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

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

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. 

"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. "

 

So choices do not exist in reality? Are they supernatural? The choice to tie your shoe or not tie your shoe does not exist in reality? If i have a choice between a logically consistent position or an illogical one that choice does not exist in reality? You are putting forth what you think is the correct position. Does the choice between that position and others not exist anywhere in reality? 

 

"First of all, why would they need to be logically consistent?"

 

They need to be logically consistent because if they're not then they're indistinguishable from meaningless babble. They can't be correct. For example I could not come up with any logically consistent justification for murdering you. I could do it. I could perform the action of murdering you but any moral justification I give would be wrong. I'd be implicitly claiming the right not be murdered while denying you that right. I cannot logically sustain any justification for that behavior. The fact that I can still do it is irrelevant. 

 

"Secondly, logically consistent with what?" 

 

Internally consistent. A logically consistent justification should not be contradictory or arbitrary. It would be wrong.

 

"Thirdly, what justifies them, and why? Why do behaviours need any justification? Justification to whom—and why them?"

 

Who said they NEED any justification? Who said scientific theories NEED justification? Who said language NEEDS to be meaningful? Who said anything NEEDS justification? Nothing NEEDS justification. You can do what the hell you want.

That doesn't matter. Something is either right or wrong and you can choose right or wrong. That's it. Any behavior you engage in can be justified rationally or it cannot. Murder, rape, theft and assault cannot be rationally justified. They fall into insurmountable contradiction. If you choose to engage in them you do so in the knowledge that you have no rational moral justification. They are objectively morally wrong.

 

"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"

 

A right is just something for which there is no moral prohibition. Your notion of rights is some straw-man idea of metaphysical privilege engraved into the fabric of reality or conferred by a god or tired old nonsense you keep projecting onto us.  But in reality you use rights all the time. 

The very fact that you may claim you can punch a puppy because it does not have any rights would be claiming the right to punch the puppy. Saying that punching people is perfectly logically consistent with your idea that nobody has rights is the same as saying that believing in creationism is perfectly logically consistent with your idea that science is arbitrary.

 

Rights don't exist in reality outside the mind but they are an inescapable part of human interaction. Property rights concern property. You already claim a right over certain property just to continue existing. After that it's a matter of working out which rights if any are valid and which are not.

[Kevin Beal]

The objects (properties) of the general theory "property rights" have a subjective mode of existence, and therefore any statements which constitute property rights are subjective. Therefore any propositions which require they be objective are false by definition.

 

This is exactly equivalent to:

 

The objects (value of a good) of the general theory "economics" have a subjective mode of existence, and therefore any statements which constitute economics are subjective. Therefore any propositions which require economics be objective are false by definition.

 

which is exactly equivalent to:

 

The objects (prescriptive statements) of the general theory "ethics" have a subjective mode of existence, and therefore any statements which constitute ethics are subjective. Therefor any proposition which requires objective ethics, is false by definition.

 

(Technically, economics is a collection of general theories, but you get the idea).

 

The fact that we can discover things new about the social sciences of which the objects discussed are subjective in their mode of existence should blow anyone's mind, and give anyone who doubts the power of subjective phenomena pause.

 

We take it for granted, but we get observer independent truths from analyzing mind-dependent (ontologically subjective)(subjective mode of existing) phenomena, constantly. It's happened about a billion times in this thread already (not always accurately).

 

If the argument against ethics or property is that they have a subjective mode of existence, then you do away with economics, psychology, all the social sciences, the philosophy of language, philosophy of mind, everything but the most superficial of metaphysics, any relationships we have, any negotiation around values, and everything you take for granted every single day.

 

Debate itself would be meaningless, since the semantics of our language has a subjective mode of existence.

 

Considering what this line of thinking can do to such a fundamental and important phenomena like property rights, imagine how corrosive to our thinking it can be, generally. What effect it would have on responsibility, relationships, mental health, happiness. And maybe that's why we associate nihilism with depression and a shallow intellectual cynicism.

 

It's hard creating a general account of things in the world. It's easy to sit back and criticize and nitpick. I can pick arguments apart into the component atoms, too. Once you get how fallacies and logical form work generally, it's not that hard. The true test of the philosopher, I believe, is to build, not tear down.

[TheRobin]

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.

 Ethics isn't about goals, it's about defining an enforcable standard of behaviour between human beings. And if you can show, that certain standards are contradictory, then those standards can't be a valid set of ethical rules.

[dsayers]

Enforceable? Are you talking about defensive force?

[Kevin Beal]

Enforceable? Are you talking about defensive force?

Moral absolutes, such as "thou shalt not murder" are enforceable using violence. That is to say that violence is justified in that instance, in order to prevent further evil. Things which are not enforceable are things like aesthetics, morally neutral behavior and false moral propositions.

