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

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

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. 

I think I got it. Logical justifications are entirely formal but social justifications only concern subjective preferences and moral / social norms, right? I now see where you're making the mistake. What you call social justifications are also subject to logic, so social justifications are also in part logical justifications. 

What you've done is create a distinction that is not valid because although social and logical justifications may address different spheres they are both subject to logic. If the examples of social justification you gave contained internal logical contradictions or contradict previously established criteria then they would necessarily be wrong no matter who was convinced by them. They could not possibly be valid justifications.

IOW people can have objective criteria for evaluating social justifications just as they do for logical justifications. "Lots of people have slaves themselves, and it is legal" may have worked as a justification for slavery at the time but it fails objectively as a justification because it violates criteria for logical consistency. The justification uses logical fallacies, right? Appeal to authority and appeal to popularity. Do you understand why those moral justifications (what you're calling social justifications I think) fail and why slavery would be objectively immoral on that basis? 

 

 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?

 

 

No, I would be saying "If you steal Bob's wallet then how would you justify that?". Bob will, by definition, not want his wallet to be stolen (not being stolen from is a universal preference so any theory, rule, justification for theft must break with universality). By definition you can give NO valid moral justification for stealing Bob's wallet, therefore stealing Bob's wallet will be morally wrong. You are still free to steal it of course. Morality is a choice.

 

When I ask you "How would you justify assault?" I'm not actually expecting you to give a valid answer. It's impossible to justify assault in any valid way. That's just the objective nature human interaction in reality. It's the same with all property violations like rape, theft and murder.

My challenge to you is to understand WHY assault can have no valid moral justification. I asked the question in order that you would realize this.

Now that I've explained why the distinction you make between social justification and logical justification is a false one, maybe you can give me the only real answer possible to the question , "How would you logically justify assault?". (Remember it's specifically "assault" not just the act of smacking someone in the face as that could be assault or not assault)

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. 

 

She would still be making more or less the same point. If it has no truth value then it cannot be true. Her logic is fine. I think you are maybe nit-picking on an ambiguity that doesn't matter.

[aFireInside]

 

 

She would still be making more or less the same point. If it has no truth value then it cannot be true. Her logic is fine. I think you are maybe nit-picking on an ambiguity that doesn't matter.

 

 

No by truth value i mean it cannot be true or false ! 

 

And yes I'm nit picking only because it seem to me like she was nit picking.

[RestoringGuy]

I think "you must eat" and "you must eat to live" are of the same logical character.  Both seem to say you can't ever choose otherwise, as if it's absolutely pre-destined to be what you'll do. If I throw a large brick at a thin sheet of glass, I can say "the glass must break".  But I say that only based on the certainty I have about how bricks and glass behave.  There is a clear sense that "you must eat" could be assigned a truth value, just as "you must eat to live".  If we see "you must eat to live" as somehow true by way of cause and effect, I discover I am not eating right now at this instant.  Also, one can be kept alive for a long time by injecting the right nutrients.  But aside from that loophole, there's some sense "you must eat" carries a meaning of inevitability (eventually you'll eat I predict), and "you must eat to live" (you'll eventually die otherwise, I predict).  Those predictions could be wrong, but the sentences seem to have the same logical meaning that something is being predicted to happen.

[aFireInside]

I think "you must eat" and "you must eat to live" are of the same logical character.  Both seem to say you can't ever choose otherwise, as if it's absolutely pre-destined to be what you'll do. If I throw a large brick at a thin sheet of glass, I can say "the glass must break".  But I say that only based on the certainty I have about how bricks and glass behave.  There is a clear sense that "you must eat" could be assigned a truth value, just as "you must eat to live".  If we see "you must eat to live" as somehow true by way of cause and effect, I discover I am not eating right now at this instant.  Also, one can be kept alive for a long time by injecting the right nutrients.  But aside from that loophole, there's some sense "you must eat" carries a meaning of inevitability (eventually you'll eat I predict), and "you must eat to live" (you'll eventually die otherwise, I predict).  Those predictions could be wrong, but the sentences seem to have the same logical meaning that something is being predicted to happen.

Truth Value: the property of a statement of being either true or false. All statements (by definition of "statements") have truth value; we are often interested in determining truth value, in other words in determining whether a statement is true or false. Statements all have truth value, whether or not any one actually knows what that truth value is. [A sentence which cannot be said to be true or false is without truth value, and therefore does not assert a "statement." Questions and commands, for example are genuine sentences, but do not assert statements and thus have no truth value.]A command alone has no truth value.

[Noesis]

 

I think I got it. Logical justifications are entirely formal but social justifications only concern subjective preferences and moral / social norms, right? I now see where you're making the mistake. What you call social justifications are also subject to logic, so social justifications are also in part logical justifications. 

 

Why would social justifications necessarily require logic? There is no reason they have to, which is my point. Logic cannot be illogical, but social justifications can be, because they are subjective.

 

If the examples of social justification you gave contained internal logical contradictions or contradict previously established criteria then they would necessarily be wrong no matter who was convinced by them. They could not possibly be valid justifications.

 

 

 They would be invalid logically, but not necessarily socially. That is my point. People accepting them as true makes them socially justified, since that is the meaning of "socially justified". Whether it is logically justified is a separate matter.

 

No, I would be saying "If you steal Bob's wallet then how would you justify that?". Bob will, by definition, not want his wallet to be stolen (not being stolen from is a universal preference so any theory, rule, justification for theft must break with universality). By definition you can give NO valid moral justification for stealing Bob's wallet, therefore stealing Bob's wallet will be morally wrong. You are still free to steal it of course. Morality is a choice.

 

 

 

 What do you mean by "moral justification"? Have you departed from "logical justification" or not? If not, then I have already given my logical justification in the form of goal satisfaction. 

 

When I ask you "How would you justify assault?" I'm not actually expecting you to give a valid answer. It's impossible to justify assault in any valid way. That's just the objective nature human interaction in reality. It's the same with all property violations like rape, theft and murder.

My challenge to you is to understand WHY assault can have no valid moral justification. I asked the question in order that you would realize this.

Now that I've explained why the distinction you make between social justification and logical justification is a false one, maybe you can give me the only real answer possible to the question , "How would you logically justify assault?". (Remember it's specifically "assault" not just the act of smacking someone in the face as that could be assault or not assault)

 

 

My justification is my goal that requires assault, whatever that may be. For example, if some creepy guy kidnaps my children and tells me that I won't get them back until I assault a police officer... then I'd assault a police officer. If my goal was something different, for example, like I enjoy assaulting people, then that also would be valid if my goal is to have enjoyment. 

 

If you don't take this as a valid justification for such actions, then tell me what you take as a valid justification for self-defence? I hope you will see that self-defence is just another action to satisfy a goal. And goals are freely chosen. 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Why would social justifications necessarily require logic? There is no reason they have to, which is my point. Logic cannot be illogical, but social justifications can be, because they are subjective.

They are subject to logic, not necessarily require logic. A justification requires logic if you want it to be valid.  

Saying they are 100 percent subjective is a bald assertion. I gave you the example of your slavery justification. It cannot possibly be valid. So although the acceptance of the justification is subjective, the justification itself uses logic and so submits itself to logical rules. 

I proved a "social" justification can be objectively wrong with the slavery example and you have not addressed it. 

 

 They would be invalid logically, but not necessarily socially. That is my point. People accepting them as true makes them socially justified, since that is the meaning of "socially justified". Whether it is logically justified is a separate matter.  

 

Going by what you've said so far, "Socially justified" just means that a person accepts some moral justification as true. Well if you accept something as true then it is subject to logic so it's NOT a separate matter. 

If someone comes to you and argues that slavery is okay or permissible because of X,Y and Z you would or could point out that their justifications contain logical fallacies and as such cannot be valid. The fact that they still might accept a justification would be irrelevant to the fact that it's still wrong.

 

 

 What do you mean by "moral justification"? Have you departed from "logical justification" or not? If not, then I have already given my logical justification in the form of goal satisfaction.  

 

 

I haven't departed as I've been arguing that moral justifications are subject to logic. Moral justifications just happen in a particular realm of human interaction. 

I understand that a logical justification in the form of goal satisfaction justifies the mechanics of the action. The goal was to take Bob's wallet and certain actions were necessary for that. Got it. 

The problem is I'm not talking about just the actions, I'm talking about the THEFT. There may be many reasons for taking Bob's wallet and how you justify the goal satisfaction may be identical in each case but it may not necessarily be theft. I'm asking how you justify the theft, NOT the action of the taking of the wallet. You can take Bob's wallet because he's your husband and you have permission or he's unconscious and you need info or maybe he previously conned you and you are seeking just restitution. In each case goal satisfaction can be logically justified just as it can in the case of theft. But I'm asking you to specifically justify the theft, not just the action. Do you understand?

 

My justification is my goal that requires assault, whatever that may be. For example, if some creepy guy kidnaps my children and tells me that I won't get them back until I assault a police officer... then I'd assault a police officer. If my goal was something different, for example, like I enjoy assaulting people, then that also would be valid if my goal is to have enjoyment. If you don't take this as a valid justification for such actions, then tell me what you take as a valid justification for self-defence? I hope you will see that self-defence is just another action to satisfy a goal. And goals are freely chosen.

 

 

Sure, that would be the logical consequence of your position. Self-defense and aggression would be the same because you've reduced them to "actions". As Stef points out, an action cannot be right or wrong, correct or incorrect. You eliminate the conceptual distinctions between self-defense and aggression, Love-making and rape, trade and theft. It's all just actions and the only possible logical justifications for those actions are goal satisfaction. Is that about, right?

