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

[greekredemption]

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. 

 

 

 

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 

I think Noesis makes an important point (one I've made myself, but, being honest, she said it better) that, really, 'ownership' is a semantic trick, and jumping from 'self ownership' to 'this is an account of property rights' is not entirely valid. And I don't think you are misunderstanding Molyneux's argument, or the argument of Locke on which it is based.

 

Look at the definitions Noesis provided.

 

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).

 

 

It seems clear that these do not lead necessarily to the next. To take your example of the painting.

 

1) You own yourself (so you have exclusive use over yourself, necessarily. This is descriptive).

2) You own your actions (so you have exclusive use over the creation of your painting. I think this is reasonably tautological, but let's allow it as another descriptive statement).

 

And then the contentious one:

 

3) You therefore own your painting

 

But clearly you don't own it in the same way, do you? In a descriptive sense you obviously do not have exclusive control over it. Somebody else could easily claim the same, and demonstrate that claim. Descriptively, you do not own that painting in the same way you own your body.

 

Ah, but perhaps you have a moral claim to it? Maybe. So perhaps it's a normative statement - you ought to have control over that painting, because you own yourself and your actions.

 

Now, to me, these seem to be different things. I mean not only are you deriving an ought from an is, but, as Noesis detailed, you're using two different meanings of 'own'.

 

In essence, the way it seems to me is that the only accurate way to describe property rights is either in terms of societal acceptance (everybody agrees you own that painting) or force (you stop other people wanting to have exclusive use of that painting).

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

I think Noesis makes an important point (one I've made myself, but, being honest, she said it better) that, really, 'ownership' is a semantic trick, and jumping from 'self ownership' to 'this is an account of property rights' is not entirely valid. And I don't think you are misunderstanding Molyneux's argument, or the argument of Locke on which it is based.

 

Look at the definitions Noesis provided.

 

 

It seems clear that these do not lead necessarily to the next. To take your example of the painting.

 

1) You own yourself (so you have exclusive use over yourself, necessarily. This is descriptive).

2) You own your actions (so you have exclusive use over the creation of your painting. I think this is reasonably tautological, but let's allow it as another descriptive statement).

 

And then the contentious one:

 

3) You therefore own your painting

 

But clearly you don't own it in the same way, do you? In a descriptive sense you obviously do not have exclusive control over it. Somebody else could easily claim the same, and demonstrate that claim. Descriptively, you do not own that painting in the same way you own your body.

 

Ah, but perhaps you have a moral claim to it? Maybe. So perhaps it's a normative statement - you ought to have control over that painting, because you own yourself and your actions.

 

Now, to me, these seem to be different things. I mean not only are you deriving an ought from an is, but, as Noesis detailed, you're using two different meanings of 'own'.

 

In essence, the way it seems to me is that the only accurate way to describe property rights is either in terms of societal acceptance (everybody agrees you own that painting) or force (you stop other people wanting to have exclusive use of that painting).

You do own it in the same way. Does this somebody else who claims control over the painting also control the fact that YOU painted it? Do they control the authorship? Do they control the process that happened when painting? Do they control the choices that were made on the surface? 

There are lots of things about it they cannot have exclusive control over so just because somebody else could take the physical painting and claim "exclusive control" does not mean anything. If you think the only way to accurately describe property rights is either in terms of social acceptance or force then I guess you believe that if everyone agrees or you can force them to agree that you own authorship of "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon" then you actually own it rather than Picasso? 

There is NO deriving an ought from an is here. The only people doing that are you and Noesis who re-state the argument as so as it goes straight from a descriptive fact to a prescriptive claim. 

The prescriptive claims come up when people interact. Noesis leaves out this necessary step in her chain of reasoning. If no one else exists then the prescriptive aspect of ownership does not manifest (except maybe as some thought experiment). There are not two different meanings of "own". "Own" means it's yours and not someone else's. There are various things that may follow from it. There's the descriptive fact and then there's ethics that may follow if someone challenges ownership.

