Self-ownership and ownership in general

[Anuojat]

[tried to psot this earlöier by evidently somethign went awry]

 

Hello, I’ve been talking with a longtime friend of mine about property right and philosophy for some time now and we have run unto some questions which I could not properly explain to him.

 

His question were around these:

 

How does one bridge the is-ought gap?

And how does ones self-ownership (he was also asking for proper exact definition of this) and the fact that one is responsible for the effect so ones action mean one now is entitled to exclusively use the item in question? (like chair created from wood in state of nature ect.)

 

In other words he does not seem to see the connection between being responsible and having the ability to exclude others from using objects. Like if I create a chair from wood how do I now “own” it?

 

Any help would be appreciated. J

[powder]

If you take your chair and go to an outdoor concert and plunk in down in front of the stage beside all the other chairs and towels on the ground, or put a towel on the beach, or your coat over a chair at a banquet, you will find that people instinctively and automatically respect your right to that property, even if only temporarily.  the towel, chair and jacket, they will respect as your property and consider it theft if anyone were to try to take them.  

 

Ethics is simple to me because it seems so automatic and intuitive to us, even as toddlers, everyone gets it.  that is, until the political pundits get involved and start with the propaganda and euphemisms related to property rights, words and phrases like 'the greater good' and 'taxation' (theft), and so on.  

 

If you accept that we own our bodies then we are necessarily responsible (have ownership) for the effects of our actions and we own our time and labor and the effects thereof as well.  If I cut down a tree and make a chair out of it, its mine.  

 

can you give an example that shows how he thinks there might be an exception to that?  

[dsayers]

How does one bridge the is-ought gap?

 

Could you elaborate? Normally, you get an ought from an is after an if. However, in terms of morality, the "if you want to live virtuously" is a given.

 

As for the chair, it wouldn't exist without you, so of course you own it. Ask your friend how he'd feel about you stealing his arm after he built and nurtured it all the years? When discussing property rights, it's essential to always delineate to the foundation of property: self-ownership. If you have exclusive right/ownership/use of your arms, then what you do with those arms belong to you also.

[Anuojat]

If you take your chair and go to an outdoor concert and plunk in down in front of the stage beside all the other chairs and towels on the ground, or put a towel on the beach, or your coat over a chair at a banquet, you will find that people instinctively and automatically respect your right to that property, even if only temporarily.  the towel, chair and jacket, they will respect as your property and consider it theft if anyone were to try to take them.  

 

Ethics is simple to me because it seems so automatic and intuitive to us, even as toddlers, everyone gets it.  that is, until the political pundits get involved and start with the propaganda and euphemisms related to property rights, words and phrases like 'the greater good' and 'taxation' (theft), and so on.  

 

If you accept that we own our bodies then we are necessarily responsible (have ownership) for the effects of our actions and we own our time and labor and the effects thereof as well.  If I cut down a tree and make a chair out of it, its mine.  

 

can you give an example that shows how he thinks there might be an exception to that?  

Well just because people respect it intuitively doesnt mean anything when it come to validy of property.

 

My friend has trouble understanding how one goes from doing something like making a chair froma tree and then it becoming his property that he can exclude other from, this is because while true one doest make the chair simply by making someto him is differant from owning the body since it is "you" while the chair is still not. And pouring ones time and energy is jsut action in reality doesnt follow to owning anyhting. Now when i asked about murder and theft and so on... and owning those. He said that youre jsut responceable for murder, but dont "own" it.

 

Infact the whole concept of "own" was to him (and soemwhat to me too) foggy.

 

Well he didnt really give any example other than:

 

"You claim property as your own like chair that you made, someone else comes to the scene and wants to use it. You say its yours and he cant just take it. He says what gives him the right to deprive him of using it?"

 

Could you elaborate? Normally, you get an ought from an is after an if. However, in terms of morality, the "if you want to live virtuously" is a given.

 

As for the chair, it wouldn't exist without you, so of course you own it. Ask your friend how he'd feel about you stealing his arm after he built and nurtured it all the years? When discussing property rights, it's essential to always delineate to the foundation of property: self-ownership. If you have exclusive right/ownership/use of your arms, then what you do with those arms belong to you also.