[dsayers]

I agree, which is why I was seeking clarification. Though I wouldn't describe it as being for the purpose of preventing further evil. If person A murders person B, they've created a debt. If in the process of servicing that debt, it is discovered that the person lacks reason or empathy, then the fact that servicing the debt will also lead to the prevention of further evil is incidental. As I see it anyway.

 

I'm open to correction. I think objective "justice" is a very difficult topic. My bias in a world of subjective aggression called justice makes it very hard for me to determine what would be the correct course of action in regards to murder in a free society. I've journeyed from believing it needs to be entirely voluntary to accepting that a person who is without reason/empathy is no more a moral actor than a feral beast on the loose in a populated area in terms of actionability.

[Robofox42]

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

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Universally preferable behavior can be be objectively determined.  If I observe rats, I can easily observe that they have universally preferred behaviors. They want to eat, they want to avoid pain, they try to stay alive, etc.  It is entirely possible to objectively determine the preferred behavior of the rats.  With humans, it isn't different. Now sometimes it is more complicated.  For example, humans sometimes want to die to avoid emotional pain. These behaviors are completely empirical.  We can observe rats and figure out their universally preferred behaviors.  We can do so with humans too.  This is why the field of biology can exist.

 

If all the rats eat poisoned food, then they all die.  This is objective.  The rats eating poison is not a universally preferable behavior of the rats.  Rats drinking water to survive is universally preferable behavior.  This is all empirical.

 

Science is where the "ought" comes into play.  The moment a scientist tries to describe reality, then they "ought" to create theories that are consistent that make accurate predictions.  They also "ought" to update their theories to reflect the evidence.  This is entirely optional.  They don't have to.  They are still free to create mystical contradictory theories.

 

There is no difference between science that describes physical reality, and morality that describes universally preferable behavior.  Morality like science is entirely optional.  Morality "ought" to be logically consistent and empirical if it wants to successfully describe universally preferable behavior.  Morality is a lot harder because for most of our history, there was no equivalent scientific method.  It took a long time for science to chosen over the alternatives.  I really hope it doesn't take as long for UPB to be chosen over moral relativism. 

 

A theory of morality that says rats "should eat poison" is completely incorrect once you accept that theories of morality need to be objective and empirical.  This prescription is entirely inconsistent of the rats preferable behavior.  We can do this "if" we want to have logical consistent, and accurate theories of morality.  This is where the "should" comes in. 

 

All communists countries to date have had massive genocide.When she says that fail is a subjective term, she is really saying that we can't know genocide is failing.  This is nonsense.  There is nothing subjective about this.  Based on universally preferable behavior of humans, this is not preferred.  There is no "should" involved, just empirical facts.  We can know that all the rats dying is not universally preferable behavior of the rats.  This is the field of biology.  This arguing that biology predictions are different based on the whims or goals of the organisms involved.  This entirely misses the point.  Of course the animals involved have different goals and have different beliefs about how to reach their goals.  This doesn't change the reality of what actually happens to them.  That universally preferable behaviors exists is entirely empirical and is not subjective at all.  All you have to do is watch the rats.

 

Theories of morality that are consistent and accurately predict universally preferable behavior in people are correct theories of morality.  This is entirely objective and measurable.  Yes, once you create a theory of morality, then "ought" gets involved.  But this is no different than the moment you create a theory of physics, the "ought" gets involved. Theories of morality that are consistent and accurate explain universally preferable behavior the same way theories of physics that are consistent and accurately predict the effects of gravity.

 

Talking to academic philosophers about morality feels like talking to mystics about science.  Mystics argue that reality is subjective (miracles can overturn reality at any time.  We need to know the goals of God to predict what will physically happen, etc).  This is what it feels like for me talking to people that argue moral relativism.  Just replace "God" with "society" with and the arguments become very similar.

[Kevin Beal]

I agree, which is why I was seeking clarification. Though I wouldn't describe it as being for the purpose of preventing further evil.

Using force to stop a person from murdering someone is for the purpose of stopping them from murdering that person.

[Noesis]

A theory of morality that says rats "should eat poison" is completely incorrect once you accept that theories of morality need to be objective and empirical.  

 

I don't know what to say, because this is not Molyneux's argument. This is not what UPB states—because that would be a monumental basic error—and so I don't know if this is your misguided interpretation of it, or if you have separate views that you are trying to advocate here. Whichever one it is, I'm not interested in that conversation. Maybe someone else is, but I'm not. 

 

That "rats should eat poison to die" is entirely correct, objective, and empirical. That humans should set fire to things to feel pleasure if they are pyromaniacs, is correct, objective, and empirical. That someone should badly beat up an enemy in order to make that person scared of them, is correct, objective, and empirical. These things are observably true, time after time. 