[Noesis]

 

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"

 

I chose those numbers simply to demonstrate that you get a false/incoherent answer when you separate otherwise correct answers from their proper formula.

 

 

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. 

 

 

 

Huh? You are misunderstanding the rules of logic. 

 

First of all, Q is not a conclusion. It is a operand, like P. (And the same goes for my examples above.) 

 

Secondly, I'm afraid you're misunderstanding the use of the truth table in this circumstance. You cannot get a "true conclusion with a bad argument format". That would be illogical.

 

Let me try to explain what I think is confusing you. In the circumstance of logical implication (modus ponens), when p is not satisfied, the truth of "p—>q" remains intact, regardless of whether q is satisfied or not. For example, if we let p represent "it is raining outside" and q represent "you will get wet if go outside without an umbrella", then just because it is not raining outside right now does not prove either:

 

a) that you will not get wet if you go outside without an umbrella, for a reason other than rain, 

or

b) that if it were to start raining, you wouldn't get wet if you went outside without an umbrella.

 

The truth value of "p—>q" remains, even when it is not raining, and when you wouldn't get wet if you went outside without an umbrella. Do you see, now? Because if it were raining, then you would get wet if you went outside without an umbrella.

 

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. 

 

 

 

That was my point. That "you must not use force" is a command, without truth value, for example. It only has truth value in context of the correct goal. So, for example: 

 

"To be a pacifist, you must not use force."

 

An example of where it would be logically correct to use force:

 

"To assassinate the Teletubby named Tinky Winky, you must use force." 

[aFireInside]

I chose those numbers simply to demonstrate that you get a false/incoherent answer when you separate otherwise correct answers from their proper formula.

 

 

 

 

Huh? You are misunderstanding the rules of logic. 

 

First of all, Q is not a conclusion. It is a operand, like P. (And the same goes for my examples above.) 

 

Secondly, I'm afraid you're misunderstanding the use of the truth table in this circumstance. You cannot get a "true conclusion with a bad argument format". That would be illogical.

 

Let me try to explain what I think is confusing you. In the circumstance of logical implication (modus ponens), when p is not satisfied, the truth of "p—>q" remains intact, regardless of whether q is satisfied or not. For example, if we let p represent "it is raining outside" and q represent "you will get wet if go outside without an umbrella", then just because it is not raining outside right now does not prove either:

 

a) that you will not get wet if you go outside without an umbrella, for a reason other than rain, 

or

b) that if it were to start raining, you wouldn't get wet if you went outside without an umbrella.

 

The truth value of "p—>q" remains, even when it is not raining, and when you wouldn't get wet if you went outside without an umbrella. Do you see, now? Because if it were raining, then you would get wet if you went outside without an umbrella.

 

 

That was my point. That "you must not use force" is a command, without truth value, for example. It only has truth value in context of the correct goal. So, for example: 

 

"To be a pacifist, you must not use force."

 

An example of where it would be logically correct to use force:

 

"To assassinate the Teletubby named Tinky Winky, you must use force." 

 

Ok i understand what you said I'm just a little confused in the middle with the P -> Q. 

But thats ok, I feel like the conversation got of topic and too complex. 

Frankly im to tired to keep up with it. 

[Noesis]

 

I gave you the example of your slavery justification. It cannot possibly be valid. So although the acceptance of the justification is subjective, the justification itself uses logic and so submits itself to logical rules. 

I proved a "social" justification can be objectively wrong with the slavery example and you have not addressed it. 

 

Going by what you've said so far, "Socially justified" just means that a person accepts some moral justification as true. Well if you accept something as true then it is subject to logic so it's NOT a separate matter. 

 

 

No, no. "Social justification" just means that the society you are in or the company you are in accepts what you are doing. It may or may not have anything to do with logic. They do not need to base their acceptance of it on logic. (They could accept it because they hope to gain from it, for example.) 

 

If something is logically valid of course it is separate from whether people accept it. That is my point. It didn't matter that people accepted slavery; slavery was still inhumane and unfair. 

 

Can we get off this line of discussion? I think it is only hindering progress. It suffices to say that I accept only logical validation as proof for the "rightness" of an action—I do not accept social justification, nor any other kind.

 

 

I understand that a logical justification in the form of goal satisfaction justifies the mechanics of the action. The goal was to take Bob's wallet and certain actions were necessary for that. Got it. 

 

The problem is I'm not talking about just the actions, I'm talking about the THEFT. There may be many reasons for taking Bob's wallet and how you justify the goal satisfaction may be identical in each case but it may not necessarily be theft. I'm asking how you justify the theft, NOT the action of the taking of the wallet. You can take Bob's wallet because he's your husband and you have permission or he's unconscious and you need info or maybe he previously conned you and you are seeking just restitution. In each case goal satisfaction can be logically justified just as it can in the case of theft. But I'm asking you to specifically justify the theft, not just the action. Do you understand?

 

 

 

I do understand.

 

But:

 

1) You haven't established, logically, anyone's rights to property.

2) You haven't established, logically, that it would be "wrong" to take a person's property. 

 

Even if I acknowledge that it were theft (which I don't, but for the sake of argument, assume that I agree), you haven't demonstrated that theft is wrong if it satisfies my goal. I, as the thief, have logical justification on my side to defend my action of theft, if my goal is to "take money, by force, from Bob". What logical justification do you have that I shouldn't satisfy my own goal? 

 

Sure, that would be the logical consequence of your position. Self-defense and aggression would be the same because you've reduced them to "actions". As Stef points out, an action cannot be right or wrong, correct or incorrect. You eliminate the conceptual distinctions between self-defense and aggression, Love-making and rape, trade and theft. It's all just actions and the only possible logical justifications for those actions are goal satisfaction. Is that about, right?

 

 

They are just actions. I haven't "reduced them", but am only acknowledging that fact. What are you claiming they are, if not actions? 

 

Also, I do acknowledge differences amongst those actions. Obviously rape is different than love-making, because one involves force and the other doesn't. That permission was given or not given is demonstrable in reality. 

 

It is true that the only possible logical justifications for those actions are goal satisfaction, as far as I can see. If you see another way, then by all means, please enlighten me?

[dsayers]

@Gotzendammerung: If I could upvote your post twice, I would. Before her recent return (her FDR days were before my own), I had seen a convo referenced that she was a part of. I am incredibly embarrassed to admit this, especially knowing she will likely read it, but I was instantly pegged. I don't agree with her conclusions, but the way she handles it... wow. I could never fully put my finger on why I was so turned on. After reading your post, I guess subconsciously I knew it all along and didn't want to admit it because of my elevated moral sensitivities and efforts towards healing: It was her damage.

 

It makes sense now, despite being very uncomfortable to face. In my youth, when I first got a driver's license, was obsessed with females, and had just enough freedom to act on it, I was drawn to the damaged to inflict my own damage and recreate the damage done to me. I think the reason why, despite the progress I've made, I'm taken back to those days is because of the way she thinks and communicates. Like if I was in a room with Stef, I might be a bit nervous for a minute, but then it would be a great conversation for sure. I am very intimidated by Noesis, but in a way that I feel is endlessly intruiging. I seriously wish I could meet an undamaged/healed woman of that level of intellect and expression.

 

Okay, this is WTMI (too much information) radio signing off for now. Thank you so much for helping me to understand something that's actually been itching at me for a bit here.

[Noesis]

Firstly, I don't want anyone to be intimidated by me! Maybe that doesn't come through here, but I am soft-spoken, shy, and amiable in real-life. If you guys would like to have a non-philosophical conversation some time, about movies, or whatever, I would enjoy that. Perhaps the seriousness in which I treat debates is obscuring my humanity for you. I am a flawed person, like everyone else, and unashamed to admit that.

 

But as far as being "damaged" and "brutalized" I will have to disagree. It saddens me that you are concluding this about me without asking me, and talking as if I were not even here.

 

Could I offer an alternative explanation for your feelings? Maybe you like being challenged. Maybe you like people who treat philosophy seriously. I know I like those traits in a person. 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

No, no. "Social justification" just means that the society you are in or the company you are in accepts what you are doing. It may or may not have anything to do with logic. They do not need to base their acceptance of it on logic. (They could accept it because they hope to gain from it, for example.) 

 

If something is logically valid of course it is separate from whether people accept it. That is my point. It didn't matter that people accepted slavery; slavery was still inhumane and unfair. 

 

Can we get off this line of discussion? I think it is only hindering progress. It suffices to say that I accept only logical validation as proof for the "rightness" of an action—I do not accept social justification, nor any other kind.

I just said they do not need to base their acceptance of any justification on logic. I clearly said that. 

I said that Justifications "are subject to logic, not necessarily require logic. A justification requires logic if you want it to be valid."  I expect you to respond to arguments made and not refute arguments that were not made. 

 

I should get of this line of discussion because you "think" it's hindering progress??? Hindering progress towards WHAT? 

I just got through arguing that what YOU call social justifications are subject to logic and instead of making a valid rebuttal for why they're not you just repeat the same straw-man (that I argued "social" justifications require logic to be accepted by persons, society, etc). 

And now you expect me end this line of discussion? WTF Noesis? I'm sorry but you'll have to give some valid reason other than "It suffices to say that I accept only logical validation as proof for the "rightness" of an action—I do not accept social justification, nor any other kind.".

Who's even trying to argue for the "rightness" of actions? (other than YOU).

You introduced this concept of "social justification" and you just want to drop it? Are you serious?

 

I do understand. But:

 

1) You haven't established, logically, anyone's rights to property.

 

 

I have established that earlier. Bob owns himself and his wallet is an extension of himself into reality. 