Your comment is YOURS, right? You own that comment, right? If I claim ownership of the comment then ethics have come into it. I am making an illegitimate claim. Yes I may have some control over the comment perhaps (in the same way someone may control the physical painting in your example) but I cannot own it. There are two people both claiming ownership and they cannot both be correct. 

[greekredemption]

So let's be clear. Are property rights descriptive or normative?

[Kevin Beal]

The fact that I have exclusive control over my body is not the definition of self ownership, it's the basis. The definition of "ownership" or "property" is actually the same in both instances.

 

It's because I have exclusive control over my own body that I have the greatest claim over it. The basis on which I can be said to own my computer is different from my body, which is different from my paycheck, which is different from my boogers, which is different from a gift someone gives me.

 

The definition in all cases (including my body) is an exclusive responsibility over objects which awards you the products of that responsibility, as recognized institutionally. That's my definition, anyway.

 

The fact that I own myself is only an issue in relation to other people. If I were the only person existing, it wouldn't really mean anything to say that I own myself. I control my body, but so what?

 

If you are willing to grant that I own myself, the only thing stopping you from accepting property rights generally are very specific methods by which we go about acquiring things. That is to say that you have a standard you are working from (that is epistemic in nature), and thus you absolutely accept property rights. You're acceptance of self ownership is an acceptance of property rights generally, plus a very specific subset of it.

 

Also, simple agreement over things is enough for many institutional facts, like the value of a field goal in american football, but with other things, we don't take agreement to be enough to satisfy us. With property rights, a common theme can be seen with a person's causal relationship with the objects they own. There are exceptions of course, but like how we can say that a person homesteading can eventually become the owner of that land, so do other exceptions find ways of coming back to that causal relationship. Even if it's to preserve the land as a habitat or something.

 

Of course it involves agreements, as does money, as does marriage, any contract implicit or explicit, and you probably wouldn't say that those things are arbitrary, would you?

 

 

 

Plus, just because you brought it up and because it's a pet peeve of mine. To say "you cannot get an ought from an is" is to get an ought from an is. It's saying "you ought not say that you can get an ought from an is" or "you ought not attempt to get an ought from an is", and you derived those from the statement "you cannot get an ought from an is".

 

The ought is in satisfying some standard. In other words "if you want to get to Broadway, you ought to take 52nd st". The condition of satisfaction of an action (it's fulfillment) is described prescriptively. If you want to be moral, then your moral propositions that inform your actions ought to be UPB.

 

The form you took was "if you want your statements to be true, then you ought to not try and derive oughts from is's".

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

So let's be clear. Are property rights descriptive or normative?

You'd have to state what YOU mean by property rights? 

There's property and then there's property rights. Property is descriptive. Your mind and organs and arguments and voluntary actions are yours and not someone else's. They are your property. Rights regarding property only come up when people make implicit or explicit claims over property. In that sense property rights are normative. If I go to take one of your kidneys then I'm making a property claim over that kidney. My actions say I have a right to that kidney. I am making a normative claim whether I make it explicitly or not. If I cannot logically justify that claim then that claim is wrong. I would be stealing the kidney. 

You're question could be very misleading because an admission that property rights are normative could be taken to mean that they are entirely subjective. But property rights though normative are derived from the descriptive. I'm not sure but "descriptive OR normative" may be a false dichotomy so property rights may also be descriptive. It depends what aspect you're talking about? 

[dsayers]

3) You therefore own your painting

 

But clearly you don't own it in the same way, do you? In a descriptive sense you obviously do not have exclusive control over it. Somebody else could easily claim the same, and demonstrate that claim.

 

This isn't a challenge of property rights. It's an aide in interpreting others' exercising ownership over it as being illegitimate and immoral.

 

Make no mistake: The day is coming where the tech will be available to use electricity to control the bodies and motions of another human being. Will this mean that the possessor of that tech will have a rightful claim tot he bodies of others due to his ability to override their own control? Without this moral clarity, we wouldn't be able to answer that.