 

If you're trying to go the Ayn Rand route of human-life-is-demonstrably-the-highest-value, you'll have to excuse me for not agreeing. Lots of people believe that there are causes worth dying for, and situations that are not worth living through. Regardless, even if everyone valued their life as the highest value, that does not philosophically prove what you think it does. It might prove that they need to eat to live, but it doesn't prove that they have to live a certain kind of life. They may prefer the fun of living life on the edge—as an assassin. Or prefer a life of Jainism, including the vow of Aparigraha (which renounces property). Just because you value your life does not imply that you think you have a right to your life or any materials you use.

 

To quote from UPB:

 

 

When I speak of a universal preference, I am really defining what is objectively required, or necessary, 

assuming a particular goal. If I want to live, I do not have to like jazz, but I must eat. “Eating” remains a 

preference – I do not have to eat, in the same way that I have to obey gravity – but “eating” is a universal, 

objective, and binding requirement for staying alive, since it relies on biological facts that cannot be 

wished away.

 

[...]

 

Naturally, preferential behaviour can only be binding if the goal is desired. If I say that it is preferable for 

human beings to exercise and eat well, I am not saying that human beings must not sit on the couch and 

eat potato chips. What I am saying is that if you want to be healthy, you should exercise and eat well. 

 

As Hume famously pointed out, it is impossible to derive an “ought” from an “is.” What he meant by that 

was that preference in no way can be axiomatically derived from existence. It is true that a man who 

never exercises and eats poorly will be unhealthy. Does that mean that he “ought” to exercise and eat 

well? No. The “ought” is conditional upon the preference. If he wants to be healthy, he ought to exercise 

and eat well. It is true that if a man does not eat, he will die – we cannot logically derive from that fact a 

binding principle that he ought to eat. If he wants to live, then he must eat. However, his choice to live or 

not remains his own. 

 

(p.g. 30, Universally Preferable Behaviour)

 

 

 

So I do not have to choose your goals. Your ethics are based on your goals. I reject them. I am therefore not subject to their requirements. The end.

[Robofox42]

Your appeal to your own ethos on interpretation is not an argument.  Using the word monumental doesn't improve your argument.  Claiming that I am wrong because you disagree with me is not an argument.

 

Once again you put goals where no goals are needed.  It is entirely empirical to state what universally preferable behavior is for rats.  No need to talk about goals.  I never stated that life is the highest goal.  I said that life is a universally preferred behavior along with other preferred behaviors.  You are purposely confusing empiricism with goals.  

 

Pyromaniacs, assasins, and all of those other examples are people who are choosing to avoid emotional trauma using temporary pleasure.  The fact that they have pleasure is not solely a basis for their behavior being universally preferable behavior. A floating balloon doesn't refute gravity.

 

"So I do not have to choose your goals. Your ethics are based on your goals. I reject them. I am therefore not subject to their requirements. The end."

 

Of course you don't.  You are entirely free to use whatever methodology you prefer.  Just like a person can pray for the explanation of a physics problem instead of use science.  But if you want to be logical and empirical, you "ought" to use UPB.  It is your choice. 

[Noesis]

As far as I know, Molyneux wouldn't say UPB applies to rats. 

 

How is life a behaviour? Life is a state, not a behaviour. Besides, UPB is not about what people prefer to do. If that were the case, then looking around at the world now, they do all kinds of stuff you don't approve of. 

 

What's wrong with "avoiding emotional trauma using temporary pleasure"? There is nothing inherently wrong with doing that. 

 

I am being perfectly logical and empirical, and you have yet to demonstrate how rejecting property rights or smacking someone in the face—when in line with my goals—is somehow illogical or not empirical. Like Molyneux said in the above quote, my choice remains my own about which goals I choose.

[Robofox42]

Reading your quote of Stefan Molyneux and thinking about it, I now believe that there is a disconnect with Molyneux's argument and my own.  I will need to revisit his arguments and see where the disconnect is.  It is painful for me to say it, but thank you Noesis for pointing out my confusion of thinking.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Your appeal to your own ethos on interpretation is not an argument.  Using the word monumental doesn't improve your argument.  Claiming that I am wrong because you disagree with me is not an argument.

 

Once again you put goals where no goals are needed.  It is entirely empirical to state what universally preferable behavior is for rats.  No need to talk about goals.  I never stated that life is the highest goal.  I said that life is a universally preferred behavior along with other preferred behaviors.  You are purposely confusing empiricism with goals.  

 

Pyromaniacs, assasins, and all of those other examples are people who are choosing to avoid emotional trauma using temporary pleasure.  The fact that they have pleasure is not solely a basis for their behavior being universally preferable behavior. A floating balloon doesn't refute gravity.

 

"So I do not have to choose your goals. Your ethics are based on your goals. I reject them. I am therefore not subject to their requirements. The end."

 

Of course you don't.  You are entirely free to use whatever methodology you prefer.  Just like a person can pray for the explanation of a physics problem instead of use science.  But if you want to be logical and empirical, you "ought" to use UPB.  It is your choice. 

I would suggest you avoid to applying UPB to rats. You are unnecessarily setting yourself up for criticism because applying it to rats is really going out on a limb. You're making a bunch of really good points about moral theories but IMHO the rats thing is scuppering them.