 

Well its the "just because there was an action of creating a chair by you doesnt mean that therefore you ought to have property right to it or that you ought to respect that persons property"

 

He considers arms to be his since its his body and arms. But chair is totally outside of him and thus no matter how much energy and skill one pours unto it he doesnt see any reason who one should "own" it. He accepts self ownership but doesnt accept property rights of objects persay and relies social acceptance and social interactions with others to establish property right but doesnt see that theyre objective. Outside of social interactions he has no moral qualms of me taking his phone evidently... he would still get annoyed and complain but wouldnt try to claim that i am stealign from his other than in the context of social contract with other humans in society.

 

Also look up my reply to the other quate for mroe information

 

PS. Also quotes:

 

"""Like what is the logic that takes you from you being responsible for creating a chair for it being wrong for someone else to use the chair."""

 

"""How do you esbatlish property right without mutual understandin between people?"""

 

"""Oh sure I would probably complain. But the way I understand that I own my phone is by some form of social contract. There's nothing inherently about my relationship with the phone that makes it mine, I would argue."""

 

"""The fact that youre responceable for something leading to you having some right to deprive other the right from using or utilizing something requires still the explanation i havent gotten."""

[powder]

Property rights have been explained, accepted by you and your friend, clearly not.  

 

How is being 'responsible' for murder and "owning" the effects of your actions (murder) different?  

 

Consent is necessarily connected to the understanding of property rights.  Taking 'ownership' of someone else's property; their body thru assault, rape, their time and productivity thru stealing things that they have acquired thru the effects of their actions... is immoral.  This

 

 is universal and not subjective or subject to social contracts of any kind.  

 

 

 

PS. Also quotes:

 

"""Like what is the logic that takes you from you being responsible for creating a chair for it being wrong for someone else to use the chair."""

 

"""How do you esbatlish property right without mutual understandin between people?"""

 

You own your body, therefore you own the effects of your actions.  simple, easy to understand.  

 

"""Oh sure I would probably complain. But the way I understand that I own my phone is by some form of social contract. There's nothing inherently about my relationship with the phone that makes it mine, I would argue."""

 

You used your body, your time, your skills and effort etc (all of which you own) to acquire the phone, therefore it is yours.  

 

"""The fact that youre responceable for something leading to you having some right to deprive other the right from using or utilizing something requires still the explanation i havent gotten."""

 

If you own something, as outlined in the explanations already given in these posts, then you must consent to other people using or taking possession of your stuff, if they do so without your consent then they are violating your property rights and that is immoral.  

 

Your friend is full of prunes if he says he would be annoyed and complains if someone took his phone and still believes that there is nothing wrong with that.  That is not honest.  If he does think it is perfectly OK to use other peoples stuff without their consent then I would expect that he would have no problem taking money and resources from others at will to satisfy his needs and desires.  It is inconsistent, so cannot be true.  

[Anuojat]

The conversation moved on and my freidn seemed to grasp better waht i mean by all of these relations with tiem and actiosn and property rights... however we went straight to upb and thei is waht he said:

 

"scientific facts are objective because they are descriptive claimsethical questions aren't, and if they are you have to demonstrate that upb is descriptive following upb as an ethical theory isn't"

 

Should i start a totally differant topic? Sicne it seems that upb was really his main problem after all and/or also having objective morality.

[dsayers]

He considers arms to be his since its his body and arms. But chair is totally outside of him and thus no matter how much energy and skill one pours unto it he doesnt see any reason who one should "own" it.

 

So chop his arm off before taking it. If it's not part of his body, then he doesn't own it according to him no matter how much investment he put into it. I know this sounds like a silly retort, but it reveals that his position is unprincipled.

 

"""How do you esbatlish property right without mutual understandin between people?"""

 

This is a common fallacy. One that again is easily disproven when you consider ownership from it's origin: self-ownership. A person who steals is simultaneously accepting their own self-ownership while rejecting the self-ownership of another. In other words, the behavior of him violating property rights is demonstration that he accepts property rights.

 

"scientific facts are objective because they are descriptive claims

ethical questions aren't

 

You/he will need to define terms. There's a LOT of people throughout history that use words like moral and ethical because they understand it is objective and therefore what they claim to be moral/ethical cannot be questioned. If your friend is talking about those things, then he's right. However, to consider that which is truly moral/ethical, he is wrong. As demonstrated by my last paragraph.

 

Theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral OBJECTIVELY because they are internally inconsistent. They all involved somebody simultaneously accepting and rejecting property rights. Which means that morality/ethics don't even have to be objective because the person engaging in the behaviors are invalidating the behaviors inherently.

 

I would ask him why it's so important for him to be able to rationalize stealing other people's labor.