[Kevin Beal]

The day is coming where the tech will be available to use electricity to control the bodies and motions of another human being. Will this mean that the possessor of that tech will have a rightful claim tot he bodies of others due to his ability to override their own control?

Dangit! You beat me to it

[cynicist]

But clearly you don't own it in the same way, do you? In a descriptive sense you obviously do not have exclusive control over it. Somebody else could easily claim the same, and demonstrate that claim. Descriptively, you do not own that painting in the same way you own your body.

 

Ah, but perhaps you have a moral claim to it? Maybe. So perhaps it's a normative statement - you ought to have control over that painting, because you own yourself and your actions.

 

You are mistaken when you say that you obviously do not have exclusive control over it. It's exclusively a product of your actions. (until you trade it or whatever) Your body is similar, in that you sustain it through your actions. Are you saying that this doesn't mean anything because someone else can claim that they produced it? Or that someone can steal it? If so, how is that any different than me smashing a window and saying that greekredemption did it. That doesn't mean that I'm no longer responsible for smashing the window, just because people believe otherwise.

 

So let's be clear. Are property rights descriptive or normative?

 

Descriptive

 

This isn't a challenge of property rights. It's an aide in interpreting others' exercising ownership over it as being illegitimate and immoral.

 

Make no mistake: The day is coming where the tech will be available to use electricity to control the bodies and motions of another human being. Will this mean that the possessor of that tech will have a rightful claim tot he bodies of others due to his ability to override their own control? Without this moral clarity, we wouldn't be able to answer that.

 

I wasn't thinking of that example at all (lmao) but exactly. Taking someone else's property and claiming exclusive ownership doesn't mean it's suddenly yours, even if everyone around you believes it to be true. You can argue that it may as well be true (in effect) but that doesn't change the fact of the theft.

You do own it in the same way. Does this somebody else who claims control over the painting also control the fact that YOU painted it? Do they control the authorship? Do they control the process that happened when painting? Do they control the choices that were made on the surface? 

There are lots of things about it they cannot have exclusive control over so just because somebody else could take the physical painting and claim "exclusive control" does not mean anything. If you think the only way to accurately describe property rights is either in terms of social acceptance or force then I guess you believe that if everyone agrees or you can force them to agree that you own authorship of "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon" then you actually own it rather than Picasso?...

 

I ran out of up votes but you are dead on. That's a very clear description of it. I think there may be some confusion around the words own, control, and exclusive that make this more complicated than it needs to be.

[Noesis]

I'll only participate in this thread as an afterthought from now on, but thanks for the welcome back. 

 

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. 

 

So if you paint the painting, you "own" the process of painting; you do not own the painting itself. Exactly.

 

Any creation, production, building, labour, effort—all these actions are "owned" by you, which I am not disputing. There is an indisputable philosophical connection between the actions of a body and the consciousness of that body (regardless of whether that connection can be overridden by future technology).

 

But there is no such self-evident connection between the painter and the painting in the sense of some kind of moral claim over it. It is fine to claim that you painted it—because that is true. You did. But just because you painted the painting does not give you authority over the painting. There is no philosophical reason why that should be.

 

You are you. Your actions are yours. But the stuff in reality is just stuff in reality... no matter what you do to it. 

 

I should've brought this up earlier, as it is relevant to this discussion: Value is entirely subjective. When you are painting a painting or building a house, all you are doing is rearranging molecules to suit some goal/preference of yours. No one else necessarily finds any value in it whatsoever. To claim that you have clearly created something of value (to someone other than yourself) is ridiculous. You can create something of social value—something that society wants—but what society wants will always be constantly changing, as it is subjective. You cannot create something of objective value, because objective value doesn't exist. There needs to be someone to value it, in order for something to be valuable.