[Noesis]

Reading your quote of Stefan Molyneux and thinking about it, I now believe that there is a disconnect with Molyneux's argument and my own.  I will need to revisit his arguments and see where the disconnect is.  It is painful for me to say it, but thank you Noesis for pointing out my confusion of thinking.

 

It's happened to all of us. I wish you luck in understanding it, and if you need any help, I'd be happy to discuss it in private. (And that goes for anyone else as well. Just send me a message.)

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

I am being perfectly logical and empirical, and you have yet to demonstrate how rejecting property rights or smacking someone in the face—when in line with my goals—is somehow illogical or not empirical. Like Molyneux said in the above quote, my choice remains my own about which goals I choose.

UPB tests moral theories. So what would be your justification for assault (smacking someone in the face)?

[Noesis]

UPB tests moral theories. So what would be your justification for assault (smacking someone in the face)?

 

That it fulfils my goal of injuring someone, to scare them, say. I do not have to be a person who values voluntary, respectful relationships—or at least, I do not have to always value them. If I enjoy dominating people through force, that is a choice I make. You might argue that it won't lead to my happiness, but if I disagree, well, you cannot argue that what makes me happy doesn't make me happy. 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

That it fulfils my goal of injuring someone, to scare them, say. I do not have to be a person who values voluntary, respectful relationships—or at least, I do not have to always value them. If I enjoy dominating people through force, that is a choice I make. You might argue that it won't lead to my happiness, but if I disagree, well, you cannot argue that what makes me happy doesn't make me happy. 

I think those would be your motivations, not justifications. A motivation is a reason you act. A justification is a defence of your actions. What would be your justification for the assault?

[Robofox42]

Alright, so I have re-read some parts of UPB.  I completely missed the part about Universally preferable behavior only makes sense for a given goal.  I did indeed make the monumental error of assuming that everyone should have the same goals.  This of course is not possible because you can't get a "should" from an "is."  Also, I now understand that given that UPB requires goals and the possibility of rationality, animals such as rats can't use UPB, because they are not able to create valid moral theories to achieve their goals.  Noesis, I appreciate you pointing out these errors.  I apologize for any arrogance I displayed because indeed you did understand better than I did.

 

So, Noesis, you say that morality doesn't exist.  I can see two interpretations for this, and I am curious which one you take.

1 - There is no set of goals that everyone should have.  Therefore, there is no common set of moral ethics that people should apply because people will have different goals.  There is no way to prove that people should have the same goals.  Not having a common set of goals makes it impossible for people to believe in a common set of ethics.

 

2 - For a given set of goals, there is no universally preferable way for achieving them.  Which methodology or set of ethics you use is entirely subjective and determined by the society.

 

If I understand your arguments, you appear to be arguing for #1, but I am not sure.  The moral nihilists I have read and talked to in teh past were arguing #2.  I incorrectly assumed you were arguing #2.  I believe that UPB is an effective argument to #2, but I don't have any real argument against #1 except to say that people with different goals than me, I don't want to be around or have in my life.

Edited April 5, 2014 by Robofox42

[dsayers]

Using force to stop a person from murdering someone is for the purpose of stopping them from murdering that person.

 

The context of what I was saying was in regards to somebody who has murdered, but is mechanically not posing a threat in the moment.

[Kevin Beal]

FDR 67 Property Rights

 

http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/property_rights.mp3

FDR 329 Property Rights On A Desert Island

 

http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_329_Property_Rights_On_A_Desert_Island.mp3

FDR 2159 The Philosophy of Property

 

http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_2159_philosophy_of_property.mp3

 

 

FDR 1719 The Salvation of Philosophy Part 2 - Property Rights

 

http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1719_the_salvation_of_philosophy_part_2_Property.mp3

[TheRobin]

Alright, so I have re-read some parts of UPB.  I completely missed the part about Universally preferable behavior only makes sense for a given goal.  I did indeed make the monumental error of assuming that everyone should have the same goals.  This of course is not possible because you can't get a "should" from an "is."  Also, I now understand that given that UPB requires goals and the possibility of rationality, animals such as rats can't use UPB, because they are not able to create valid moral theories to achieve their goals.  Noesis, I appreciate you pointing out these errors.  I apologize for any arrogance I displayed because indeed you did understand better than I did.

 

So, Noesis, you say that morality doesn't exist.  I can see two interpretations for this, and I am curious which one you take.

1 - There is no set of goals that everyone should have.  Therefore, there is no common set of moral ethics that people should apply because people will have different goals.  There is no way to prove that people should have the same goals.  Not having a common set of goals makes it impossible for people to believe in a common set of ethics.

 

2 - For a given set of goals, there is no universally preferable way for achieving them.  Which methodology or set of ethics you use is entirely subjective and determined by the society.