[growler76]

I find it amusing that your friend says that if someone stole from him he would just be annoyed.  To him, having his property (well, which I guess isn't his by his definition) stolen would be, at worst, the equivalent of Jim Carrey making the most annoying sound in the world.

[Anuojat]

Ok we have done to this point so far:

 

My friend keeps insisting that all these are mere action and descriptions of actions that dont say anything else. He says that theyre descriptive statements and thsi wont follow unto anything else than being descriptions of actions in reality. Me taking his phone again:

 

"The fact that you take my phone is just a statement of what happens. Now whether or not we should consider this phone as something that I own as property still needs to be argued for. I mean I might hold the view that it is my property, because I happen to believe in some concept of property rights, but I wouldn't claim that you can argue for them logically as being anything else than preferences."

 

"I'm not denying self-ownership as defined by me being responsible for my actions. But what I have a problem with is the second thing you said. I must once again then ask for a definition of own. If self-ownership is a descriptive statement, then I agree with it, if it is anything else, I must ask for further clarification.And you say that I can't argue against property rights without using property rights. Then again I must ask how these rights are anything other than descriptive and how these rights being descriptive can we logically determine what other things beside ourselves we own as property?"

 

 

And so on.

 

I did explaint to him that upb is both methodology and framework and that it doesnt say "ough" anything like you ought to respect property rights which seems to be the contention point. To him IF statement is required. In other words just because someone takes something from someone else and jsut because this cannot be justified as upb he doesnt undertand how its immoral. I told him this was because in stealing a thief is affirming his property rights and denying mine. Thus the conversation about the phone examplea gain.

[dsayers]

If self-ownership is a descriptive statement, then I agree with it, if it is anything else, I must ask for further clarification.

 

This is like saying that gravity is descriptive and he needs to be convinced that it is also normative. In the case of gravity, it just IS. In the case of property rights, self-ownership is the only configuration of property rights that is logically possible, internally consistent, and universal. Again, I would ask him why he needs to be able to own other people or for other people to have a greater claim to him than he has. Until you understand where the breakdown in rational thought is occurring, you won't be able to overcome it.

[Anuojat]

Also here is the whole conversation TODAY so far:

 

Ummm

[18:01:25] Anssi Jauhiainen: If you debate youre using and exersising self ownership and if you wish to be responded to youre demanding i respect your property rights.

[18:01:35] Anssi Jauhiainen: That would be one thing.

[18:02:58] Anssi Jauhiainen: Second: you cannot argue againts upb wihtout using upb... and if you debate and talk with me and then CORRECT me on soemthing then youre sayign i should prefer truth over falsehood.

[18:14:12] Friend: Well I mean I AM responsible for my actions, if that's what you mean. I don't claim that I own my body as property in any meaningful sense. The fact that I choose to hold my body to the standard of what appears to be property comes down to an emotional response for for example not wanting others to attack me etc. It's only a descriptive statement of how organisms act, and I don't see how property rights follow from that.

And yeah I could perhaps agree with the second statement. But since upb seems to be descriptive, it just describes what happens. How does it go from these observable facts to ought claims?

[18:15:40] Anssi Jauhiainen: It... doesnt. It responds to people claims or justification, upb is both framework and methodoligy for evaluating ethicsl/moral theories. And by the by if you deny self ownership... well you cant argue againts self ownership by using it.

[18:16:23] Anssi Jauhiainen: You exersise self ownership when you use your body to speak, to type. Self ownership again is simply the fact that yuo control your body and that you are the sole exclusive owner of yourself.

[18:19:52 | Muokattu 18:20:04] Anssi Jauhiainen: Ive never once said you "ough to respect my property rights" ive said that you cant argue againts them if youve already affirmed them trough your actions and if you dont care that you have then... youve jsut violated upb and dont care of being consistent or rational so in that case youve totally screwed over any idea that it is a debate or exhcance of idea trough reason.

[18:31:36] Friend: So it doesn't actually claim to solve the is ought problem? So I might not have any problems with it in that case.

 

I'm not denying self-ownership as defined by me being responsible for my actions. But what I have a problem with is the second thing you said. I must once again then ask for a definition of own. If self-ownership is a descriptive statement, then I agree with it, if it is anything else, I must ask for further clarification.

 

And you say that I can't argue against property rights without using property rights. Then again I must ask how these rights are anything other than descriptive and how these rights being descriptive can we logically determine what other things beside ourselves we own as property?