The notion you may have of "rights" may differ from mine but so what?

 

 2) You haven't established, logically, that it would be "wrong" to take a person's property.

 

I have established it logically. Any justification for stealing a person's property cannot be logically justified as it breaks with universality. 

 

 Even if I acknowledge that it were theft (which I don't, but for the sake of argument, assume that I agree), you haven't demonstrated that theft is wrong if it satisfies my goal. I, as the thief, have logical justification on my side to defend my action of theft, if my goal is to "take money, by force, from Bob". What logical justification do you have that I shouldn't satisfy my own goal?  

 

It doesn't matter if you acknowledge that it's theft or not. Theft is objectively distinct from not theft. 

As I've argued, satisfying your goal is irrelevant as that only deals with the actions. The actions themselves cannot be right or wrong. Is stabbing right or wrong? It depends on the moral nature. If it's surgery then you can justify that. If it's a serial killer doing it for fun then he cannot justify it. Even if you reject the the right or wrong part you must surely agree that the nature of those two examples of stabbing are not just distinct in degree but in kind. 

 

They are just actions. I haven't "reduced them", but am only acknowledging that fact. What are you claiming they are, if not actions?  Also, I do acknowledge differences amongst those actions. Obviously rape is different than love-making, because one involves force and the other doesn't. That permission was given or not given is demonstrable in reality. 

 

It is true that the only possible logical justifications for those actions are goal satisfaction, as far as I can see. If you see another way, then by all means, please enlighten me?

 

 

I have enlightened you. Goal satisfaction is irrelevant. Two people could force someone to have sex; one of them severally mentally handicapped and the other mentally normal. The actions themselves may be precisely the same but in the former case there could be no rape. A person who cannot understand their actions cannot rape even though their actions may be precisely the same as a rapist's. This is the proof that rape is more than simply the action. Therefore your logical justification of "goal satisfaction" (which only addresses the action) is not valid. If your goal was to "rape" (to specifically violate another person) then "goal satisfaction" also is not valid because you've acknowledged more to rape than just the actions.

There is no valid justification for rape. If you rape someone you acknowledge that it's their body you're violating (you accept ownership of your own body to commit the rape). You would not accept any possible justification for being raped yourself (by definition). If someone raped you there is no possible moral justification someone could give you that I could not show to be wrong. As such rape is morally wrong. Same with theft, murder and assault as they all on the same continuum of property rights. 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Yes, philosophy, sometimes, is exactly like if you were playing a game of "Clue" : you have to shock things a little bit hoping to get a powerful, handsome, meaningful feedback revealing all you have to know. 

 

Your answer is, I wonder, - as smooth as your skin, and, in some way, I must confess that it is damaging by brain : my most "normals" (in the mathematical sense) kind of interaction are all-based on abnormals semi-agressives behaviours. Reading this unexpectedly "personal" feedback of yours, - was like surfing on a dark-side-of-the-moon's sea.

 

Don't get me wrong : I'm purely egotistical here, - analyzing you because I find in your postulates some of the shivered ideas that gave birth to my own Thought. Be sure that I'm knot knocking in the backdoor of your unconscious "ex-nihilo", or only armed with my insolent attitude : I've listen carefully to your voice, - can you still hide ?

 

Shyness is a universal disease. To shy individuals "logic" act as a kind of magical potion, - an elixir of truth. 

 

Remember : it's not if you think you're going to paradise that you should keep going. Fuck "la vie en rose" !

 

The only thing that I value more than to be challenged, - is to be defeated. 

Fag.

[Noesis]

I just said they do not need to base their acceptance of any justification on logic. I clearly said that. 

I said that Justifications "are subject to logic, not necessarily require logic. A justification requires logic if you want it to be valid."  I expect you to respond to arguments made and not refute arguments that were not made. 

 

I should get of this line of discussion because you "think" it's hindering progress??? Hindering progress towards WHAT? 

I just got through arguing that what YOU call social justifications are subject to logic and instead of making a valid rebuttal for why they're not you just repeat the same straw-man (that I argued "social" justifications require logic to be accepted by persons, society, etc). 

And now you expect me end this line of discussion? WTF Noesis? I'm sorry but you'll have to give some valid reason other than "It suffices to say that I accept only logical validation as proof for the "rightness" of an action—I do not accept social justification, nor any other kind.".

Who's even trying to argue for the "rightness" of actions? (other than YOU).

You introduced this concept of "social justification" and you just want to drop it? Are you serious?

 

 

 

 

If we agree that social justification is "subject to" logical justification, then it is ultimately only logical justification that matters, and not the social justification. Correct? Then we agree. 

 

You were the one to introduce "social justification"—I just put a name to it. You brought up social justification by asking me to justify to Bob my taking his wallet. That is not a question of logic, because I had already given you the logical answer: That any justification cannot be separated from its goal, and therefore that the thief's logical justification lies in his/her goal. Therefore, asking me to justify something outside of the context of one's own goal is asking for a different kind of justification, other than logic. That is what I've been trying to get you to understand, and at times it sounded like you have understood that. But then you go and try to say that it is logical justification to separate goal and action again, and so I do not know how to make further progress.

 

If you want to stay on this topic, then sure, I'm willing to try. But it is my suggestion that we try not to focus on the disagreement we have there, but rather we focus on what we do agree on: That logical justification rules. 

I have established that earlier. Bob owns himself and his wallet is an extension of himself into reality. 

The notion you may have of "rights" may differ from mine but so what?

 

 

You established no such thing. You only asserted it as your opinion/belief, without any reason to take your word for it. I am committing no contradiction when I deny rights to things in reality, so logically my position is valid. Therefore I maintain my position until you can demonstrate where my logic is not sound. 

 

I have established it logically. Any justification for stealing a person's property cannot be logically justified as it breaks with universality.

 

How does satisfying a personal goal—which is something allowed to everyone, universally—break with universality?

 

I have enlightened you. Goal satisfaction is irrelevant. Two people could force someone to have sex; one of them severally mentally handicapped and the other mentally normal. The actions themselves may be precisely the same but in the former case there could be no rape. A person who cannot understand their actions cannot rape even though their actions may be precisely the same as a rapist's. This is the proof that rape is more than simply the action. Therefore your logical justification of "goal satisfaction" (which only addresses the action) is not valid. If your goal was to "rape" (to specifically violate another person) then "goal satisfaction" also is not valid because you've acknowledged more to rape than just the actions.

 

 

What do you mean that "a person who cannot understand their actions cannot rape"? That is not true. Where did you get this idea from? It only means that they do not understand what they are doing, even though they are doing it. 

 

And I already acknowledged that rape was a violent action, done without permission. That is all there is to it that is "more" about it than love-making. Now that I have acknowledged that fact I can still logically validate it with goal-satisfaction.

 

There is no valid justification for rape. If you rape someone you acknowledge that it's their body you're violating (you accept ownership of your own body to commit the rape). You would not accept any possible justification for being raped yourself (by definition). If someone raped you there is no possible moral justification someone could give you that I could not show to be wrong. As such rape is morally wrong. Same with theft, murder and assault as they all on the same continuum of property rights. 

 

 

You are wrong about that, because I would accept the logical justification of rape, or theft, or whatever else. I still would think it is repugnant, but that is a separate matter from what is or isn't logically valid. 

 

Do you mean anything more than "logical justification" when you say "moral justification"? If so, please explain this difference and its validity as a concept. 

[Kevin Beal]

What exists in reality is not conditioned by a process of thoughts (it's man-made recognition only), - since thought through language imply always a loss of information (see "information entropy" and looks to General Semantics). To be and to stay conform to reason "as an absolute", like for the hyper-orthodoxs Jews trying to "respect" the 600+ "divine laws" of the Torah - is concretely truly impossible. Logic is a tool useful to organize information and propose some new intentions.

It is not true that a thought process cannot condition reality. Certain actions are caused by thoughts, specifically willed behavior, which ethics is supposed to describe.

 

You can see this in declarative and commissive speech acts. Their conditions of satisfaction (a promise carried out, a declaration creating the reality it describes, etc) are such that it is the thoughts that impress upon the world, through our action (reality).

 

A moral proposition contains within it the assertive (it is true that...) and an implied commissive speech act (I represent this moral proposition and am committed to it's veracity, in part through my own actions).

 

By saying that a proposition is moral or immoral, you simultaneously commit yourself, and by committing yourself through words, but not representing it through action, you have committed a moral hypocrisy (or inconsistency).

 

If you accept this, you accept UPB, and you cannot sustain moral nihilism.

 

In order for my argument to be comprehensible, the semantics have to have been communicated and as part of that, a commissive. We all commit ourselves in debate and are thus subject to UPB. If you debate, if you understand any of my argument, then your statements are subject to UPB.

[Noesis]

If you debate, if you understand any of my argument, then your statements are subject to UPB.

 

UPB is just logic applied to theories pertaining to human behaviours. 

 

And of course I believe any statements I make are subject to logic. By all means please subject my statements to logic. 

 

If my statement is that "action A satisfies goal B" it seems logic is on my side. UPB supports moral nihilism, because it cannot refute it. It is not self-contradictory to accept the fact that no action or goal can be proven to be superior than any other, outside the context of a specific goal.

 

If UPB tests moral theories, then test this one: "It is right to use force if it is necessary to satisfy the chosen goal." 

 

Not only is that an objectively true statement, but it satisfies universality. 

[Kevin Beal]

And of course I believe any statements I make are subject to logic. By all means please subject my statements to logic.

I already did several times. But, my comments are not to you. It's meant to inform the debate generally since there is a lot of what I believe are mistaken presumptions.