 

My reason for saying the above is to point out that the idea that there is a "right" for a person to have control/use over their "creation of value" is absurd when put into practice. If I set fire to a bunch of trees, by accident, I have changed molecules in reality. The pile of ash that is left after the fire would now be my "creation", which I now "own". If someone comes along and walks through this ash, disturbing it, they have "vandalized" my "property", and according to this viewpoint, should now owe me compensation for damaging it.

 

For an even clearer example of the absurdity: When I breathe air, or walk across sand, I am changing molecules in reality through my actions. According to your line of thought, I now own this air and sand. That doesn't work. This would be an absurd basis for property, even if you could prove it. 

[TheRobin]

But there is no such self-evident connection between the painter and the painting in the sense of some kind of moral claim over it. It is fine to claim that you painted it—because that is true. You did. But just because you painted the painting does not give you authority over the painting. There is no philosophical reason why that should be.

 

Wouldn't that be true then for your own body as well though? Like, there wouldn't be any moral claim over it just cause you control/own it then, so the whole idea of murder and rape and such would be complete bogus too. Or if not, how do you justify that in that instance? 

[Kevin Beal]

Wouldn't that be true then for your own body as well though? Like, there wouldn't be any moral claim over it just cause you control/own it then, so the whole idea of murder and rape and such would be complete bogus too. Or if not, how do you justify that in that instance?

She's a moral nihilist. She ain't gotta justify nuttin'.

[Noesis]

Wouldn't that be true then for your own body as well though? Like, there wouldn't be any moral claim over it just cause you control/own it then, so the whole idea of murder and rape and such would be complete bogus too. Or if not, how do you justify that in that instance? 

 

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

 

She's a moral nihilist. She ain't gotta justify nuttin'.

 

Mhm. 

[Kevin Beal]

I do not believe morality exists

[cynicist]

So if you paint the painting, you "own" the process of painting; you do not own the painting itself. Exactly.

 

No. You are confusing the situation of affecting someone else's property with creating your own. The reason you don't take ownership of the bike or glass in those examples is because someone else already owns them.

 

It is fine to claim that you painted it—because that is true. You did. But just because you painted the painting does not give you authority over the painting. There is no philosophical reason why that should be.

 

Lol yes it does. You invested labor into creating it. 

 

Value is entirely subjective.

 

Absolutely.

 

My reason for saying the above is to point out that the idea that there is a "right" for a person to have control/use over their "creation of value" is absurd when put into practice. If I set fire to a bunch of trees, by accident, I have changed molecules in reality. The pile of ash that is left after the fire would now be my "creation", which I now "own". If someone comes along and walks through this ash, disturbing it, they have "vandalized" my "property", and according to this viewpoint, should now owe me compensation for damaging it.

 

For an even clearer example of the absurdity: When I breathe air, or walk across sand, I am changing molecules in reality through my actions. According to your line of thought, I now own this air and sand. That doesn't work. This would be an absurd basis for property, even if you could prove it. 

 

They own the creation of the fire and are responsible (have ownership/control over) for the results. Starting a fire by accident is not the same as investing labor into building something is it? But for the sake of example lets say someone burned their property to the ground because they were insane and preferred ashes to grass. If someone vandalized ashes (further destruction) wouldn't you thank them? Because in this reality apparently destruction is preferable to preservation.

 

Changing molecules is so general that it is meaningless. How exactly does breathing air or walking across sand (both incidental) have anything to do with ownership of things that you invest time/energy into creating?

 

 

 

I'm curious if you live by any of this. If no one owns anything they produce or trade for, do you just let people take the things that happen to be in your proximity, or let them live in the same shelter that you happen to be using? Or do you just say that you are "participating in the illusion"? Lol I'm having horrible flashbacks to debates on determinism.

 

 

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

 

Ok guessing the answer is yes when it comes to participating in the illusion.

[Noesis]

 

I do not believe morality exists

 

 

Mhm? 

 

My end to that sentence explained that I believe it exists only subjectively (in people's heads). 