 

If I understand your arguments, you appear to be arguing for #1, but I am not sure.  The moral nihilists I have read and talked to in teh past were arguing #2.  I incorrectly assumed you were arguing #2.  I believe that UPB is an effective argument to #2, but I don't have any real argument against #1 except to say that people with different goals than me, I don't want to be around or have in my life.

 

I think you're missing the point a bit here. Moral theories are theories that want to explain, when a person has the right to use force against another. The first goal here is that the theory needs to be logically valid within itself. So you have multiple principles you can use and try out. Some of them produce logically consistent theories, some don't. You can use the UPB framework to show which ones work and which don't.What ethics isn't about is 1) What people do 2) What subjective tastes people should have

[cynicist]

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. 

 

Ownership had to be taken through an investment of labor. Surely you accept that there is a difference between the production of something and it's destruction?

 

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

 

Is it incoherent now? I mean even today I could buy some property and then say that anyone who steps foot on it owes me $1000000 dollars. Yet somehow society functions without worrying about this.

 

Which matters because...? 

 

Because our actions matter? I own my body which means I own my actions and their effects. Property is one of those effects (the result of an action, labor), as is the destruction I do to the property of others. 

 

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 take an action which produces something, then I own that something. If I stumble over rocks or breathe air, I own (am responsible for is more clear) the disturbance of those things but I didn't produce the rocks or the air. The disturbance was incidental, not purposeful. It's not a coincidence that all of your examples so far have been in that category. (like accidentally creating ash) So tell me, do you think bumping into things accidentally is difficult to distinguish from purposeful action like labor? That is the argument that you are making for why what I'm saying makes no sense.

 

 

By the way, I was only guessing as to the illusion thing. Care to answer my question about your approach to the things in your proximity? (I'm just imagining this hilarious comic where someone picks up your phone by mistake and you try to explain to them how you would prefer that they return the phone to its prior location because that would make it more convenient for you to use )

 

 

(Sidenote: I'm trying really hard to resist getting into the UPB/morality debate ><)

 

 

Edit: Nevermind 

 

So, Noesis, you say that morality doesn't exist.  I can see two interpretations for this, and I am curious which one you take.

1 - There is no set of goals that everyone should have.  Therefore, there is no common set of moral ethics that people should apply because people will have different goals.  There is no way to prove that people should have the same goals.  Not having a common set of goals makes it impossible for people to believe in a common set of ethics.

 

2 - For a given set of goals, there is no universally preferable way for achieving them.  Which methodology or set of ethics you use is entirely subjective and determined by the society.

 

If I understand your arguments, you appear to be arguing for #1, but I am not sure.  The moral nihilists I have read and talked to in teh past were arguing #2.  I incorrectly assumed you were arguing #2.  I believe that UPB is an effective argument to #2, but I don't have any real argument against #1 except to say that people with different goals than me, I don't want to be around or have in my life.

 

Your statement (1) doesn't make sense logically. If morality exists it must be universal, which means it exists independently of people's goals in the same way that truth does, even though they are both optional. Here's what you said with truth as a substitute, it may make it clearer:

 

1 - There is no set of goals that everyone should have.  Therefore, there is no common standard of truth that people should apply because people will have different goals.  There is no way to prove that people should have the same goals.  Not having a common set of goals makes it impossible for people to believe in a common standard of truth.

[Noesis]

I think those would be your motivations, not justifications. A motivation is a reason you act. A justification is a defence of your actions. What would be your justification for the assault?

 

Stefan uses goals and their requirements as a justification for actions in UPB. Either using a goal is a valid justification for an action that fulfils said goal, or it is not. Which is it? Molyneux doesn't get special privileges in logic. If you accept the same argument from him, then you must accept the same argument from someone else (even if it's a conclusion you do not like). 

[Noesis]

Alright, so I have re-read some parts of UPB.  I completely missed the part about Universally preferable behavior only makes sense for a given goal.  I did indeed make the monumental error of assuming that everyone should have the same goals.  This of course is not possible because you can't get a "should" from an "is."  Also, I now understand that given that UPB requires goals and the possibility of rationality, animals such as rats can't use UPB, because they are not able to create valid moral theories to achieve their goals.  Noesis, I appreciate you pointing out these errors.  I apologize for any arrogance I displayed because indeed you did understand better than I did.

 

Awesome—glad you understand those parts now.  And no worries. This is complicated stuff, as well as deeply personal. 

 

So, Noesis, you say that morality doesn't exist.  I can see two interpretations for this, and I am curious which one you take.

1 - There is no set of goals that everyone should have.  Therefore, there is no common set of moral ethics that people should apply because people will have different goals.  There is no way to prove that people should have the same goals.  Not having a common set of goals makes it impossible for people to believe in a common set of ethics.

 

2 - For a given set of goals, there is no universally preferable way for achieving them.  Which methodology or set of ethics you use is entirely subjective and determined by the society.