 

If the debate is not properly defined, debate will just go on forever, just like the thread we had three years ago. If I can save people some unnecessary frustration or grief, then that would be great.

[TheRobin]

If UPB tests moral theories, then test this one: "It is right to use force if it is necessary to satisfy the chosen goal." 

 

Not only is that an objectively true statement, but it satisfies universality. 

 Well, I'll give it a shot. A wants to take the shoes B is currently wearing. B wants to keep them. A uses force and B uses force. If A is right to use force then B can't also be right to stop him from doing that, else what does "right" mean? (I assume this might be a point of disagreement). But at the same time B has the right to use force too to satisfy his goal while A doesn't have the right to stop him. So you'd end up in a situation where both people simultaniously have the right to use force and don't have the right to use force. (I hope this makes some sense logically. Still awake for 32 hours here, so it might be total nonsense ofc  )

[Noesis]

 Well, I'll give it a shot. A wants to take the shoes B is currently wearing. B wants to keep them. A uses force and B uses force. If A is right to use force then B can't also be right to stop him from doing that, else what does "right" mean? (I assume this might be a point of disagreement). But at the same time B has the right to use force too to satisfy his goal while A doesn't have the right to stop him. 

So you'd end up in a situation where both people simultaniously have the right to use force and don't have the right to use force. 

 

(I hope this makes some sense logically. Still awake for 32 hours here, so it might be total nonsense ofc  )

 

If both of them have the right to use force, and both of them use force, then they are both in the right, and they are both successful in practicing the moral theory without contradiction. This is not a logical problem at all, because their right to the use of the force does not infringe on anyone else's right to that same privilege. Anyone and everyone can use force without a contradiction occurring. 

 

This is because you cannot say that anyone doesn't have the right to use force. Just because I have a right to use it does not mean that you cannot use it. While I am adhering to the theory that "it is right to use force if it is necessary to satisfy the chosen goal" I am upholding everyone else's right to use force—even on me—as long as it satisfies their chosen goal. Hence there is no contradiction.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

 

 

 

If we agree that social justification is "subject to" logical justification, then it is ultimately only logical justification that matters, and not the social justification. Correct? Then we agree. 

 

If the social justifications (moral justifications) are illogical then they are wrong and as such the behavior they justify cannot be right. Correct? Then we agree and you're no longer a moral nihilist.

 

 

 You were the one to introduce "social justification"—I just put a name to it.

 

 

I introduced "moral" justification which you asserted was 100 percent subjective and placed it in a category called "social justification".

 

 

You brought up social justification by asking me to justify to Bob my taking his wallet. That is not a question of logic, because I had already given you the logical answer: That any justification cannot be separated from its goal, and therefore that the thief's logical justification lies in his/her goal. Therefore, asking me to justify something outside of the context of one's own goal is asking for a different kind of justification, other than logic.

 

 

I asked you to justify the theft, not just the actions. Yes, you wanted Bob's wallet (Goal) and actions X, Y and Z were logically necessary (justification). I get it. I'm not asking you to justify that. It's justifying the theft. The theft. The theft. 

You take Bob's wallet. You understand it is BOB'S wallet. You understand Bob is claiming property rights over the wallet. You understand it is not YOUR wallet. (I know you reject property but I can only deal with so much silliness at once so for the sake of argument just go with it) When you take the wallet you are not taking it because it's being given to you or you have permission or any such voluntary reason. You are specifically taking ownership of the wallet and denying Bob. You are committing theft. THEFT. 

How do you justify the theft? You have committed theft (or are going to commit theft). How do you justify it. You may be asked to justify it in a court or by bob or by some friend or you conscience or whatever. How do you justify theft? NOT how do you justify the actions involved in the theft. How do you justify the theft?  

 

 That is what I've been trying to get you to understand, and at times it sounded like you have understood that. But then you go and try to say that it is logical justification to separate goal and action again, and so I do not know how to make further progress. 

 

If you want to make further progress then you can tell me what you think my argument is. I can tell YOU what YOUR argument is here. In fact if you want we can swap places and I am certain I can argue YOUR position as well as you can. I was a moral nihilist for a while. I used to enjoy arguing with atheists who would make all sorts of moral arguments as if they had any foundation. I could just constantly pull down their house of cards but I feel like a bit of a prick for it now.

I'm  willing to bet you cannot argue my position. If it turns out you cannot and I can argue yours then we'll know who's hindering progress.

 

You established no such thing. You only asserted it as your opinion/belief, without any reason to take your word for it. I am committing no contradiction when I deny rights to things in reality, so logically my position is valid. Therefore I maintain my position until you can demonstrate where my logic is not sound.

 

No I established it. Bob owns himself. That's self ownership which is exclusive control of ones body and responsibility for the effects of one's actions. He created the wallet and it's contents, so by definition it is an extension of himself into reality.

When you deny property rights you are using property rights to make that denial. Hence you're making a contradiction. 

 

 How does satisfying a personal goal—which is something allowed to everyone, universally—break with universality? 

 

Who argued that satisfying a personal goal breaks with universality? You loaded that question with your own version of MY argument. If you want to argue respectfully as you claim you do then don't ask loaded questions. 

Don't do it.

 

 What do you mean that "a person who cannot understand their actions cannot rape"? That is not true. Where did you get this idea from? It only means that they do not understand what they are doing, even though they are doing it.

 

No, they cannot rape. That's why it would make no sense to charge an mentally deficient person with rape; because although they can force a person to have sex they cannot rape. If the person does not understand what they're doing then it's not rape. If it's not rape then the mentally handicapped person did not rape. If you do not understand the distinction then you have some mental disconnect and if you are not willing to concede this obvious point then there's no way you will be willing to budge a millimeter on the other less obvious points. The most likely conclusion is that you are not arguing in good faith but rather digging your heels in and simply seeking to knock down and deflect any argument that comes your way, regardless of its merits.

 

And I already acknowledged that rape was a violent action, done without permission. That is all there is to it that is "more" about it than love-making. Now that I have acknowledged that fact I can still logically validate it with goal-satisfaction. 

 

You can logically validate anything to yourself with "goal satisfaction". It's a trivial point. I can logically validate my conclusion that you are wrong with "I want you to be wrong" therefore I ought to hold that you are wrong". 

But that is irrelevant to whether you're right or wrong. When it comes to something like rape then any possible justification that could be made will either make logical sense or it won't. If it doesn't then it's wrong. 

 

 You are wrong about that, because I would accept the logical justification of rape, or theft, or whatever else. I still would think it is repugnant, but that is a separate matter from what is or isn't logically valid. 

 

Okay then you'd accept the logical justification for someone raping you. 

 

Let's play that out.

 

Rape victim: Why'd you rape me?

Rapist: I wanted sex with you and you did not so logically I had to use force. That is my logical justification. It was goal satisfaction.

Rape victim: So can I rape you?

Rapist. No, it would be logically impossible for me to give you permission to rape me. 

Rape victim: So your goal satisfaction ignores your victim's goals?

Rapist: Yes, my victims goals to not need to be taken into account when establishing my OWN goal satisfaction

Rape victim: Why? Are your goals inherently more important than everyone else's?

Rapist: Well no. I guess satisfying my own goals and not other people's is arbitrary. I knew my victim's goal was not to be raped yet I deliberately placed my own goals higher than hers/ yours. 

Rape victim: How do you logically justify giving your goals a higher priority?

Rapist: I guess logically I can't argue that my goals can be satisfied but my victim's goals cannot. That justifications breaks with universality and cannot be valid.

Rape victim: Oh ya daft rapist.

 

BTW, whether you find it repugnant doesn't matter. The rapist could find the fact that some arrogant woman who refuses him the right to use the vagina she happens to be attached to repugnant. She doesn't own the vagina. It's not hers because property does not exist so there can be no rights to the vagina. The rapist could view rape as self-defense and the woman as the aggressor because she's hoarding access to the only vagina.

That's how bizarre your position is. 

 

 Do you mean anything more than "logical justification" when you say "moral justification"? If so, please explain this difference and its validity as a concept.

 

For example people very often put forward their moral justifications for the state. They may argue that the state is required to defend property rights and so it's existence is morally justified. If that justification is logically / empirically wrong then that moral justification logically fails. Thus far there are no valid moral justifications for the state yet it is still imposed. It is immoral. The fact that a statist can logically justify their support of the state with goal satisfaction is irrelevant. Their goals do not magically supersede other people's. See?

 

 

 

 

[cynicist]

If UPB tests moral theories, then test this one: "It is right to use force if it is necessary to satisfy the chosen goal." 

 

Not only is that an objectively true statement, but it satisfies universality. 

 

That sounds like a language manipulation to me. Right has the dual meaning of good/correct, but only one of those is a moral statement. If you are saying morally good/right then the argument is refuted in UPB.

 

What do you mean by "moral justification"? Have you departed from "logical justification" or not? If not, then I have already given my logical justification in the form of goal satisfaction. 

 

My justification is my goal that requires assault, whatever that may be. For example, if some creepy guy kidnaps my children and tells me that I won't get them back until I assault a police officer... then I'd assault a police officer. If my goal was something different, for example, like I enjoy assaulting people, then that also would be valid if my goal is to have enjoyment. 

 

If you don't take this as a valid justification for such actions, then tell me what you take as a valid justification for self-defence? I hope you will see that self-defence is just another action to satisfy a goal. And goals are freely chosen. 

