wdiaz03 Posted December 20, 2015 Posted December 20, 2015 Yes, but just because something isn't UPB doesn't make it immoral. There's a lot more work to do to get there. That's why it's easier to break it into contexts. I see, lying cannot be claimed as moral. Just like murder cannot be claimed as moral. But to claim that the opposite is immoral is a lot harder. Just like murder in the case of self defense. Or lying to a thief. There's context that needs to be factored in. If UPB is unable to determine this, What principles or methodology can be used to determine what's immoral and when? NAP? I.e. "lying is immoral when...." If we need something external to UPB to determine what is immoral, then I fail to see the benefit of UPB. 1) Killing at all times is not UPB but killing under certain context is not immoral. - But no one engages in killing at all times, and if they can choose a rationale to justify it then we are back at square one. 2) Lying at all times is not UPB but lying under certain context is not immoral. - Again no one lies alt all times.
dsayers Posted December 20, 2015 Author Posted December 20, 2015 Well, taking great liberties with the wife's reproductive health by knowingly exposing her to probable STDs is arguably a property rights violation... You keep using the word wife. Can we agree this means a marital contract? Assuming that fidelity was a feature of that contact, wouldn't the unfaithfulness be the violation of property rights? Furthermore, does this wife have no agency? I would argue that it is the wife's responsibility to choose who she has sex with. If she would have sex with somebody that could cheat on her, lie to her, and expose her to STD's, this is her responsibility. If UPB is unable to determine this, What principles or methodology can be used to determine what's immoral and when? NAP? This is the problem with using shorthand such as UPB and NAP. If one doesn't grasp/agree on what the shorthand stands for, it only serves as a communications breakdown. The case I make for objective morality is as follows: Humans have the capacity for reason. That is, they can conceptualize self, the other, formulate ideals, compare behaviors to those ideals, and calculate consequences. Therefore reason begets self-ownership. Since we can universalize this, everybody owns themselves. Therefore theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral as they are the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights. This isn't helpful here because the question basically boils down to is lying for the sake of entering into a contract theft? UPB, NAP, and the case I've made for objective morality all agree that theft is immoral. But is lying theft here? I've already taken the position that it is not and provided the null hypotheses for this claim. If you could provide a rational case that satisfied these null hypotheses, I would gladly yield my position as not accurately describing the real world.
shirgall Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 You keep using the word wife. Can we agree this means a marital contract? Assuming that fidelity was a feature of that contact, wouldn't the unfaithfulness be the violation of property rights? Furthermore, does this wife have no agency? I would argue that it is the wife's responsibility to choose who she has sex with. If she would have sex with somebody that could cheat on her, lie to her, and expose her to STD's, this is her responsibility. A martial contract is about sharing private property. The husband's lie is clearly damaging to her property, because she does not know the danger. Leave the marriage out of it, and have two people having sex, with one involving him or herself in incredibly risky behavior and not disclosing it if you prefer. I think the lie is still damaging in such a situation, agency or not.
dsayers Posted December 21, 2015 Author Posted December 21, 2015 Yes, but it is co-operative as are all lies. If a person is aware that sex can lead to sexually transmitted diseases, then they are consenting to the potential of those diseases. If they are not aware, then I would argue that person's parents are more responsible than their partner. The partner is sleazy, no question. But it is not a violation of property rights.
shirgall Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 Yes, but it is co-operative as are all lies. If a person is aware that sex can lead to sexually transmitted diseases, then they are consenting to the potential of those diseases. If they are not aware, then I would argue that person's parents are more responsible than their partner. The partner is sleazy, no question. But it is not a violation of property rights. Let me explore in a different direction. If I borrow your car and I'm intending to race the Cannonball Run with it but tell you I'm a safe driver, am I not violating your property rights? You lent me your property in good faith, but I did not borrow it in good faith.
dsayers Posted December 21, 2015 Author Posted December 21, 2015 Let me explore in a different direction. If I borrow your car and I'm intending to race the Cannonball Run with it but tell you I'm a safe driver, am I not violating your property rights? You lent me your property in good faith, but I did not borrow it in good faith. This does not address my refutation, so I reject your use of the word explore.
shirgall Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 This does not address my refutation, so I reject your use of the word explore. I tried to use a different construction of the same arrangement without the extra baggage of "marriage". Feel free to tell me my analogies don't work.
dsayers Posted December 22, 2015 Author Posted December 22, 2015 I thought I had refuted the scenario as presented minus the marital contract. At which point, rather than addressing my arguments, you brought up cars instead. If my position is flawed, please show me how. Changing the scenario entirely just looks as if you're trying to communicate that the reason I don't agree with you is because I don't understand what we're talking about. Which I feel my refutation demonstrates that I do. Particularly if you are unable to show me where I have erred.
shirgall Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 I thought I had refuted the scenario as presented minus the marital contract. At which point, rather than addressing my arguments, you brought up cars instead. If my position is flawed, please show me how. Changing the scenario entirely just looks as if you're trying to communicate that the reason I don't agree with you is because I don't understand what we're talking about. Which I feel my refutation demonstrates that I do. Particularly if you are unable to show me where I have erred. Just because the person being lied to acknowledges the possibility that they are being lied to doesn't make the person lying not responsible for the lie itself. No one else should be responsible who didn't utter the lie either. I think that's where we are stuck. The lie is wrong because it hides a higher chance of damage to their property than the person being lied to expects.