[18:32:33] Anssi Jauhiainen: Waht do you mean by descriptive?

[18:32:59 | Muokattu 18:33:12] Anssi Jauhiainen: As in "gasses expand when heated" or "1+1=2"?

[18:33:55] Friend: both are descriptive

[18:34:01] Friend: fact claims

[18:34:05] Friend: basically

[18:34:19] Anssi Jauhiainen: Ok.

[18:34:57] Anssi Jauhiainen: No siis en mie ole paljon muuta sanonut kuin että "theyre valid" So...

[18:35:59] Friend: well for example UPB might be logically valid internally of itself

[18:36:04] Friend: and it probably is I don't know

[18:36:34] Friend: but it's still an ought claim if you apply it to what ought to be done as moral behavior

[18:37:04] Anssi Jauhiainen: But that isisnt waht upb is.

[18:38:16] Anssi Jauhiainen: Universally preferable behavior means that it is behavior which can be universally be preferred. Waht claims other than "self ownership is valid, property rights is/are valid" Have i amde? If you mean thigns like:

[18:38:40] Anssi Jauhiainen: The iniation of force is immoral (aka it is immoral to steal, to murder, to rape and so on...)

[18:39:36] Anssi Jauhiainen: Theyre not immoral because upb says that you ough not do them... theyre immoral because they are logically inconsistent and invalid ehtical proposations. And yes a thief in stealing has argued for HIS property right and denied yours.

[18:40:11] Anssi Jauhiainen: If i take you phone i am saying that i ought/should own thsi keep this and use this for myself while you should not.

[18:59:51] Friend: Sure, but I mean everyone doesn't agree on the fact that that's what makes them immoral. I mean ethics still needs that if-statement if we want to make an ought claim. Like I don't see how you can logically go from "if you want to be logically consistent you ought not to murder" it still doesn't follow? Now if you say "if you want behavior that violates the UPB to be immoral you ought not to murder" that's fine I think.

 

And yeah I still go back to my previous post where I asked if property right is a descriptive statement or not and if it is, how can it logically follow that I can have "ownership" of something outside of myself.

 

The fact that you take my phone is just a statement of what happens. Now whether or not we should consider this phone as something that I own as property still needs to be argued for. I mean I might hold the view that it is my property, because I happen to believe in some concept of property rights, but I wouldn't claim that you can argue for them logically as being anything else than preferences.

[19:07:37] Anssi Jauhiainen: "if you you want to be logicall consistent you ough not to justify murder or moral" (either good for just you and not anyone else or for all). Its not up to me, if one violates upb then it is immoral objectively. Saying that one can ignore upb and debate ethics is jsut as similiar as one can ignore the scientific method and amke scientific claims or truth claims of facts like it.

 

Because IF you accept that we own our bodies then we are necessarily responsible (have ownership) for the effects of our actions and we own our time and labor and the effects thereof as well.  If I cut down a tree and make a chair out of it, its mine. 

 

 I am taking your phone wihtout your consent, which is theft and by the by so long as you keep using the work "my phone" it really doesnt make sense to tlak about ptoperty. Property rights are valid logicall an empirically; thus theyre objective and not subject to personal opinion. Jsut like the sientific method is objective.

[19:09:53] Friend: hetki teen ruokaa vastaan koht

[19:10:35] Anssi Jauhiainen: ok

[20:01:22] Friend: I don't understand how it is logically inconsistent to try to justify murder. I mean obviously you can't universalize murder, but why is that the criteria of something being logically consistent. Don't you need an ethical theory of some sort to evaluate if it is logically consistent or not? The mere justification of murder by itself doesn't seem to imply any sort of logical contradiction.

 

And here you claim that moral claims are objective? I don't understand how it can be equated to science. Science only deals with descriptive statements whereas ethics imply oughts. Nothing in science says anything other than what factually happens in the world. An ethical theory that doesn't say anything about oughts is a useless one it seems, since it only says whatever happens happens, doesn't it?

 

As for property, I can't still understand how you go from these is statements to rights claims over something. It just doesn't seem to logically follow. Like, I can't see anyway how you can get to that conclusion logically from just the fact that we are responsible for our actions. From which premises is the conclusion of ownership derived?

 

The scientific method is objective because it is only a way to desribe something. Ethics would be objective if it was for example just an observation of how murder was committed, and facts around the circumstances surrounding this murder or something. The moment you start talking about what ought to be done, it ceases to be objective, precisely because there is no logical way for you to get from an is statement to an ought statement.