 

The issue here is that while those are indeed logical justifications, they cannot be put forward as logical moral theories. I can't say that my goal to assault people is both enjoyable AND morally good, since I can't universalize it. Quoting from UPB:

 

Two men in a room cannot be both morally good at the same time, since one of them must be initiating

violence against the other, and the other must be resisting it – since if he is not resisting it, it is by

definition not violence, as in the case of the surgeon we discussed above. Thus virtue can only be enabled

by resisting virtue, and two men in the same circumstances cannot both be moral at the same time, and

so on – all of which are violations of UPB.

 

 

I seriously wish I could meet an undamaged/healed woman of that level of intellect and expression.

 

/signed

 

It's sad that even the desire to discuss these things is so rare.

[Noesis]

 

I asked you to justify the theft, not just the actions. Yes, you wanted Bob's wallet (Goal) and actions X, Y and Z were logically necessary (justification). I get it. I'm not asking you to justify that. It's justifying the theft. The theft. The theft. 

You take Bob's wallet. You understand it is BOB'S wallet. You understand Bob is claiming property rights over the wallet. You understand it is not YOUR wallet. (I know you reject property but I can only deal with so much silliness at once so for the sake of argument just go with it) When you take the wallet you are not taking it because it's being given to you or you have permission or any such voluntary reason. You are specifically taking ownership of the wallet and denying Bob. You are committing theft. THEFT. 

How do you justify the theft? You have committed theft (or are going to commit theft). How do you justify it. You may be asked to justify it in a court or by bob or by some friend or you conscience or whatever. How do you justify theft? NOT how do you justify the actions involved in the theft. How do you justify the theft?  

 

I'm sensing some frustration, which I am sorry to have caused you. I feel as if I have answered your question already, and you do not. Allow me to try again. 

 

Would you consider an acceptable definition of theft to be "the taking or use of something without the permission of the person(s) who previously claimed a right to it"? 

 

I do not agree with your assessment that I am "taking ownership of the wallet" when I take it, since if I am denying all property rights for everyone to all things, and so I cannot abide that description, since it doesn't accurately portray my views. 

 

I understand that you see it as an assertion of my goals as superior to Bob's goals, but that would be mistaken. See, all I believe is that everyone has a logical right to act in pursuit of success of their goal. Obviously the actual success of their goal is their own responsibility, and they can fail even if nobody else is trying to hinder them. 

 

For example, if I were alone on a desert island full of coconuts, but did not know how to open them, I could die of starvation, even though I was trying very hard to eat so that I could live. 

 

Similarly, when I am in society, and I want to get a good grade on a test, I could study really hard, but accidentally study the wrong material, and therefore get a bad grade. 

 

Now for an example with opposing goals: If I want to have first prize in the science fair, but so does Tom, we are both right to pursue that goal, even though we cannot both have our goals successfully achieved. You would not say that I would be in the wrong in the circumstance of the science fair, would you? So then why you would apply it to another instance, involving theft, does not logically make sense to me.

 

The logical validation is only supporting the right to act in pursuit of your goal. Notice that it does not imply that you ought to be successful in your goal. The logical formula does not say:

 

"If you want to live, then you should eat—and then you should be successful in your goal". 

 

It also does not say that you should put anyone else's goals ahead of your own. I am not putting my own goal AHEAD of anyone else's when I assert that we all have EQUAL validity to pursue our goals. That is putting all of our actions on the same level. 

 

I respect Bob's goal to defend his wallet, and I acknowledge his logical right to take my wallet, if he so chooses. That is not putting the pursuit of my goals ahead of his in any way. They are equal to his pursuit of his goals. Only one of us will be successful, however, and logic says nothing about being fair about that, because that would be impossible. Obviously it is logically impossible for everyone's goals to be satisfied at the same time, because goals conflict with each other. 

 

No I established it. Bob owns himself. That's self ownership which is exclusive control of ones body and responsibility for the effects of one's actions. He created the wallet and it's contents, so by definition it is an extension of himself into reality.

When you deny property rights you are using property rights to make that denial. Hence you're making a contradiction. 

 

You haven't logically proven that "an extension of [your]self into reality" means anything significant, logically-speaking. That also is not clearly defined at all. I mean, when I extend my arm "into reality" does that mean that I now forever own the molecules I touch? You would first need to establish a solid definition, that would clearly outline what is and isn't "an extension of one's self into reality" before you begin defending a philosophical position on those grounds. 

 

Secondly, I do not deny the "property rights" of the self. That is the only type of right I do agree with, and hence, I am not contradicting myself when I use myself to deny rights to things other than the self. I am not using the wallet to deny Bob's right to his wallet. Hence there is no preformative contradiction. (If you still think there is a preformative contradiction, please demonstrate how. Please use logical form, if possible.) 

 

You cannot validly attempt to prove that property rights are valid while assuming that my use of an object is evidence of property rights. That is known as circular reasoning (AKA "begging the question"). You must prove the conclusion that "property rights exists" using premises that do not depend on property rights being assumed as true. That is the only proper way to do logic. If you do not believe me, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning.

 

 

 

No, they cannot rape. That's why it would make no sense to charge an mentally deficient person with rape; because although they can force a person to have sex they cannot rape. If the person does not understand what they're doing then it's not rape. If it's not rape then the mentally handicapped person did not rape. If you do not understand the distinction then you have some mental disconnect and if you are not willing to concede this obvious point then there's no way you will be willing to budge a millimeter on the other less obvious points. The most likely conclusion is that you are not arguing in good faith but rather digging your heels in and simply seeking to knock down and deflect any argument that comes your way, regardless of its merits.

 

What is your definition for "rape"? If it is "having sex with someone without their permission" (as any dictionary will show a similar definition), then rape happened, regardless of the understanding or lack thereof of the rapist. The reason we do not punish people who do not understand their actions is: 

 

a) They do not understand that what they did hurt another person. 

b) They would gain no benefit from any punishment, since it would be meaningless to them in terms of teaching them anything.

 

I regret your assessment of my position on this as "digging my heels in", as I am only trying to be accurate. 

 

 

Let's play that out.

 

Rape victim: Why'd you rape me?

Rapist: I wanted sex with you and you did not so logically I had to use force. That is my logical justification. It was goal satisfaction.

Rape victim: So can I rape you?

Rapist. No, it would be logically impossible for me to give you permission to rape me. 

Rape victim: So your goal satisfaction ignores your victim's goals?

Rapist: Yes, my victims goals to not need to be taken into account when establishing my OWN goal satisfaction

Rape victim: Why? Are your goals inherently more important than everyone else's?

Rapist: Well no. I guess satisfying my own goals and not other people's is arbitrary. I knew my victim's goal was not to be raped yet I deliberately placed my own goals higher than hers/ yours. 

Rape victim: How do you logically justify giving your goals a higher priority?

Rapist: I guess logically I can't argue that my goals can be satisfied but my victim's goals cannot. That justifications breaks with universality and cannot be valid.

Rape victim: Oh ya daft rapist.

 

The victim would not ask for permission from the rapist to rape them, and therefore they could rape him in turn if they wanted to.

 

As for ignoring other people's goal satisfaction—as I hopefully have explained well enough above—that is perfectly valid. If I want the light switch on, and you want it off, only one of us can have our goal satisfied. That does not thereby make it wrong for you to achieve your goals when I fail mine, since there is not logical support for the equality of goal success. There is only logical validity for everyone's equality in their pursuit of their goals. Hopefully that is very clear, now.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

If both of them have the right to use force, and both of them use force, then they are both in the right, and they are both successful in practicing the moral theory without contradiction. This is not a logical problem at all, because their right to the use of the force does not infringe on anyone else's right to that same privilege. Anyone and everyone can use force without a contradiction occurring. 

 

This is because you cannot say that anyone doesn't have the right to use force. Just because I have a right to use it does not mean that you cannot use it. While I am adhering to the theory that "it is right to use force if it is necessary to satisfy the chosen goal" I am upholding everyone else's right to use force—even on me—as long as it satisfies their chosen goal. Hence there is no contradiction.

 

If they both have the right to initiate force then they both must accept the others right to use initiate force but if they both accept it then it's no longer force.

 

You would not upholding up everyone's right to use force because in initiating force you must necessarily deny the other the right to initiate force on you. 

The state claims the moral to use force to tax you but it does not grant that same right to citizens. Thus it breaks with universality.

[Noesis]

The issue here is that while those are indeed logical justifications, they cannot be put forward as logical moral theories. I can't say that my goal to assault people is both enjoyable AND morally good, since I can't universalize it. 

 

Actually, you can universalize it. The mistake is in assuming that both people in the room must be successful in their goal in order to uphold the moral theory, when that is not true. 

 

The moral theory of "it is morally right to assault a person" is upheld and successfully completed, no matter what happens in the room (even if neither person attempts to assault the other), because it is the theory that is tested, not the action. 

 

So the question is "can this theory be universalized?" and the answer is "yes, because if anyone does assault someone, it can be considered right". The theory does not require everyone to attempt assault or be successful in assault to satisfy the theory's universalizability. 

 

All that matters is that the theory can be applied to everyone without exception.  

If they both have the right to initiate force then they both must accept the others right to use initiate force but if they both accept it then it's no longer force.

 

You would not upholding up everyone's right to use force because in initiating force you must necessarily deny the other the right to initiate force on you. 

The state claims the moral to use force to tax you but it does not grant that same right to citizens. Thus it breaks with universality.

 

By "accepting" that another person has the logically-legitimate right to attempt to initiate force does not mean that you welcome, want, or approve of their force. I do not want you to take away my keyboard, and acknowledging that you have the philosophical right to take it does not change the fact that I do not want you to take away my keyboard. I do not want to be pushed into the mud, either, and even though I recognize your logical validity to push me into the mud, it is still force and it is still against my will when you push me into the mud.