 

It doesn't exist, objectively. Hence we're only referring to opinions in our heads when we talk about "morality", and should never forget that.

 

exist |igˈzist| verb

1 have objective reality or being

[Kevin Beal]

Nevermind. Have fun with this guys!

Edited April 3, 2014 by Kevin Beal

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

I'll only participate in this thread as an afterthought from now on, but thanks for the welcome back. 

 

 

So if you paint the painting, you "own" the process of painting; you do not own the painting itself. Exactly.

 

Any creation, production, building, labour, effort—all these actions are "owned" by you, which I am not disputing. There is an indisputable philosophical connection between the actions of a body and the consciousness of that body (regardless of whether that connection can be overridden by future technology).

 

But there is no such self-evident connection between the painter and the painting in the sense of some kind of moral claim over it. It is fine to claim that you painted it—because that is true. You did. But just because you painted the painting does not give you authority over the painting. There is no philosophical reason why that should be.

 

You are you. Your actions are yours. But the stuff in reality is just stuff in reality... no matter what you do to it. 

 

I should've brought this up earlier, as it is relevant to this discussion: Value is entirely subjective. When you are painting a painting or building a house, all you are doing is rearranging molecules to suit some goal/preference of yours. No one else necessarily finds any value in it whatsoever. To claim that you have clearly created something of value (to someone other than yourself) is ridiculous. You can create something of social value—something that society wants—but what society wants will always be constantly changing, as it is subjective. You cannot create something of objective value, because objective value doesn't exist. There needs to be someone to value it, in order for something to be valuable.

 

My reason for saying the above is to point out that the idea that there is a "right" for a person to have control/use over their "creation of value" is absurd when put into practice. If I set fire to a bunch of trees, by accident, I have changed molecules in reality. The pile of ash that is left after the fire would now be my "creation", which I now "own". If someone comes along and walks through this ash, disturbing it, they have "vandalized" my "property", and according to this viewpoint, should now owe me compensation for damaging it.

 

For an even clearer example of the absurdity: When I breathe air, or walk across sand, I am changing molecules in reality through my actions. According to your line of thought, I now own this air and sand. That doesn't work. This would be an absurd basis for property, even if you could prove it. 

I would like you to tell me what argument you are addressing. I would like you to clearly state the premises of the argument and the conclusion. Could like you to explain what you mean by "...authority over the painting..."? What do YOU mean by that? Authority over the stretchers and canvas and dried paint? Authority over what? 

I ask because I believe you do not understand what you are arguing against and are attacking a straw-man. If I'm wrong then you should be able to state the arguments you are responding to. I suspect you will only be able to state the straw-man versions of the arguments.

 

The fact that values are subjective is completely irrelevant to these property rights arguments. Could you please point to the person and place were someone said values are objective or need to be objective? I believe it's just another straw-man. In what world did anyone argue that you could own air and sand that way? WTF are you talking about about?

[PatrickC]

I'll only participate in this thread as an afterthought from now on, but thanks for the welcome back. 

 

 

So if you paint the painting, you "own" the process of painting; you do not own the painting itself. Exactly.

 

Perhaps this is softball, but I'm a painter and I certainly own all of my paintings.. At least the ones I never sold.

 

I am open to offers of course..

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

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

What's murder and rape? Why are you using those concepts when they have a moral premise? There is no murder and rape with moral nihilism. It's arbitrary preference, molecules in motion. 

[TheRobin]

Right. I do not believe morality exists except as ideas/preferences about behaviour, inside people's heads. 

 

As far as I can tell, no one assumes it's anything else than an idea in people's heads (same as mathematics, logic, language, just to name a few). The point is, that neither of these disciplines are arbitrary just because they're subjective, in the sense, that they exist only in people's heads.

[Noesis]

No. You are confusing the situation of affecting someone else's property with creating your own. The reason you don't take ownership of the bike or glass in those examples is because someone else already owns them.