[20:13:35] Anssi Jauhiainen: 1. The justification of murder is this: "murder is upd/moral its good to murder" and thus it is wrong to not to murder. If fails on multible levels as you can probobl acertain. If its not universal it aint mroality, for soemthign to be immoral or moral i must be universal otherwise its opinion.

 

2. No ethics of the past have implied ought (such as religious ones), trough upb we deal with justifications of that which is upb/moral. No it doesnt, upb evaluates things like these: Is it immoral to steal? If its not upb then you cannot universalise theft and thus things like government are immoral. Theyre base operations are cut down. Same with murder, religious peopel might claim a murder in certain situations to be jsut, but since murder cannot be upb and they claim murder agaisnt innocent is ok at differant times youve jsut violated universality.

 

3. It is the same thing to be responceable for somethign anf owning it. If one murders he owns that murder. Just liek with makign chair out wood, now reason one cannot sell his murder is because in order to sell an action one must be willing to take it and also the victim msut also agree to it since he is part of the murder but since murder renders him dead the person committing the murder is infinately tied to it unlike soemthing positive/neutral liek making a chair. For the chair als, it wouldn't exist without you, so of course you alone own it. Same with YOUR hands How he'd feel about me stealing your arm after you built and nurtured it all the years? (parenting is custodianship not ownership btb) If you have exclusive right/ownership/use of your arms, then what you do with those arms belong to you also.

 

4. I have not said ough until if havent i? Also no, scientific method is objective because it is emperical and logically consistent. And thus isint subjective which is personal opinion,. thats how we know its objective.

 

Friend: 1. Here again you're assuming that UPB is what's moral. It's fine, but I feel that its just as arbitrary as any other definition of morality. And I can't see how morality can be anything other than opinion. It can be argued for based on definitions that people agree upon, but if you claim that it is anything other than opinion, then the burden is on you to prove why it is the case. Also if the reason why we should accept UPB as the thing that determines what is moral is because anything other is opinion, well isn't that just an appeal to emotion?2. Well here's the same as the first point. You're still assuming that we've gotten over the problem of defining what's moral to that which can be universalized. Which I don't necessarily agree with anyways."Is it immoral to steal?", well what is the definition of immoral? "An action that cannot be universalized", why should that be the definition of immoral?3. I understand that one is responsible for ones actions. I don't think that too many people would argue against it. What I don't agree with is that you own your actions in any meaningful sense that could be derived logically from the fact that you are responsible for your actions. You are part of the causal chain that caused that chair to come into its current state. How does owning the chair mean anything as a factual statement? I don't see how there's some logic that is being violated by not accepting property rights.4. Well what is the if then? "if you want to be logically consistent"?Yeah sure I might agree with that, but my point is that science deals with factual statements about the universe. The reason ethics seems subjective to me is because until you agree upon a definition of what makes moral and immoral behavior, there's just no way to determine how a particular theory is better than any other.5. Still if you by self-ownership mean that you are responsible for your actions, as in you have caused them into being, I can't see how any rights can follow logically from that fact alone. It might be that there is some other step in the logic that hasn't been mentioned, I don't know.Like I can't understand how the fact that you are part of that particular causal chain is anything else than a description of the world how it is.And I'm definitely not saying that there is some great desire in me to have claim to other people or for them to have of me, but it seems that that is more so based on empathy and an instinct to want to defend myself than anything else.

This is like saying that gravity is descriptive and he needs to be convinced that it is also normative. In the case of gravity, it just IS. In the case of property rights, self-ownership is the only configuration of property rights that is logically possible, internally consistent, and universal. Again, I would ask him why he needs to be able to own other people or for other people to have a greater claim to him than he has. Until you understand where the breakdown in rational thought is occurring, you won't be able to overcome it.

 

Wait where did he say so far that he need to own other people or for someone to have greater claim over him?

[powder]

I am not sure what is going on here anymore.  Anoujat, the last question you asked says it all.  You either really have no clue what has been said, or you are on about something that you are not being honest about.  In any case, I am done, good luck.  

[dsayers]

Wait where did he say so far that he need to own other people or for someone to have greater claim over him?

 

Have you watched Stef's presentation called the Bomb in the Brain series? If you want to change somebody's mind, you have to first understand why they think the way they do.