 

Like I said before: Nobody has the "right" to be successful in their goals, so nobody has the right to successfully initiate force on me (and I do not claim to have the right to successfully initiate force against them). But they do have the logical right to attempt to use force against me. If they fail to succeed, they are still achieving their right to pursue their own goals to the best of their ability, just like me. And just like everyone, equally. 

 

As for your comment about what the state claims: I am not arguing in defence of the state, and the state does not purport to have logical validity as the basis for its laws, so it is not relevant to this discussion as far as I can see. 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

 

 

I'm sensing some frustration, which I am sorry to have caused you. I feel as if I have answered your question already, and you do not. Allow me to try again. 

You've answered a question about the mechanics of the actions of theft. 

 

Theft is taking property that isn't yours. You can objectively identify theft in reality without even bring up morality. There is a valid distinction between trading for one of your kidneys and just taking one of your kidney's without permission.  

When you steal then by definition you are claiming ownership over that which you steal. Ownership is the right of exclusive control. You are exercising your property rights to deny others their property rights. Paint me a scenario were it's logically possible to steal without exercising ownership (exclusive control) over that which you're taking and without deny ownership to the party you're stealing from.

 

I don't quite understand the notion of everyone having a "logical right" to pursue their goal but it would follow from that that everyone must have a "logical right" to deny others their goal. One of your goals will necessarily be that you not be murdered. How can you argue that everyone has some right to murder (if that is their goal) but everyone also has the right not to be murdered (because that will be their goal)?

 

Your science fair example doesn't work because neither party owns the prize so they are not violating each others property or denying the other a right they claim for themselves. They are just in competition. 

 

 

It also does not say that you should put anyone else's goals ahead of your own. I am not putting my own goal AHEAD of anyone else's when I assert that we all have EQUAL validity to pursue our goals. That is putting all of our actions on the same level.

 

It's not if you are including property violations. If your goal is to murder, rape or assault then you necessarily will be placing some person's goal higher than others. Your view works with everything else but not when it comes to universally preferable behavior. 

 

I respect Bob's goal to defend his wallet, and I acknowledge his logical right to take my wallet, if he so chooses.

 

Ha Ha, yeah maybe you're an honorable thief and you wanna give Bob a fair chance but this is just nonsense. You don't acknowledge his "logical right" (my head hurts) because you're willing to deny him his "logical right" to not have his wallet stolen. The success of the wallet stealing or defense has nothing to do with it. 

 

 

I HAVE proven that an extension of myself into reality means something significant because unlike other things that are not extensions of myself into reality my wallet IS an extension of self into reality and as such is obviously significant. It has an objectively different relationship to me than someone else's wallet. How's that NOT significant logically speaking? 

 

If you want to be an excruciatingly pedantic nutcase and start going on about "do you own molecules your extended arm touches" then that's YOUR issue. 

I have given a solid definition. You know what your mind is right? You know what your body is, right? We can reasonably define that as you, right? Values you create (like a wallet) are created by you and not someone else right? They are part of you (time, labor, etc) extended into reality. If I assault you I've damaged your body which is your property. If I steal from you I've also taken from your body. I've taken your time and labor and retroactively enslaved you. 

I don't need to mess about trying to give precise definitions when you already accept definitions for the body in order to make YOUR arguments.

 

"I am not using the wallet to deny Bob's right to his wallet. Hence there is no preformative contradiction. (If you still think there is a preformative contradiction, please demonstrate how. Please use logical form, if possible.) "

 

A per-formative contradiction? I'm not sure. You ARE denying Bob the right to his wallet if you steal the wallet. By asserting the RIGHT to steal his wallet you've broken with universality because not everybody can steal everyone else's wallet. How can you accept someone has a right to steal your wallet and you have the right to defend it? 

 

You cannot validly attempt to prove that property rights are valid while assuming that my use of an object is evidence of property rights. That is known as circular reasons (AKA "begging the question"). You must prove the conclusion that "property rights exists" using premises that do not depend on property rights being assumed as true. That is the only proper way to do logic. If you do not believe me, please see http://en.wikipedia....cular_reasoning.

 

Thanks for that link. Here's one for you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_fallacy

 

As for rape, no sorry there are certain criteria that need to exist for something to be rape. One is that the victim must not want the sex and another is that the attacker must know this and proceed anyway. The mentally disabled person does not know the sex is unwanted. While this is terrible it is not rape by the mentally disabled person. They performed the same actions as the rapist but it was not rape. This is my proof that rape is more than the physical actions. 

It's very hard not to see this as rape and I'm sure it feels like rap and it's very rare but technically it is no more rape then if the victim fell on a stick.

 

 

The victim would not ask for permission from the rapist to rape them, and therefore they could rape him in turn if they wanted to.

 

What? I know they would not literally do that. It's just to illustrate a point.

 

As for ignoring other people's goal satisfaction—as I hopefully have explained well enough above—that is perfectly valid. If I want the light switch on, and you want it off, only one of us can have our goal satisfied. That does not thereby make it wrong for you to achieve your goals when I fail mine, since there is not logical support for the equality of goal success. There is only logical validity for everyone's equality in their pursuit of their goals. Hopefully that is very clear, now.

 

What you are doing is conflating voluntary competition  with violations of property. The state of the light switch is no ones property. The scenario with the light switch will simply have a winner.  The other scenarios concern property. This is just silly.

By "accepting" that another person has the logically-legitimate right to attempt to initiate force does not mean that you welcome, want, or approve of their force. 

You accept their right. If you accept their right then you can't simultaneously deny their right. But you must deny their right to keep the wallet if you give yourself the right to take it and deny THEM the right to keep it.

 

God, I'm trying to imagine a 4 year old having the "logical right" to defend themselves.

Mind.

Blown.

[Noesis]

[...] Lady (let me be a disgusting macho with you since this isn't a one-dimensional formatted communicational posture, and then, it's enlighten both our points) !  [...]

 

Please refrain from addressing any further posts to me, as your comments make me uncomfortable, and I do not personally appreciate them. Thank you. 

 

______________________________________________

 

 

Theft is taking property that isn't yours. You can objectively identify theft in reality without even bring up morality. 

 

No you cannot, because the idea of someone having a right to the use/ownership of something is a moral notion. I cannot escape the fact than I am me and I have exclusive control of body, but I can easily escape the fact that "extensions of myself in reality" are necessarily mine to use... because there is nothing in the way of logic or reality that makes that true. Unlike my body. 

 

 

How can you argue that everyone has some right to murder (if that is their goal) but everyone also has the right not to be murdered (because that will be their goal)?

 

I do not argue that. Instead, I am arguing that "everyone has the right to attempt to achieve their goals", and so "everyone has the right to attempt to murder" and "everyone has the right to attempt to not be murdered". Do you see what I'm saying? They have to right to attempt to achieve their goal. Attempt. (Attempt.) 

 

 

 

Your science fair example doesn't work because neither party owns the prize so they are not violating each others property or denying the other a right they claim for themselves. They are just in competition. 

 

So you want to restrict your reasoning only to "violent" actions—but why? You must first prove that there is an inherent difference between actions involving force, and those without. Your philosophical position is based upon the assumption that people are "violating each others [sic] property or denying the other a right they claim for themselves", when you have not logically demonstrated that. 

 

I do not think I am the right person to debate this with you right now, since you seem frustrated with me. Maybe we can take a break and resume in a few days? I am personally finding this conversation too circular for the moment to continue. But I appreciate the effort you have put into this, and I will review your posts thoroughly to try to see if I have missed anything. 

[cynicist]

Actually, you can universalize it. The mistake is in assuming that both people in the room must be successful in their goal in order to uphold the moral theory, when that is not true. 

 

The moral theory of "it is morally right to assault a person" is upheld and successfully completed, no matter what happens in the room (even if neither person attempts to assault the other), because it is the theory that is tested, not the action. 

 

Ok now I see where the issue is. UPB says that achieving it must be possible in order to uphold the moral theory, not successful. The simple reason that rape and murder fail the morally good test is because in order for a rape or murder to occur, the other person has to not want these things to happen. Otherwise it would be consensual sex and I dunno, assisted suicide.

 

So the question is "can this theory be universalized?" and the answer is "yes, because if anyone does assault someone, it can be considered right". The theory does not require everyone to attempt assault or be successful in assault to satisfy the theory's universalizability. 

 

All that matters is that the theory can be applied to everyone without exception.  

 

It's not about whether it can be considered right to assault someone (anyone can label any action as "good"). It's about whether or not it can be applied (meaning put to practical use, not theoretically) universally. It can't be applied to everyone if it's not possible. So if I say for example, "In order to be a good person you must murder", then clearly that's not achievable for everyone since some people are required to resist, and so it can't be moral (it fails the prerequisite of being possible, which is what UPB tests for). Similarly, if someone is in a coma they are unable to satisfy that condition, because it's impossible to be 'good' in their case. They can't be evil either, because morality requires choice and they are incapacitated. 

 

It's strange to me because you said the same thing in your last sentence, but as far as I can tell you are contradicting what you said earlier. (unless you just meant you could label murder as good, but that's not what universalization means in the context of UPB)

 

I just wanted to take a second and commend your writing and reasoning skills. I value good communication and so far everything that you've posted has been very clear and concise to me. I also upvoted some of your negative posts because much as I disagree with what you are saying (and dislike nihilism), you aren't trolling. 

[TheRobin]

If both of them have the right to use force, and both of them use force, then they are both in the right, and they are both successful in practicing the moral theory without contradiction. This is not a logical problem at all, because their right to the use of the force does not infringe on anyone else's right to that same privilege. Anyone and everyone can use force without a contradiction occurring. 