 

If I understand your arguments, you appear to be arguing for #1, but I am not sure.  The moral nihilists I have read and talked to in teh past were arguing #2.  I incorrectly assumed you were arguing #2.  I believe that UPB is an effective argument to #2, but I don't have any real argument against #1 except to say that people with different goals than me, I don't want to be around or have in my life.

 

 

 

Yes, I argue for 1. But I also would argue for 2 in cases where it makes sense.

 

For example, if someone has the goal to (a) get an A on their paper, as well as (b) get a better computer to play video games on, and © get a job that pays well, this goal set leaves a multitude of ways for the person to achieve their goals. 

 

(a) They could cheat to get the A on their paper, or they could study very hard and write it very well, or they could blackmail their teacher. 

(b) They could save up and buy a better computer, or they could steal a better computer, or they could scam somebody into giving them the money for it.

© They could go job-hunting or improve work skills, or they could make crime their "career" in a gang, or they could threaten someone into giving them a job. 

 

It would be very difficult to argue that a person can only achieve their goal in one way. Life is very complex, so often goals can be achieved in very round-about ways. There is no reason a person has to achieve a goal the most efficient way, the healthiest way, or the safest way. Efficiency, health, and safety are goals in themselves. 

 

If you want to say that in a specific circumstance for a specific person at a specific time there is only one way to achieve a goal, then I am fine with that. For example (to use one Molyneux has used), in this debate, with my goal currently being progress/truth (for this conversation), then using logic is the right thing to do. Now, that is a fine conclusion to reach, but it cannot be extended outside of the specific circumstance. For example, once I leave the debate, I could be someone who struggles with anxieties about illness and death, and the only thing that comforts me is the irrational, illogical thought of an afterlife. In that circumstance, you could say that I should be illogical, if my goal is not truth, but is instead comfort. 

 

People's goals change from moment to moment. To try to characterize humans as either "for truth" or "not for truth" is absurd. It depends on the context and the moment. You can be for it in certain respects without being for it in others. You can be peaceful in most situations, but some things trigger you and then you yell and break things. People are complicated. That is part of why I take issue when philosophies, moral codes, or viewpoints reduce things too simplistically, and fail to capture what is really going on regarding human behaviours.

 

Also, to address your last point (that you'd rather just not hang out with people who don't share your goals): That's fine, but please note that just because they have different goals than you does not make them "immoral" (by your definition of "immoral", which is tied to your own goals). 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Stefan uses goals and their requirements as a justification for actions in UPB. Either using a goal is a valid justification for an action that fulfils said goal, or it is not. Which is it? Molyneux doesn't get special privileges in logic. If you accept the same argument from him, then you must accept the same argument from someone else (even if it's a conclusion you do not like). 

 

I don't think that's true and I think you're using a definition of justification that I didn't use. 

But rather than argue that point I'll just accept that you hold that a goal is a valid justification. So your justification for the assault is "it fulfilled your goal of injuring someone, to scare them", right?. As you say, no one gets special privileges in logic so would you agree that this justification for assault would be valid for everyone? If for example someone assaults you  or is about to assault you would you agree that "it fulfills the goal to injure you, to scare you" is a valid justification? 

[Noesis]

 

As you say, no one gets special privileges in logic so would you agree that this justification for assault would be valid for everyone? If for example someone assaults you  or is about to assault you would you agree that "it fulfills the goal to injure you, to scare you" is a valid justification? 

 

 

Yes. But also note that my self-preservation goal is justification for self-defence. I would say that both parties are logically justified in acting consistently with their goals, in that case. 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Yes. But also note that my self-preservation goal is justification for self-defence. I would say that both parties are logically justified in acting consistently with their goals, in that case. 

 

Great, but you can't "logically" justify the assault to the person you assault because being assaulted cannot possibly be their goal, right? It will only be consistent with your goals and not with theirs, right?

[Noesis]

 

 

Great, but you can't "logically" justify the assault to the person you assault because being assaulted cannot possibly be their goal, right? It will only be consistent with your goals and not with theirs, right?

 

 

Your own actions are only logically required to be consistent with your own goals. Obviously they cannot be consistent with everyone else's goals—nor should they be. The other person's goal is irrelevant to what you should do to achieve your goals.

 

Also, be careful not to confuse social "justifications" with logical justification. It is not important, philosophically, that I convince the person that what I am doing is right or wrong. That is irrelevant. All that is philosophically relevant is that my actions have a logical justification (which are my chosen goals).  

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Your own actions are only logically required to be consistent with your own goals. Obviously they cannot be consistent with everyone else's goals—nor should they be. The other person's goal is irrelevant to what you should do to achieve your goals.

 

Also, be careful not to confuse social "justifications" with logical justification. It is not important, philosophically, that I convince the person that what I am doing is right or wrong. That is irrelevant. All that is philosophically relevant is that my actions have a logical justification (which are my chosen goals).  

