible to claim property rights while rejecting property rights. 

 

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.  

 

 

The thief takes from another against their will but the thief CANNOT voluntarily allow others to steal from her because then it would not be theft. No one can voluntarily be raped, murdered, robbed or assaulted. Therefore no one can assert that others may rape, murder, rob or assault them. BY DEFINITION these things must be unwanted. That's why your objection 3) above is especially preposterous. 

 

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.

 

There are some distinctions between ownership and responsibility but in some regards they are virtually the same thing. Phrases like "Own your own shit" and "take responsibility for yourself" are basically the same thing, right? The fact that ownership and responsibility can overlap to the point of being indistinguishable is further evidence for the legitimacy of the link between self-ownership and property rights.

 

 

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. 

Edited April 1, 2014 by Noesis

[Kevin Beal]

[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 figured as much. Just nitpicking.

[Andrew79]

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.

Do you have a link to a site, book, video, or any other source of information about how this would work?And would this thought process be applied to anything else?I'm always interested in learning more about new systems of property (or in this case anti-property), so thanks in advance.

[Kevin Beal]

Concepts do not exist. "Property rights exist" is a false statement. Property rights describe an epistemic social "reality" that uses "status functions" (see my previous post about this) and more or less valid claims to the ownership of objects as understood socially. This in the same way that money serves a status function, and it's relationship to our subjective value of goods.

 

Property, in this sense, means responsibility and superior claim over objects (as compared to other people).

 

You own your argument, your actions, things given to you, things you earned contractually, etc.

 

The proof is the social recognition. It's not an ontological issue. You aren't going to find a stamp that says "Kevin" written in aether on the molecules that compose my computer that I'm typing on.

 

If they can get you to ask the wrong questions, then it doesn't matter what the answer is. It's important to know what property rights actually are, first. Because if you don't know, then what in the h-e-double-hockey-sticks are you arguing against? Certainly not property rights

[Kevin Beal]

One reason that human languages are setup to describe concepts as existing is because these statements are meant to describe "institutional reality". We cause certain institutional facts to "exist" by representing them as existing.

 

If I say (for example) that I'm giving my ukulele to you, I am representing the institutional reality of your private property over what was my ukulele. I have a desire for you to have my ukulele, which is an intentional state with the condition of satisfaction that you come to have my ukulele. In telling you through language that I want you to have it and that I intend to give it to you, in order for it to mean something, you have to acknowledge what is meant. That is, you recognize and represent objects as being my property and soon to be yours.

 

Institutional reality does not exist. Money does not exist. The United States does not exist. When we refer to these things as real objects, what we are talking about, really, is our collective representation of their existence.

 

Property specifically refers to responsibility. "You've got the job!", for example, means that you are responsible to the commitments involved in carrying out the job. And if you do not take responsibility, you may very well lose the job.

 

We are responsible for cars, houses, our land, pets, etc. If you leave what is publicly considered your car on the side of the road, abandoning it, you will probably be fined after it's been impounded because you function as the one responsible: the owner. It may turn out that they were mistaken and you had signed it away already, or they misread the VIN # or something, in which case they can be said to be mistaken. But if you say that private property is an invalid, null concept, then you cannot say that the statement "this is your car that we impounded" to be false. At least not for the reason stated (wrong VIN # or whatever).

 

Further, many statements necessarily imply other things. If I say that I'm giving you my ukulele, it already implies that it's mine to give, that "to give" means something, that there is a ukulele that exists, etc. A statement like "when I said this, I meant that" implies that you were the one who said it, that you believe someone mistook your meaning, that you have a claim over what you said that other people don't, and so on. What you imply is ownership over what you said. You are responsible for it and are committed publicly to it's veracity. You are representing it as being your own, and so it is.