 

This is because you cannot say that anyone doesn't have the right to use force. Just because I have a right to use it does not mean that you cannot use it. While I am adhering to the theory that "it is right to use force if it is necessary to satisfy the chosen goal" I am upholding everyone else's right to use force—even on me—as long as it satisfies their chosen goal. Hence there is no contradiction.

 

I think you'd have to explain to me then, what you mean with "right" then. And give me some examples of what it would mean to have the right violated or what the difference is between someone having a right to do something or not.

 

If I'd say "People have a right to not being killed" that'd mean that if someone tries to kill me, I have the right to stop them (even if that means I have to use deadly force and kill the person). It would also mean, that anyone who tries to stop me from defending myself is wrong and I'd be right to use force against them too. But it seems to me you're using the word differently.

[Noesis]

Ok now I see where the issue is. UPB says that achieving it must be possible in order to uphold the moral theory, not successful. The simple reason that rape and murder fail the morally good test is because in order for a rape or murder to occur, the other person has to not want these things to happen. Otherwise it would be consensual sex and I dunno, assisted suicide.

 

Mhm, but just because you believe that "the attempt to murder/rape, if it is required for someone to achieve their goal, is right (i.e. logically correct)" does not imply that you want to be raped or murdered. It only means that you acknowledge that, logically, they must rape/murder to achieve their goal, and so they must attempt rape/murder to have any chance of succeeding in their goal. (But obviously you do not have to care about the success of their goal. There is absolutely nothing logically binding about a person having to achieve their goal, just because they have a goal. It is not a failure or a contradiction for them to not be successful, or not even try to achieve their goal.) 

 

So if Joker wants to murder Batman, Batman acknowledges the logical necessity that Joker kill him for Joker to achieve his goals. But Batman does not put Joker's goals ahead of his own goals, since that would be ridiculous and illogical. So Batman's goal is to kill Joker to save innocent lives (himself included). Now, both Joker and Batman can accept (and follow) the moral theory that "the attempt to murder/rape, if it is required for someone to achieve their goal, is right (i.e. logically correct)". And while they are accepting and following that, they obviously are attempting to achieve their own goals. 

 

Even if they fail in their goal, they have successfully adhered to this moral theory. And even if they did not try to achieve their goal, because they needed a bathroom break, or because they fear failure, or whatever else, they are still successfully adhering to this moral theory, because all the theory outlines is the necessity in reality that if the action took place, it was logically required for the success of the goal.

 

[Conversely, for clarification: We can also say what are "bad/wrong" actions, relative to a goal. So if your goal was to get promoted at work, and you proceeded to slap your boss across the face without provocation, we could say that "the attempt of someone to slap their boss across the face, if it is not required and not useful for them to achieve their goal, is wrong (i.e. logically incorrect)"]

 

To quote from UPB (p.g. 66):

 

If “rape” is a moral good, then “not raping” must be a moral evil – thus it is impossible for two men in a single room to both be moral at the same time, since only one of them can be a rapist at any given moment – and he can only be a rapist if the other man becomes his victim.

 

 

This statement is logically flawed, since inaction (not raping) cannot have any moral content, since morality only deals with behaviour. Non-action is not a behaviour. (The opposite of "rape is a moral good" would be "rape is a moral evil".)

 

So, testing the success of the theory "rape is a moral good" (or the long version: "the attempt to rape, if it is required for someone to achieve their goal, is right (i.e. logically correct)") can successfully be completed by both men, because even if they just sit there and drink beer together amiably, they are upholding the theory. If either one of them (or both of them) attempted to rape the other, the theory would still stand—and if one of them was successful, and the other was not, then the theory would still be upheld.

 

Nobody has the right to success of their goals (as that would be logically impossible). Just because you have the goal to live, doesn't mean that you have the right to have access to food, so that you can eat, so that you can attempt to live. Obviously some people are paralyzed, or injured, and they cannot successfully achieve their goals, even if nobody was in their way. 

 

So if I say for example, "In order to be a good person you must murder", then clearly that's not achievable for everyone since some people are required to resist, and so it can't be moral (it fails the prerequisite of being possible, which is what UPB tests for). 

 

 

This would be an incorrectly-formed theory, since it is lacking a tie to a goal, and it implies that doing anything other than murder would make you evil, since it is too vague. (Does it mean you must murder once a day? All day? Whenever the opportunity arrises? It is unclear.) So that theory cannot even be put through the UPB tests, or at least it is not useful for it to be, since it is incoherent. 

 

I just wanted to take a second and commend your writing and reasoning skills. I value good communication and so far everything that you've posted has been very clear and concise to me. I also upvoted some of your negative posts because much as I disagree with what you are saying (and dislike nihilism), you aren't trolling. 

 

Thank you very much for your kind words (and actions), cynicist!   That means a lot to me.

 

 

 

___________________________________________

 

 

 

 

I think you'd have to explain to me then, what you mean with "right" then. And give me some examples of what it would mean to have the right violated or what the difference is between someone having a right to do something or not.

 

By "right" I mean logical justification. So someone has the right (logical justification) to "attempt to eat, if their goal is to live". This justification comes from objective reality, by way of empirical evidence. It is a requirement of reality, no matter how I wish things were different. Now, this does not say that they have a right to succeed in eating. Only that if they are capable of attempting it, they may, and that it would be logically correct to do so. 

 

It is impossible for this conception of rights to ever be violated by anything. Whether it is an impediment of objective reality (there is no food growing anymore, for example), or another human being (who is stealing all your food), or an animal (who injures you so you cannot get to the food). 

 

A lack of a right would simply be a lack of logical justification. So above I came up with the example that "the attempt of someone to slap their boss across the face, if it is not required and not useful for them to achieve their goal, is wrong (i.e. logically incorrect)". So in that case, the person had no right to slap their boss across the face, since it hindered the achievement of their goal.

 

 

 

If I'd say "People have a right to not being killed" that'd mean that if someone tries to kill me, I have the right to stop them (even if that means I have to use deadly force and kill the person). It would also mean, that anyone who tries to stop me from defending myself is wrong and I'd be right to use force against them too. But it seems to me you're using the word differently.

 

To say "people have a right to not be killed" is an incorrectly-formed moral theory. You cannot, logically, have a right to something that is impossible to guarantee. If a tree were to fall on me, by that theory, then my "rights" will just have been violated. It is also incorrectly-formed because it is not tied to a goal, which has been previously established as necessary (see page 30 of UPB for the reasoning behind this if it still unclear to you). 

 

I am most definitely using the word differently. I am using it in the only way I can see that the word can be used, while still being upheld by logic and reality. I do not want to stray even slightly from what can be philosophically proven to be true, so that means that I can only use the word in the very narrowest sense of "logically justified". 

 

Hopefully my position is clear to you now, that stopping you from defending yourself would have nothing to do with the kind of right I believe is logically sound. Stopping you from defending yourself does not stop you from attempting to defend yourself, and so no violation of your rights will have occurred. 

Edited April 9, 2014 by Noesis

[TheRobin]

@Noesis: Thanks for the explanation. Yeah I think I understand more or less what you mean. Though I must say the conversation exceeds my comfort zone a little in terms of the amount of work it would take to debate the points of disagreement (meaning, the amount of work it takes to continue communicating once the texts have exceeded a certain length is just to much for me to go on writing. I mean, if we were sitting somewhere talking I'd enjoy it a lot probably, but in writing it always exhausts me to debate certain points once the textblocks get too large)But could you give me one more explanation instead? What do you use as the defining goal that ethics/moral try to accomplish? Like, in physics the goal is to describe the behaviour of matter, in biology the goal is to describe the behaviour of organic life forms. The reason I ask is, because you're definition of "right" seems to be more a description of biological reality than a prescription for human behavior (which is what I'd define to goal of ethics to be: A set of principles which are used as a prescription of behaviour for a subset of human interactions).

[Noesis]

@Noesis: Thanks for the explanation. Yeah I think I understand more or less what you mean. Though I must say the conversation exceeds my comfort zone a little in terms of the amount of work it would take to debate the points of disagreement (meaning, the amount of work it takes to continue communicating once the texts have exceeded a certain length is just to much for me to go on writing. I mean, if we were sitting somewhere talking I'd enjoy it a lot probably, but in writing it always exhausts me to debate certain points once the textblocks get too large)

 

I totally understand about the length of these posts. *laugh* They are definitely impractical lengths, but I cannot in good conscience neglect to be thorough.

 

If you would like, maybe we could have an audio call about this? Skype or something. Up to you, of course.

 

 

 

But could you give me one more explanation instead? What do you use as the defining goal that ethics/moral try to accomplish? Like, in physics the goal is to describe the behaviour of matter, in biology the goal is to describe the behaviour of organic life forms. The reason I ask is, because you're definition of "right" seems to be more a description of biological reality than a prescription for human behavior (which is what I'd define to goal of ethics to be: A set of principles which are used as a prescription of behaviour for a subset of human interactions).

 

I would first alter your statement slightly for accuracy's sake, because obviously ethics/morality doesn't have a goal that it is trying to accomplish (the same as biology and physics). 

 

Rather, morality, physics, and biology are tools (systems of thought, standards, etc.) that humans use in the attempt to achieve certain goals. 

 

So, yes, I agree that physics is used by humans to describe the behaviour of matter, and biology is used to describe organic life forms.

 

As for ethics/morality, I would say that ethics/morality is used by humans to achieve the goal of separating "good" from "bad" (A.K.A. "right" and "wrong") behaviours. (Not a subset—but all behaviours. There is no logical reason to use only a subset.) 