 

How are you claiming that the ownership was originally taken by the creator? You are using the same argument for both situations. You cannot say that it works in one case, and not the other. 

 

 

If someone vandalized ashes (further destruction) wouldn't you thank them?

 

That is beside the point. My point is that under your idea of property, everything would quickly become incoherent.

 

Lol yes it does. You invested labor into creating it. 

 

Which matters because...? 

 

 

 

Changing molecules is so general that it is meaningless. How exactly does breathing air or walking across sand (both incidental) have anything to do with ownership of things that you invest time/energy into creating?

 

That's my point: that it is so general it is meaningless. My point is that you cannot distinguish between the kinds of property you care about having rights to, and the other kinds (air you breathe, rocks you stumble over—anything and everything you touch or move). 

 

My point is that your definition of what becomes property, when it becomes property, why it becomes property, and how it becomes property doesn't make any sense. But if you'd like to go ahead and try to clarify those, I'd be happy to go over it with you.

Perhaps this is softball, but I'm a painter and I certainly own all of my paintings.. At least the ones I never sold.

 

I am open to offers of course..

 

You own them, socially-speaking. 

 

You never owned them, in reality. If a lion walked by and ate your painting, you couldn't sue him, and reality wouldn't care. It is only human societies that have constructed ways of dividing stuff up, just 'cause we wanted to. Philosophically, the universe doesn't care what we think about who owns what. 'Cause it's all just made up rules. 

[Robofox42]

I just wanted to make an attempt at this.  It seems that no one is addressing the core of her argument - whether morality exists.  She seems to be a nihilist that thinks that morality is just a set of rules people decide on to reach their goals.  Everyone is trying to make the case that morality says that property rights based on UPB which of course won't matter to Noesis because she doesn't agree with the premise of morality.

 

She is correct in that you can't get an "ought" from an "is."  However, what she misses is that morality can still be objective.  Reality exists.  Reality has rules for how things behave.  Mathematics doesn't exist except as an idea, however when math is used to describe reality, it becomes entirely objective and becomes a "should."  Math ought to say that 2 + 2  = 4.  It is entirely possible to create a set of rules for mathematics where 2 + 2 = 5. When such a system is created, it is entirely based on the whims and preferences of people creating the rules. To her morality is such a system that is entirely based on whims.

 

However, the moment you make claims on reality using mathematics, you no longer get to use 2 + 2 = 5.  To make logical claims on reality, you "should" use axioms of math that produce the result of  2 + 2 = 4.  This is where it all get so confusing.  People say 2 + 2 "is" 4.  But they have forgotten that lots of axioms of mathematics were created to make mathematics conform to reality.  The production of those axioms by mathematicians is where the "is/ought" connection is made.

 

With morality, you can demonstrate evidence that universally preferable behavior exists.  Just like a physicist can demonstrate that laws of physics exists.  Now the "is" is of course that matter behaves in these ways.  The "ought" is the scientific method that produces laws of physics that are consistent. 

 

Humans will behave in certain ways given moral rules that they believe in.  This is the "is."  The way reality is, the way humans act and operate, this is entirely objective.  The "ought" is creating moral rules that conform to reality that actually produce universally preferable behavior.  You can create subjective moral rules such as "don't eat" but you will fail to achieve the universally preferable behavior.  This is what is meant by morality is optional.  Morality exists the same way the axioms of mathematics exist.  You don't need to use axioms that produce 2 + 2 = 4, but if you want to conform to reality, then you "ought" to.  The laws of physics ought to predict matter and energy.  Stefan's arguments ought to be logical, etc. 

 

She is claiming there is no morality or universally preferable behavior, but yet argues that Stef should use logic and proof for his argument.  This is hypocritical.

 

Property rights have lots of evidence and stef's theory on how property rights are created is a theory that explains a law of morality.  The proof isn't absolute proof as even Stef admits this is impossible.  The evidence that societies with property rights flourish and societies without them fail is demonstrating that the theory or property rights accurately describes human behavior in reality.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

How are you claiming that the ownership was originally taken by the creator? You are using the same argument for both situations. You cannot say that it works in one case, and not the other. 