 

You could say "what if someone else represents my statement as being their own?", in which case we can say that it's false for reasons that we've empirically observed. It has your name attached, written in your style, toward your own position, etc. And what this means is that we both agree that simple representation isn't enough. There is a standard necessary, and you are conceding that private property is not completely arbitrary, and that any seeming arbitrariness has at least some relation to these basic empirical facts we observed.

 

Therefore, property rights are valid!

[Noesis]

Do you have a link to a site, book, video, or any other source of information about how this would work?And would this thought process be applied to anything else?I'm always interested in learning more about new systems of property (or in this case anti-property), so thanks in advance.

 

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.

[Noesis]

Concepts do not exist. "Property rights exist" is a false statement. Property rights describe an epistemic social "reality" that uses "status functions" (see my previous post about this) and more or less valid claims to the ownership of objects as understood socially. This in the same way that money serves a status function, and it's relationship to our subjective value of goods.

 

Property, in this sense, means responsibility and superior claim over objects (as compared to other people).

 

You own your argument, your actions, things given to you, things you earned contractually, etc.

 

The proof is the social recognition. It's not an ontological issue. You aren't going to find a stamp that says "Kevin" written in aether on the molecules that compose my computer that I'm typing on.

 

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. 

 

If I say (for example) that I'm giving my ukulele to you, I am representing the institutional reality of your private property over what was my ukulele. I have a desire for you to have my ukulele, which is an intentional state with the condition of satisfaction that you come to have my ukulele. In telling you through language that I want you to have it and that I intend to give it to you, in order for it to mean something, you have to acknowledge what is meant. That is, you recognize and represent objects as being my property and soon to be yours.

 

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.

 

 

But if you say that private property is an invalid, null concept, then you cannot say that the statement "this is your car that we impounded" to be false. At least not for the reason stated (wrong VIN # or whatever).

 

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. 

 

 

Further, many statements necessarily imply other things. If I say that I'm giving you my ukulele, it already implies that it's mine to give, that "to give" means something, that there is a ukulele that exists, etc. A statement like "when I said this, I meant that" implies that you were the one who said it, that you believe someone mistook your meaning, that you have a claim over what you said that other people don't, and so on. What you imply is ownership over what you said. You are responsible for it and are committed publicly to it's veracity. You are representing it as being your own, and so it is.

 

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. 

 

 

Therefore, property rights are valid! 

 

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. 

[Kevin Beal]

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. 

I agree. There is a standard by which we can agree upon these things.

 

You've just proved me right

 

I'm going to ignore all of the stuff about morality since it has nothing to do with anything I said and will only serve to confuse the issue. You can start a new thread if you like.

 

And you commit a fallacy of ambiguity when you say that institutional facts are subjective. And in doing so, you missed the whole point of what I was saying

 

Let's try it again: they are ontologically subjective, not epistemically subjective. The value of a dollar is ontologically subjective, it's actual representation as being a one dollar bill or a ten dollar bill etc, is not epistemically subjective.

 

Society decides collectively what money is and it's parameters. The same is true for jobs, marriage, property, nation states, football games, etc.

 

The irony is that you want to make it entirely arbitrary and subjective, but then you say in exactly what way my claim to my ukulele could be invalid using our shared conception of property rights. You yourself conceded that it's not all arbitrary. And if it were all arbitrary, then you wouldn't have to accept it in order to argue against it. That would be sort of ridiculous to suppose in that event, right?

 

And if you agree with self ownership, you agree with property rights generally. It's the exact same basis.

 

The proposition that I function as the owner of my body is ontologically subjective. There is no deed signed in my heart with my cosmic signature written on it. The claim "I own my body" is itself an institutional fact. And further, this only comes up in relationship with other people.

 

All functions are put there by human minds. They all must already assume some held values. If I say that the heart's function is to pump blood, that already assumes that I value life, and getting blood to the rest of my body is healthy. If I regarded these things as a pathology, the fact that my heart pumps blood would be seen as unhealthy and "dysfunctional". The fact that it can be said to be functional or dysfunctional is proof that it relies on human minds to be sustained as (epistemically) true.