I'm not sure why you wrote the first paragraph. It's interesting to know what you think but how is it relevant to my question?

I'll be careful not to confuse social justifications with logical justifications. You may have noticed that I haven't done that yet. 

As there's seems to be no answer to my question I'll ask again and re-phrase it a little. 

By your own criterion you can logically justify to yourself the assault but can you logically justify the assault to the person you assault? 

It's a simple question. I can answer it so why can't you?

[Kevin Beal]

Stef just published an essay which is relevant. Here's an excerpt:

 

 

In this essay, I will argue that there is a far easier and more immediate way to reject the philosophical and moral propositions of any and all thinkers. It has to do with an examination of personal hypocrisy, but does not fall prey to either the ad hominem or tu quoque fallacies.

 

In it he takes on this counter argument "it's not necessarily true that a fat man is selling a bad book on nutrition" and others like it.

 

He focuses on the validity of methodologies as the criteria for the validity of a proposition rather than what may be "accidental validity" which he argues is a meaningless phrase.

 

Although he doesn't address moral nihilism, or people who claim that property rights are invalid, it does provide a methodology for looking at such propositions and addresses inadvertently this supposed "tu quoque" fallacy referred to in the OP. In other words, that the actions a person takes not only does provide sufficient logical proof against the claim, but also how important it is generally to dismiss propositions on this basis, especially moral propositions.

 

He also puts this sophistry into perspective:

 

Sophists generally operate by stating emotionally pleasing or provocative conclusions, and refusing to show the consistent methodology that produced them. Rational thinkers are so often drawn into examining, evaluating and rebutting these statements, which is an unnecessary and even counterproductive waste of time and energy. These attempts not only promote the perceived value of sophistry, but insult the critical necessity for a consistent methodology in philosophical thought. Great thinkers should spend their time more wisely; philosophers have better things to do than fence with bumper stickers.

[Noesis]

 

I'm not sure why you wrote the first paragraph. It's interesting to know what you think but how is it relevant to my question?

I'll be careful not to confuse social justifications with logical justifications. You may have noticed that I haven't done that yet. 

As there's seems to be no answer to my question I'll ask again and re-phrase it a little. 

By your own criterion you can logically justify to yourself the assault but can you logically justify the assault to the person you assault? 

It's a simple question. I can answer it so why can't you?

 

 

Allow me to try this again. What I wrote in my last post was attempting to address your question. 

 

The "justification" I am talking about is neither to justify to yourself nor to anyone else. The human opinion is irrelevant (yours or anyone else's), as it does not change the facts of reality (such as that I need to eat in order to live, or that I need to get out of bed if I am going to go to work today).

 

In conclusion, justification to myself or anyone else would be social justification, which is not the kind philosophy deals with. Just the logical justification alone satisfies the philosophical requirements of proof of its validity. 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Allow me to try this again. What I wrote in my last post was attempting to address your question. 

 

The "justification" I am talking about is neither to justify to yourself nor to anyone else. The human opinion is irrelevant (yours or anyone else's), as it does not change the facts of reality (such as that I need to eat in order to live, or that I need to get out of bed if I am going to go to work today).

 

In conclusion, justification to myself or anyone else would be social justification, which is not the kind philosophy deals with. Just the logical justification alone satisfies the philosophical requirements of proof of its validity. 

 I find that hard to mentally unpack that because it sounds bizarre but I'm willing to accept that maybe i just don't get it. I'm confused because in this philosophical discussion concerning the branch of philosophy called ethics you have corrected people's logically inconsistent behavior and asked for logical justifications for their behavior many times. If philosophy can only deal with "logical justifications" then why are you using "social justifications" (justifications to yourself or anyone else) here? 

 

I wasn't aware that this strict distinction between a social justification and a logical justification existed. As far as I know a logical justification requires someone to justify to whether it be yourself or someone else. If I logically justify something then there has to be someone to justify it to. How else would you justify something? I understand the facts will be the same but we are talking about justifications.

I assume this is not something you made up, so could you please provide an argument for the claim (as you've just made statements so far)?

 

Also, if you cannot give a "logical justifcation" could you please tell me how you would socially justify the assault? 

[Noesis]

 

 I find that hard to mentally unpack that because it sounds bizarre but I'm willing to accept that maybe i just don't get it. I'm confused because in this philosophical discussion concerning the branch of philosophy called ethics you have corrected people's logically inconsistent behavior and asked for logical justifications for their behavior many times. If philosophy can only deal with "logical justifications" then why are you using "social justifications" (justifications to yourself or anyone else) here? 

 

I wasn't aware that this strict distinction between a social justification and a logical justification existed. As far as I know a logical justification requires someone to justify to whether it be yourself or someone else. If I logically justify something then there has to be someone to justify it to. How else would you justify something? I understand the facts will be the same but we are talking about justifications.

I assume this is not something you made up, so could you please provide an argument for the claim (as you've just made statements so far)?