 

 

That is beside the point. My point is that under your idea of property, everything would quickly become incoherent.

 

 

Which matters because...? 

 

 

That's my point: that it is so general it is meaningless. My point is that you cannot distinguish between the kinds of property you care about having rights to, and the other kinds (air you breathe, rocks you stumble over—anything and everything you touch or move). 

 

My point is that your definition of what becomes property, when it becomes property, why it becomes property, and how it becomes property doesn't make any sense. But if you'd like to go ahead and try to clarify those, I'd be happy to go over it with you.

I think this is what's called "Going full reductionist". 

[Robofox42]

"You can create subjective moral rules such as "don't eat" but you will fail to achieve the universally preferable behavior.  This is what is meant by morality is optional."

 

oops, lost portion of my explanation.

 

I meant that moral rules such as don't eat will fail to achieve universally preferable behavior, just like wrong physics laws will produce a bridge that collapses.  This doesn't change that there are real rules to achieve universally preferable behavior.  That we don't know what they are doesn't mean they don't exist.  Just like not knowing the laws of physics doesn't mean they don't exist.  We can follow these laws of morality or not, this is what is meant by morality is optional.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

You never owned them, in reality. If a lion walked by and ate your painting, you couldn't sue him, and reality wouldn't care. It is only human societies that have constructed ways of dividing stuff up, just 'cause we wanted to. Philosophically, the universe doesn't care what we think about who owns what. 'Cause it's all just made up rules. 

You have refuted our claim the universe cares about who owns what? You are many victory!

[PatrickC]

You own them, socially-speaking. 

 

You never owned them, in reality. If a lion walked by and ate your painting, you couldn't sue him, and reality wouldn't care. It is only human societies that have constructed ways of dividing stuff up, just 'cause we wanted to. Philosophically, the universe doesn't care what we think about who owns what. 'Cause it's all just made up rules. 

 

Right, which is why I don't live in deepest darkest Africa of course and I protect my property from theft (as best I can) or the potential hungry lioness art critic.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Right, which is why I don't live in deepest darkest Africa of course and I protect my property from theft (as best I can can) or the potential hungry lioness art critic.

Can I please steal your paintings? According to Noesis there's no valid distinction between my moral justifications for stealing or trading (even though one logically fails and the other doesn't). It's all just made up rules and arbitrary preferences like science and math. 

[PatrickC]

Ha!.. PT you are welcome to some of my unsold stock. Frankly I could do with the extra living space.. That said they might not be your cup of 'lioness' tea of course..

[dsayers]

Mhm? 

 

My end to that sentence explained that I believe it exists only subjectively (in people's heads). 

 

It doesn't exist, objectively. Hence we're only referring to opinions in our heads when we talk about "morality", and should never forget that.

 

Theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral as they require the exercising of ownership over that which is owned by somebody else. That is the totality of objective morality. That religions, governments, parents, and teachers try to pass off subjective matters as moral absolutes does not alter that morality is in fact objective ("exists" independently of the individual).

[Noesis]

Humans will behave in certain ways given moral rules that they believe in.  This is the "is."  The way reality is, the way humans act and operate, this is entirely objective.  The "ought" is creating moral rules that conform to reality that actually produce universally preferable behavior.  

 

What does "universally preferable behavior [sic]" mean here? How can moral rules "conform to reality", since they are not about reality, but what we would like (or not like) to happen in reality?  

 

 

 

Morality exists the same way the axioms of mathematics exist.  You don't need to use axioms that produce 2 + 2 = 4, but if you want to conform to reality, then you "ought" to. 

 

The laws of physics ought to predict matter and energy.  Stefan's arguments ought to be logical, etc. 

 

There is a difference between systems made to describe reality as it is (math, science), and systems made to describe human choices of behaviour (morality).