 

Similarly, this connection between our idea of "self" and our body as being owned by it is all in your head. If you couldn't control your body and someone or something else was controlling it, you would rightly think that something was terribly wrong. But if you grew up and that's all you knew, then for you to be able to control your own body might seem like the thing that's wrong.

 

You assume the same things I do. And you must in order to be comprehensible at all. That's the proof.

[Andrew79]

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.

Thank you for your answer. But evidently I needed to make myself clearer.What I really want to know is how things would work in an anti-property world.Under capitalism I can own a house and I can own a business. Property is property is property.Under a generic collectivism I can still own things likes a house and a car as they're classed as personal property. But I can't own a business because it would be classed as owning the means of production - and the means of production should be owned by the workers, with decisions being made democratically.Under anti-property anarchy I can't own anything, and I don't know how that would work.For example, I leave "my" house to get food. Does that mean my house is now not being used so anyone can enter it? Or was it never mine in the first place and anyone could've come in at any time anyway? How's all that decided? The same goes for business too.Would this be this enforced? If people are happy with the idea of property are they left to themselves?And would this apply to other social constructs such as language?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

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).  

 

If you smashed the window then by definition you claimed ownership of it for the time it took to smash it. You claimed the right to destroy it. It doesn't matter whether you explicitly stated the right because your actions state it. You felt you had the right to destroy the window. If you did not feel you had the right then you did it anyway knowing you did not have or could not justify the right. If you actively reject the validity of property rights and think they don't exist in any form then you STILL claimed the right to destroy the window. You STILL felt it was yours to destroy.

If you think the window is no different from an un-owned twig you decide to snap then you are still claiming the right to destroy it. It doesn't matter what scenario you come up with. You are claiming ownership of the window when you break it.

Ownership at the very least is a claim of an exclusive right of control over something. You claimed an exclusive right of control over the window in order to destroy it.

There's no circular reasoning here. I'm not sure how this is even relevant to the comment you're responding to.

The claim of ownership is not just that you “exert energy on an object”. I exert energy on lots of objects. Doesn't mean I own them.

So what if there are such tribes? What has that got to do with the comment you're responding to? Some people view a lot of property as communal. Families often do that. So what? I mean, I assume people in those tribes still hold their lungs as private property, right?

Maybe it's true that I cannot say "it would be treating them like a slave, so it is bad, so therefore we must adhere to the idea property rights", but I'd like to know where I said that or even implied anything like it. I can only assume that my claim about taking or destroying one's time and labor being the same as retroactively enslaving them got translated in your head to “it would be treating them like a slave, so it is bad, so therefore we must adhere to the idea property rights”.

 

That you say “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). “,  shows me that this is your main argument and that even after being repeatedly told that we are not claiming any external objective ought you need to push this notion. It's just become shtick.

The actual argument is that property is derived from the fact of self-ownership. Property created is an extension of one's self into reality. Therefore violations of property are violations of the person. Such violations are wrong because not logical justification can be given for them. (The evidence is the fact that rape, murder, theft and assault all fail logical consistency and such violations of property lead to massive dysfunction whereas respect for legitimate property leads to prosperity).

 

The argument IS NOT, X is wrong because magic oughtness that floats in the ether says it's wrong.

 

 

 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. 

 

 

I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I say you don't know what it is you're rejecting.

Every single sentence you write above is a gross distortion or outright straw-man of the arguments. I am not going to go through them all telling you what I DIDN'T say.

If you think “doing something someone doesn't like proves rights exist” has anything to do with our arguments for property rights then we need to go back to basics and you need to first prove you know what the argument is before you start tearing it to pieces.

 

 

 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.

 

 

The window-maker made the window. The window is a product of the window-maker's time/labor, etc. The relationship between the window-maker and the window is different from the relationship of all others who did not make the window. The window is an extension of the window-maker into reality. It represents that time/labor. No one else has this relationship with the window.