 

Also, if you cannot give a "logical justifcation" could you please tell me how you would socially justify the assault? 

 

 

A social justification would be something like "he purposefully trampled my prize-winning flowers that took me twenty years to breed, and now I will not be able to enter them in the competition to win $100,000, so I was angry, and slapped him, because he deserved it". I might also try a tactic of "he was much bigger than me, and stronger, and I felt threatened by him, so I hit him," which is more or less a socially-acceptable justification, since I am a very small and weak woman, who wouldn't be injuring him, anyways, by hitting him. 

 

Logic is something entirely separate from people's beliefs about what they find to be convincing. Logic is formal. Something is either valid or invalid, and that is it. If you want to use logic to justify actions, the only way that philosophers have thus far been able to do so, as stated above, is by tying them to a goal. You cannot separate the two. 

 

So, logically-speaking, "you must eat to live," is true, but "you must eat," is not true. 

 

Hence, "you must hit someone to make them scared of you," is true, but "you must hit someone," is not true. 

 

Just like math where 2+2=4, a statement is either logically valid or it is not, regardless of your opinion about it.

 

Social justification is different, because it depends upon the society or company you are in. What is considered persuasive or acceptable depends entirely on the views of the people you are trying to convince. There would have been a time (not too long ago, unfortunately) in history, where I could try to justify owning slaves by saying "lots of people have slaves themselves, and it is legal". That might've worked as social justification at the time, but has nothing to do with it being logically valid. 

 

By the way, I have not been using social justifications in correcting people in this thread. I am only bringing up the difference between them, now, because when you are asking that someone justify their own actions to someone else with a different goal, the only possible way you can mean that is socially, because logically the other person's goal is irrelevant. Allow me to demonstrate:

 

2+2=4     and     "If you want money without having to work, you should steal Bob's wallet"

compared with

1+1=2     and     "If you want to keep your money, you should defend yourself against theft"

 

All of the above are logically true. It would be a mistake to mix up the conclusions from the source. When you are asking for me to prove to Bob why I should steal his wallet, when that is not Bob's goal, you are essentially mixing up the logical coherency. You are saying,

 

If Bob wants to keep his money then why should you steal Bob's wallet?

 

If you do that, your logic would look like this: 

 

2+2=2     and     "If you want to keep your money, you should steal Bob's wallet"

1+1=4   and     "If you want money without having to work, you should defend yourself against theft"

 

See what I did there? I mixed up all the conclusions with other sources. Obviously they become false, because their truth is only true insofar as it is attached to the correct question/goal. The correctness of "4" is true insofar as the question is 2+2 (or 1+1+1+1, or 3+1, and so on), and that you should steal somebody's wallet is only true regarding the goal that requires it. To ask to justify stealing Bob's wallet to Bob is tantamount to asking me to justify 4 as the correct answer for 1+1. 

[Kevin Beal]

2+2=2     and     "If you want to keep your money, you should steal Bob's wallet"

This is just kind of funny. The only logical form common to them is "if this, then that" (basically the definition of an argument). And then saying that if you can form anything in the same way (make any argument whatever) then it's the form that is wrong: all arguments are invalid.

 

If the form of the logic has any more to it's condition then the fact that it is a condition, then it needs to be mentioned, or else any evaluation of it is just a blatant strawman.

 

And what might be strawman'd in this instance? Probably this:

 

 

Social justification is different, because it depends upon the society or company you are in [...] That might've worked as social justification at the time, but has nothing to do with it being logically valid

 

It's a nice piece of rhetoric, but it's not actually addressing the position.

[aFireInside]

What made you pick those numbers ? 

 

 

2+2=4   and     "If you want money without having to work, you should steal Bob's wallet"

 

2+2=2   and     "If you want to keep your money, you should steal Bob's wallet"

 

 

shouldn't ----> "If you want to keep your money" be congruent to 1 + 1 ? 

because of ------>      1+1=2   and     "If you want to keep your money, you should defend yourself against theft"

 

 

 

 

An argument with a false proposition and a false conclusion is logically true . 

And also a false proposition with a true conclusion makes the argument logically true. 

 

 

            Truth Table 

P=false, Q=true ==> P -> Q = true 

P=false, Q=false ==> P -> Q = true

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_table

look for Logical equality

 

 

My point is that the logical format of an argument has nothing to do with the truth value of the conclusion. A conclusion could be true with a bad argument format. 

———————————————————————————————————

 

Stefs argument is that you could only be making the argument against property rights by exercising ownership over your own body. A self detonating argument. 

I don't see why that is Tu Quoque

----------------------------------------------------

Ok unless i forgot everything i learned from my discreet structures class 

 

The girl above is using bad logic. 

 

For example when she said : So, logically-speaking, "you must eat to live," is true, but "you must eat," is not true. 

 

 

You must eat cannot be assigned a truth value. Its just a command. 

And commands cannot be assigned truth values.