 

It is prescriptive, because it leads to such conclusions as: "you ought to use force, in order to murder" and "you ought to eat, in order to live". Those do not describe reality as it is, but prescribe what behaviour you must successfully complete if you were to achieve your goal. 

[cynicist]

Mhm, but just because you believe that "the attempt to murder/rape, if it is required for someone to achieve their goal, is right (i.e. logically correct)" does not imply that you want to be raped or murdered. It only means that you acknowledge that, logically, they must rape/murder to achieve their goal, and so they must attempt rape/murder to have any chance of succeeding in their goal. (But obviously you do not have to care about the success of their goal. There is absolutely nothing logically binding about a person having to achieve their goal, just because they have a goal. It is not a failure or a contradiction for them to not be successful, or not even try to achieve their goal.) 

 

That's not a moral theory. The goal of a moral theory is always the same: to be good. If I put forth the theory that murder is morally good, that means for everyone and at all times. (not for me in a particular situation) The logic test in UPB is the universalization, not a rationalization of the action.

 

I get what you are saying now. You mean that (example) for the goal of avoiding prison, it would be logical to murder a witness who is testifying against you. And then you're saying that because everyone can do it (or say it) that it can be universalized. Perfectly logical but it's a misunderstanding of morality and what UPB is testing for. (See the end of my post for where I think you are going wrong)

 

So if Joker wants to murder Batman, Batman acknowledges the logical necessity that Joker kill him for Joker to achieve his goals. But Batman does not put Joker's goals ahead of his own goals, since that would be ridiculous and illogical. So Batman's goal is to kill Joker to save innocent lives (himself included). Now, both Joker and Batman can accept (and follow) the moral theory that "the attempt to murder/rape, if it is required for someone to achieve their goal, is right (i.e. logically correct)". And while they are accepting and following that, they obviously are attempting to achieve their own goals. 

 

So here, both Batman and Joker would have the same goal of being good, though they might differ on what is required to achieve that goal. Batman would say that not murdering is good, and Joker might say murdering is good. Now when you try to universalize those theories (meaning apply them to everyone at all times), only one of them works.

 

This statement is logically flawed, since inaction (not raping) cannot have any moral content, since morality only deals with behaviour. Non-action is not a behaviour. (The opposite of "rape is a moral good" would be "rape is a moral evil".)

 

What is the opposite of raping as an action? It would have to be not raping, logically; It can have moral content because it is possible to not rape someone, and morality is concerned with what actions (and lack thereof) are possible. Morality applies where choice is available. Comas, death, insanity, or some cognitive impairment are obvious examples of where it isn't.

 

This would be an incorrectly-formed theory, since it is lacking a tie to a goal, and it implies that doing anything other than murder would make you evil, since it is too vague. (Does it mean you must murder once a day? All day? Whenever the opportunity arrises? It is unclear.) So that theory cannot even be put through the UPB tests, or at least it is not useful for it to be, since it is incoherent. 

 

This is where you are making the mistake. I want to be clear here and say that I didn't understand this either at first, and also assumed it was vague/silly because it couldn't possibly mean what it sounds like it means, but it does. Let me unpack it here.

 

So if I say for example, "In order to be a good person you must murder", then clearly that's not achievable for everyone since some people are required to resist, and so it can't be moral.

 

The goal is to be a good person, and murder is how you fulfill that goal. You are exactly correct when you suggest that the implication of this statement is that any other action besides murder would be morally evil. That's why it fails, because it is an impossible thing to achieve. Even ignoring the resist bit I mentioned above, you would eventually get tired and stop or run out of people to kill. Lest you stare at my post in bewilderment at this point, thinking that I have lost my sanity, let me quote from UPB: (Though I fear that you will consider UPB to also be crazy after this lol)

 

If murder is morally good, then clearly refraining from murder is immoral. Thus the only chance that Bob

and Doug have to be moral is in the instant that they simultaneously murder each other. Physically, this

is impossible of course – if they both stand and grip each other’s throats, they will never succumb to

strangulation at exactly the same moment. If Bob dies first, his grip on Doug’s throat will loosen, thus

condemning Doug to the status of immorality until such time as he can find another victim. Because Bob

dies first – and thus cannot continue to try murdering Doug – Bob’s death renders him more immoral

than Doug’s murder.

 

Intuitively, we fully recognize the insanity of the moral proposition that murder is good. Logically, we

know that the proposition is incorrect because if it is true, it is impossible for two men in a room to both

be moral at the same time. Morality, like health, cannot be considered a mere “snapshot,” but must be a

process, or a continuum. The UPB framework confirms that Bob cannot be “evil” while he is strangling

Doug, and then achieve the pinnacle of moral virtue the moment that he kills Doug – and then revert

immediately back to a state of evil. Moral propositions must be universal, and independent of time and

place. The proposition that murder is moral fails this requirement at every level, and so is not valid.

 

If murder were morally good, then it would also be the case that a man stranded on a desert island

would be morally evil for as long as he lived there, since he would have no victims to kill. A man in a

coma would also be evil, as would a sleeping man, or a man on the operating table. A torturer would be

an evil man as long as he continued to torture – but then would become a good man in the moment that

his victim died at his hand.

 

We can thus see that the proposition that “murder is good” is not only instinctively bizarre, but also

logically impossible.

 

The other objections that applied to the proposition “rape is good” also apply here. Murder cannot be

morally neutral, since morally neutral judgments or actions cannot be forcibly inflicted upon another,

and murder by definition is forcibly inflicted upon another.

 

There is also a basic contradiction involved in any universal justification for the act of murder, just as

there was in the act of rape. If Bob tries to strangle Doug, but Doug resists, how could Bob rationally

justify his actions according to UPB?

 

 

Sorry for the length of that quote, but I wanted you to be sure I wasn't quoting anything out of context. What you considered to be an incorrectly-formed theory is exactly what Stefan is talking about here. (I see a few errors in his examples but not in the important parts)

[PatrickC]

It is prescriptive, because it leads to such conclusions as: "you ought to use force, in order to murder" and "you ought to eat, in order to live". Those do not describe reality as it is, but prescribe what behaviour you must successfully complete if you were to achieve your goal. 

 

This is the classic point at which people trip up over the long held belief that there is an 'is/ought' dichotomy.

 

You ought not to steal from me, murder or rape me. Even, if I hold those expectations as true or at least 'desirable' in principle. I'm certain I can expect a universally similar return. Even from the most irrationally minded.

 

On a (funny) teasing aside, Noesis, as the the philosophers 'siren'.. Well met! j/k And good catch dsayers.

[TheRobin]

I totally understand about the length of these posts. *laugh* They are definitely impractical lengths, but I cannot in good conscience neglect to be thorough.

 

If you would like, maybe we could have an audio call about this? Skype or something. Up to you, of course.

 

 

I would first alter your statement slightly for accuracy's sake, because obviously ethics/morality doesn't have a goal that it is trying to accomplish (the same as biology and physics). 

 

Rather, morality, physics, and biology are tools (systems of thought, standards, etc.) that humans use in the attempt to achieve certain goals. 

 

So, yes, I agree that physics is used by humans to describe the behaviour of matter, and biology is used to describe organic life forms.

 

As for ethics/morality, I would say that ethics/morality is used by humans to achieve the goal of separating "good" from "bad" (A.K.A. "right" and "wrong") behaviours. (Not a subset—but all behaviours. There is no logical reason to use only a subset.) 

 

It is prescriptive, because it leads to such conclusions as: "you ought to use force, in order to murder" and "you ought to eat, in order to live". Those do not describe reality as it is, but prescribe what behaviour you must successfully complete if you were to achieve your goal. 

 

Yeah, a skype chat would be nice I'd mainly have some more question about how you end up with moral nihilism and your definition of ethics, but other than that, I think I mostly share your criticism of UPB, which gives me a good incentive to ask Stef for clarification, if there's time for that in Amsterdam and he's up for it there. (Given that it would be a bit of a more obvious (imo) blunder and given that he's quite an intelligent fellow, I think it'd be fair to give him the benefit of the doubt before accepting UPB to be logically invalid).

 

Also, I think there are good reasons why ethics isn't about all of human behaviour, but since I haven't given any reasoning, I'd say fair enough (also something I'd be happy to hear your thoughts on if you like).

 

 

[labmath2]

Kevin's little lecture about subjective and objective was just fantastic. I have always known it, but to have someone communicate it so clearly is refreshing. 

 

On the issue of ownership, i think the real problem is in the slight differences in the use of the word ownership itself. I tried creating a thread to discuss it, but i don't think i made much headway. It is why i am still trying to get a sense of what ownership within the libertarian philosophical construct mean. One way to see why some people are having problem is to define ownership as that which one controls to the exclusion of all others. I think this is the way people thought of property rights under a system of might makes right. When central systems of power came into the picture, people agreed to "pay taxes" to the central system so that no one can take property from others without risking a punishment. In this sense, though the property belonged to me, i would let someone else lay claim to it so that i do not get killed or robbed of my property for a small fee (pseudo security guard). Of course in order for this to work, the person protecting me had to be strong enough to fight against any potential threat which means i was at his mercy.

 

Modern day ownership. Now that we are all civilized individuals, in the absence of government threat, i do not suppose a biker gang or the mafia would come and possibly kill me for my property. So why not build a civilized society where property is not that which you have the capacity to control to the exclusion of all others, but that which you control because all others accept you as its rightful owner. With our knowledge of incentives, we can build a society devoid of any central power systems since individuals are much more capable and can cooperatively fend off any potential threat. The statists disagree with this model because they believe there are many out there who will at the dismantling of the government loot, plunder, rape and murder and no one will be able to stop them.