If someone else deliberately smashes the window they are destroying the created value of the window, therefore they are a taking that time and labor, etc against the window-makers preference and/or will.

A useful example may be a book. Person A writes a book. They are the author of that book. You can say that just because they are the book-maker (like the window-maker) that does not mean that the book is theirs to begin with. But it does not matter if someone else claims authorship of the book or steals all copies or whatever. The authorship of the book will always be theirs. They will always have ownership of it. It can never, NOT be.

When it comes to the window, the window-maker is IS the maker of the window. It is an extension of HIM (just as the book is an extension of person A). The window IS his. It can't, NOT be his.

Just as the author can sell/destroy the book the window maker can sell/destroy the window, even though neither can sell “authorship” of their products.

If those unambiguous facts are not evidence enough then what would be?  

 

 

 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.  

 

 

You can replace “relinquishing” with “rejecting”; whether it be the rejecting of property rights at the time or the rejection of them as having ever been something that existed or was valid. The window-smasher can consciously do this if they like.

Even if it was true that an object can NOT be owned by anyone the window-smasher is still claiming rights over the window. They would just be in a state of contradiction.

Even the denial of property is itself a claim of property rights. You have to have “self-ownership” just to make the claim. You have to have ownership over your body at the time and deny others ownership of it. Your words, concepts and their effects extend into reality so you own their effects. 

 

 

 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. 

 

 

I'm not sure if you are ignoring my argument or not understanding it or are unaware that I made one.

I said “The thief takes from another against their will but the thief CANNOT voluntarily allow others to steal from her because then it would not be theft. No one can voluntarily be raped, murdered, robbed or assaulted. Therefore no one can assert that others may rape, murder, rob or assault them. BY DEFINITION these things must be unwanted.”.

Theft is an objectively demonstrable thing before one even gets to the morality. It's the same with rape, murder and assault. They are all objectively distinct from other behaviors. There are all kinds of love-making and then there's rape; DIFFERENT. Even if morality does not exist it is still different. There are all kinds of voluntary trade and then there's theft: DIFFERENT.

These distinctions exist objectively.

You do not say “It can't be rape because no one owns their body in the first place” or “It can't be murder because no one owns their mind and body in the first place”. If I forcibly remove your kidney is that not theft of your kidney? So what's the difference between that and the window? It's all in some sense part of the person.

 

 

 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.  

 

 

Fine. In some regards they ARE the same thing. You are responsible for your stern comment because you choose to make it and are responsible for and have control over its effects. You also own your comment as you choose to make it and are responsible for and have control over its effects.

It's like “body” and “mind”. They are distinct but sometimes they overlap to the degree that they are virtually the same thing. I only hedge with the word “virtually” to stave of any future “So you're saying they're EXACTLY the same???” pedantry.

[Noesis]

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. 

 

Clearly, the moral proposition with regard to property rights is this: either human beings have the right to own property, or they do not. 

 

Now the first “property” that must be dealt with is the body. “Ownership” must first and foremost consist of control over one's own body, because if that control does not exist, or is not considered valid, then the whole question of morality – let alone property – goes out the window. (p.g. 75)

 

 

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:

 

Since we own our bodies, we also inevitably own the effects of our actions, be they good or bad. If we own the effects of our actions, then clearly we own that which we produce, whether what we produce is a bow, or a book – or a murder. (p.g. 76) [underline added.]

 

 

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.  

 

 

[Kevin Beal]

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.

I just re-read it as you suggested, and it's not a complete quote. The moral proposition is regarding the violation of property rights, not the validity of property rights itself.

 

My arguments were designed specifically to address the false premise in saying that any account of property rights and self ownership must be based in ontological objectivity. And I provided definitions for all (or most) of my terms. I also gave an account given these new explicit premises and definitions. You still haven't addressed the inherent ambiguity in your challenge or my account with the distinction in mind.