dsayers Posted December 22, 2015 Author Posted December 22, 2015 Just because the person being lied to acknowledges the possibility that they are being lied to doesn't make the person lying not responsible for the lie itself. shirgall, this is a strawman. The point of contention is not whether the person who lied is responsible for their lie, but whether it is a violation of property rights. The lie is wrong because it hides a higher chance of damage to their property than the person being lied to expects. This is not proof that somebody else is more responsible for a person's expectations than they are themselves.
labmath2 Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 Dsayers just call in and discuss this with Stef. I would like to hear that conversation.
labmath2 Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 I have been thinking about this, and i think i found the weak link in this argument about responsibility. Imagine Tom has a gun and Bill has an apple. Tom points his gun at Bill and demands he throw his apple at Jill (an inattentive bystander). If Bill throws the apple at Jill, isn't Bill solely responsible for the assault od Jill, while Tom is solely responsible for the threat to Bill. Tom does not have greater control of Bills arm than Bill himself does. Bill needs to be complicit for the assault to happen. This argument hinges on the idea that someone else cannot be more responsible for your choices than you are (even if threat of force or misinformation preceded that choice).
dsayers Posted December 30, 2015 Author Posted December 30, 2015 I have been thinking about this, and i think i found the weak link in this argument about responsibility. Imagine Tom has a gun and Bill has an apple. Tom points his gun at Bill and demands he throw his apple at Jill (an inattentive bystander). If Bill throws the apple at Jill, isn't Bill solely responsible for the assault od Jill, while Tom is solely responsible for the threat to Bill. Tom does not have greater control of Bills arm than Bill himself does. Bill needs to be complicit for the assault to happen. This argument hinges on the idea that someone else cannot be more responsible for your choices than you are (even if threat of force or misinformation preceded that choice). Where coercion is present, consent cannot be.
labmath2 Posted December 30, 2015 Posted December 30, 2015 Where coercion is present, consent cannot be.Its not a question of consent, but one of control. Does Tom or Bill have greater control of Bills arm? Who is responsible for throwing the apple? Can Bill refuse to throw the apple? I know this is different from the fraud case but the similarity, which is the important element, is that the individuals still control their bodies and choices (no physical restrain). Unless you are of the opinion that Bill ceased to control his body and choice the minute he was threatened.
dsayers Posted January 2, 2016 Author Posted January 2, 2016 Its not a question of consent, but one of control. In the realm of morality, consent is the only question of relevance.
labmath2 Posted January 3, 2016 Posted January 3, 2016 In the realm of morality, consent is the only question of relevance. Can you elaborate on this? It seems you are affirming that Tom has greater control of Bill's arm, but i may be misunderstanding you. P.S. I actually take the same position on fraud you do, I just think it applies beyond just that.
wdiaz03 Posted January 3, 2016 Posted January 3, 2016 Its not a question of consent, but one of control. Does Tom or Bill have greater control of Bills arm? Who is responsible for throwing the apple? Can Bill refuse to throw the apple? I know this is different from the fraud case but the similarity, which is the important element, is that the individuals still control their bodies and choices (no physical restrain). Unless you are of the opinion that Bill ceased to control his body and choice the minute he was threatened. Are you familiar with Walter Block's Negative Homesteading Theory? https://mises.org/library/human-body-shield I think you'll find that this follows your line of thinking. In the realm of morality, consent is the only question of relevance. If that is the case one cannot assign moral responsibility to that person but then is it any different than not being able to assign moral responsibility to an animal that is attacking you? neither can be reasoned with because they are both being coerced, one by fear, the other by its nature. A holds a gun to B and tells him to shot C. Can C shot B in self defense?
fezjones Posted January 3, 2016 Posted January 3, 2016 i see fraud as immoral because it cant be argued for its morality. if someone who commits fraud tried to argue for his own innocence he would seek a non fraudulent method by all means.
dsayers Posted January 3, 2016 Author Posted January 3, 2016 It seems you are affirming that Tom has greater control of Bill's arm It cannot seem that way since I've been clear that consent is paramount, and have repeatedly rejected that control is the factor of consideration.
labmath2 Posted January 4, 2016 Posted January 4, 2016 It cannot seem that way since I've been clear that consent is paramount, and have repeatedly rejected that control is the factor of consideration. I am sorry i did not make myself clear. I do not understand your answer. Consent determines what exactly? Consent to what are you referring? What does consent have to do with Bill either throwing or not throwing the apple?
Frosty Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 I'm not completely sure, I used to accept it as a valid part of the NAP, but I've reasoned myself around in circles a few times and not really sure what my final conclusion is. I'd agree that fraud makes you a jerk though. I'm not so sure it can be reasoned as immoral. I accept the NAP is valid but I fail to see how fraud constitutes aggression. I take fraud to mean that a fraudulent transaction is one in which someone presented a transaction terms in a way which were dishonest. I get stuck on the issue of it surely being the responsibility of the people involved to check the validity of the claims the other person makes. The NAP has the nice quality that if someone doesn't consent to some action, for example someone taking your possessions, then by definition it's aggression (theft), but with consent given it's no longer aggression (giving, lending, whatever), the whole principle relies on this to maintain any kind of objectivity. What would it mean to consent to being defrauded?
Recommended Posts