 

For math and science, we can make observations and find evidence to guide our thinking in those matters. For human choices of behaviour... we cannot. All choices/actions are all goal-relative. We make X choice to fulfil goal Y. Or we could, instead, make A choice, to fulfil goal B. Nobody can prove that one goal is superior to another. Our lives are our own, and no logical argument can be made that I should prefer peace instead of violence, or life instead of death, or logic instead of irrationality. If I prefer what you think of as "bad things", you must realize that there is nothing in reality that I'm not conforming with. If I like drowning puppies and punching people, that conforms with reality just fine. 

 

There is no universal, objective goal that all humans have to adhere to "to conform to reality". They are ALL conforming to reality by pursuing their own goals, even if those goals are directly contrary to yours. 

 

 

She is claiming there is no morality or universally preferable behavior, but yet argues that Stef should use logic and proof for his argument.  This is hypocritical.

 

I didn't argue that Stef should use logic or proof for his argument. There is no reason he should. Some people prefer illogical arguments; and a lot of the time, those are more persuasive to the general population. Stefan can do whatever he wants. But he is the one supposedly holding himself to the standard of logic and evidence. All I am saying is that if he is aiming to be logical, then he is failing. That implies no "ought" whatsoever. 

 

Property rights have lots of evidence and stef's theory on how property rights are created is a theory that explains a law of morality.  The proof isn't absolute proof as even Stef admits this is impossible.  The evidence that societies with property rights flourish and societies without them fail is demonstrating that the theory or property rights accurately describes human behavior in reality.

 

 

"Flourish" and "fail" are subjective judgments, you realize?

 

Besides, I've said before that I have no problem with societies that use social "property rights", because we all agree those are fictional, and without any logical basis. They are how mostly every society chooses to work. But I wouldn't say it would be "wrong" for a society to decide that that is not how they would like to do things, of course. Just because it's been a popular choice doesn't make it a right choice. 

 

I mean, for heaven's sake, Egyptian society "flourished" in certain aspects when they were using slaves to build pyramids. What type of "flourishing" could you possibly mean, and secondly, why do you think that your judgment of what is "flourishing" is any more important than anyone else's? 

[Kevin Beal]

Just a general tip for anyone debating this issue: if you feel like things have been going in circles or you get fogged, that might be a good time to take a break. Not to worry, it'll be here when you get back. There is always a UPB thread going.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

There is a difference between systems made to describe reality as it is (math, science), and systems made to describe human choices of behaviour (morality).

Human choices are reality and some behaviors have logically consistent justifications underlying them and some do not. Those that do not we call immoral. Objective. 

Done.

[PatrickC]

I mean, for heaven's sake, Egyptian society "flourished" in certain aspects when they were using slaves to build pyramids. What type of "flourishing" could you possibly mean, and secondly, why do you think that your judgment of what is "flourishing" is any more important than anyone else's? 

 

One should always walk like an Egyptian.

 

[Andrew79]

Any chance of an answer to what an anti-property world would look like? (And as a bonus, if this thought process should be applied to anything else?)

 

Links are fine.

 

[Preferably from people who favour this view, I can do the realistic take on it myself.]

[Noesis]

Human choices are reality and some behaviors have logically consistent justifications underlying them and some do not. Those that do not we call immoral. Objective. 

Done.

 

The actual choice is not reality. I could choose to tie my shoe, but then before I manage to, I get struck by lightning. It is action that is reality. All we can observe about actions is the actions themselves. Are these actions consistent with reality? Yes, they all are, as long as they obey laws of gravity, and so forth. 

 

"Logically consistent justifications", eh? First of all, why would they need to be logically consistent? Secondly, logically consistent with what? Thirdly, what justifies them, and why? Why do behaviours need any justification? Justification to whom—and why them?

 

Drowning puppies and punching people is perfectly logically consistent with my idea that nobody (including myself) has any rights—that using things is just using things, and no entitlement to use those things is implied.