 

And I don't blame you for having trouble with this distinction. It's advanced metaphysics. Professional philosophers make the same mistake often. (For further reading read: Mind, Language and Society by John R Searle).

 

You just insulted me. Which I guess I can't complain too much about since I did the same thing earlier. That was really stupid of me.

 

The thread is regarding the video Stef did on the validity of property rights, but more specifically about self ownership in particular (which you already agreed with), and not as it relates to UPB.

 

So, I guess it is actually you who is off topic... awkward!

[Noesis]

I just re-read it as you suggested, and it's not a complete quote. The moral proposition is regarding the violation of property rights, not the validity of property rights itself.

 

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.] 

 

 

My arguments were designed specifically to address the false premise in saying that any account of property rights and self ownership must be based in ontological objectivity. And I provided definitions for all (or most) of my terms. I also gave an account given these new explicit premises and definitions. You still haven't addressed the inherent ambiguity in your challenge or my account with the distinction in mind.

 

I am not going to spend any more of my time trying to convince you that you are misunderstanding me. 

 

 

You just insulted me. Which I guess I can't complain too much about since I did the same thing earlier. That was really stupid of 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.)

 

 

The thread is regarding the video Stef did on the validity of property rights, but more specifically about self ownership in particular (which you already agreed with), and not as it relates to UPB.

 

So, I guess it is actually you who is off topic... awkward! 

 

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. 

[Kevin Beal]

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. 

 

 

[...and...]

 

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. 

No, (1) giving an account of property rights and (2) explaining why the violation of property rights is immoral are two different things.

 

I was doing the first, the video is about the first, the OP was addressing the first. You are focusing on the second and the first together as if they were the same question.

[Noesis]

No, (1) giving an account of property rights and (2) explaining why the violation of property rights is immoral are two different things.

 

I was doing the first, the video is about the first, the OP was addressing the first. You are focusing on the second and the first together as if they were the same question.

 

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

[Kevin Beal]

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

Haha, my sentiments exactly

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

 

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 do not know of any standard of philosophical writing that that UPB quote falls below. That's your opinion, right? Stef said at the start of the book if he tried to make it fit everyone's view of what is accurate or fix any perceived short-coming, the book would never be finished. Maybe the book you are advising others to maybe re-read you should re-read yourself. Although it seems accurate enough for you to break it down into a line of reasoning. 

I see no different meaning of "own" in 1 or 2. "Having exclusive use over" and "being responsible for" fit within the general concept of "own". You can even find dictionary definitions where "responsible" and "own" are practically the same thing. "Owning" means something is yours and not someone else's. Your mind is yours. Your arguments are yours. Your voluntary actions are yours. The direct effects of your actions are yours. 

As you are breaking down "Stefan's" reasoning then you should know that 3 is highly questionable. I don't think Stef sees much difference between the internal and external reality and has said so. Where does this external reality start? The Skin? Outside the brain? Outside the conscious neural matrix of the mind? 5 inches away from the body? "External reality" could refer to all of those and you have no problem using it. But "ownership" or "own" having a similar broad use is a problem?

Saying you do not have a "moral claim" to use / control a painting you made is just you relinquishing or rejecting a right you may or may not have. Who argued that doing this produces a contradiction? What is the argument here?

 

If the word "own" is a problem then just try to understand without it. You ARE yourself, right? You are in control of your body, right? You feed your organs and feed your mind, etc. So your body is YOURS, right? You use your body and time to create values "external" to your main body, right? So these values exist because you transformed your time, labor, creativity, etc into them. They are parts of your body /self extended into reality. They ARE you and as such they must be YOURS.  

So just as any moral justification to murder or rape you will logically fail (because the person attempting the murder or rape claims the right not to be murdered or raped, by definition) any moral justification to steal from you will fail because it is also in a sense a violation of your body. If I steal ten thousand bucks from you that took a year's hard work to earn then I have retroactively violated your body and mind just as much as if I had physically assaulted you.

[Ray H.]

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.

I don't think there is any difference in the three meanings of ownership you gave. There is a difference in the consequences of owning a physical object and owning an action. Physical objects can be transferred to others, or a claim can be made by others and some decision reached as to physical ownership. Actions (painting, speech, murder) cannot be transferred. An action is an instance or a collection of instances in time that cannot be exchanged. They are permanently in the past and permanently owned by the actor. The painter painted the painting. The painter owns the act of painting the painting. The painter cannot change this. The ex-wife of the painter cannot change this. Judge Judy cannot change this. The buyer of the painting cannot change this. Only the painter will ever own the act of painting the painting. The ownership of that act affords the painter some say in the physical painting, but certainly doesn't absolutely determine its fate as the painter's under every circumstance. The ex-wife can make a claim for various reasons. Judge Judy can award it as payment for some debt. Or the painter can sell it or give it to someone. None of these actions change the fact that the painter owns the act of painting the painting.So. There is some contradiction if the painter argues that he does not own the effects of his painting. The effects extend beyond the physical painting. The painter gained experience from the painting. The painter gained reputation, good or bad, from the painting. If he sells it, he owns the money from his act of painting. Etc, etc, etc.One adds/subtracts value to the physical world using willpower and labor. The positive/negative effects of one's actions are ultimately owned by one, i.e. one is responsible for one's actions. Whether or not one's actions are justly attributed to one is a whole 'nother matter.

[Noesis]

I am bowing out of this discussion. 

[Kevin Beal]

Victory!! ;P

[MMX2010]

I am bowing out of this discussion. 

Why?

[Noesis]

Why?

 

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

[Kevin Beal]

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

I choose to take this as a compliment

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

I am bowing out of this discussion. 

 

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

You've made hundreds of posts here and this discussion does not seem particularly different from other discussions you've had.  Why NOW are we suddenly judged not to be up to your standards? Can you show us any evidence that you have higher philosophical standards? Please link to boards were you've had these philosophical discussions as so as we can learn. 

Despite this new attitude I'm glad you were here to challenge us because you are a superior debater. I figure that if our arguments can still stand after going up against you then they are pretty strong.

[Noesis]

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.  

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

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.  

What was different years ago? If the discussion was not up to your standards and we are the ones discussing things with you then we must not be up to your standards. 

Why are you spending your time in a university philosophy course? Why would you spend money on that? All the info and insight is free on the internet. If your discussions must meet university standards then I assume that once you've completed your course you will not be able to have satisfying discussions with the ordinary folk. Unless you're planning to become another academic sucking of the tit of the state then what's the point?

[PatrickC]

Welcome back Noesis

 

I think the conversation has moved on since those many years ago.. I think the Noesis challenge was probably a good one for the board back then. As a means to step up our game, which clearly seems to have occurred.

[Noesis]

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. 

[cynicist]

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. 

 

Are you sure about this? The meaning of own seems to be the same in all three to me.

 

1) You have control over your body

2) You therefore have control over your actions

3) The effects of which are therefore under your control (i.e. your responsibility).

4) So your ownership extends to that in material reality which falls under those effects.

 

So if I break a window, I don't own the window, I own the damage that I caused because it is an effect of my actions. If I steal a bike, I own the theft, not the bike. 

 

 

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.  

 

Except there is a contradiction, because you do own the painting you produced. Without your actions it wouldn't even exist. You can sell it, give it away, abdicate ownership in many different ways but it doesn't change the fact that your actions are what created it in the first place and that's where the ownership comes from. (If you don't own the "effects of your actions" in the form of the painting, then who painted it? What other individual manipulated your body into producing it?)

 

That's how I understand Stefan's argument anyway. Please let me know if I'm making a mistake somewhere.

 

 

Also, welcome back