 

I'll give you an example. There are people in the world who cling to the State and other religions despite logic, reason, and evidence. How can this be? Well, they were abused as children and internalized or normalized being subjugated. If they're not prepared to accept the fact that their parents abused them, they NEED to be subjugated by a government/deity to validate the subjugation they received from their parents.

 

In the situation you face, you friend is very clearly demonstrating that he NEEDS for property rights to be invalid. If you are unable to identify why this is, you will be powerless to overcome it. He might not be saying this, but one of the benefits of possessing self-knowledge is that you gain insight into others. Also, you can tell things about people based on what they don't say or how they say something. He doesn't have to use the words, "I NEED somebody to lord over me" to communicate that idea.

 

If you don't mind me saying so, I think your time would be better spent figuring out how I'm able to see this while the very suggestion confused you. As opposed to trying to talk somebody out of a conclusion they didn't arrive at by way of logic, reason or evidence by using logic, reason, and evidence.

[Anuojat]

I am not sure what is going on here anymore.  Anoujat, the last question you asked says it all.  You either really have no clue what has been said, or you are on about something that you are not being honest about.  In any case, I am done, good luck.  

Neither am i my last question related to the fact that in no point did my friend say that "he needs to be able to own other people or for other people to have a greater claim to him than he has."

 

And my friend did add to that something which ill add at the end of mu large post. If youre done i understand if youre feeling like this is pointless but i do not see why id its matter concerning me.

 

Have you watched Stef's presentation called the Bomb in the Brain series? If you want to change somebody's mind, you have to first understand why they think the way they do.

 

I'll give you an example. There are people in the world who cling to the State and other religions despite logic, reason, and evidence. How can this be? Well, they were abused as children and internalized or normalized being subjugated. If they're not prepared to accept the fact that their parents abused them, they NEED to be subjugated by a government/deity to validate the subjugation they received from their parents.

 

In the situation you face, you friend is very clearly demonstrating that he NEEDS for property rights to be invalid. If you are unable to identify why this is, you will be powerless to overcome it. He might not be saying this, but one of the benefits of possessing self-knowledge is that you gain insight into others. Also, you can tell things about people based on what they don't say or how they say something. He doesn't have to use the words, "I NEED somebody to lord over me" to communicate that idea.

 

If you don't mind me saying so, I think your time would be better spent figuring out how I'm able to see this while the very suggestion confused you. As opposed to trying to talk somebody out of a conclusion they didn't arrive at by way of logic, reason or evidence by using logic, reason, and evidence.

 

I havent seen it in the while so i cannot remember. But while i may do that i cannot assume this to be the case. I cannot dive unto his mind to know that he has this as his reason for anot accepting my arguements. From what i gather and his latest psot especially spaks to this, he say that i have nto shown link between things. Have i erred in my answers which you can see above? As you can see its the connectiosn he is confused about, how can one logically get from A to B. He is in bit a pickle as you can see when i mentioned scientific method... because he cannot see why thing happening mean anything other that they happen. This includes human action.

 

And i dont how youre able to see somehting which is in his head that he hasnt revealed yet.

 

*SIGH*

 

Well i didnt say ""the world is this way so we should use upb to determine the validity of moral theories"". What i am saying is...[18:48:41 | Muokattu 18:48:56] Anssi Jauhiainen: IF you prefer reason and evidence (+logic) and if you want to debate ethics AND if you use upb to make any arguements then upb is both valid and the preferred methodology for ethical theories.[18:57:07] Friend: well I do prefer reason and evidence.I want to debate ethics, but first we have to establish how we want to debate ethics. Like we could debate if ethical questions are objective or subjective and what makes them that, or we could debate the internal logic of some ethical system.And I don't understand what it means to use upb to make arguments and how from using it it necessarily follows that it is the preferred methodology to deal with ethical theories.

[Pelafina]

You can only believe that it is legally and socially correct that everyone should have 100% ownership in themselves, and that if someone violates that right, then the rest of society should exercise consequences against the violator. 

 

If one exercises control over the body they inhabit, they can still hold the valid belief that it's okay to own and control a different person or a different body.  

 

Choosing to control the body you are in, doesn't imply that you are agreeing to limit that control to only the body you are in.

 

The concept of self-ownership is just a preference, and as libertarians we hope that more and more people begin to believe in it.  Self-ownership cannot be "proven".

[dsayers]

If one exercises control over the body they inhabit, they can still hold the valid belief that it's okay to own and control a different person or a different body. 

 

One can hold such a belief, but the belief would not be valid as it would be internally inconsistent.

 

The concept of self-ownership is just a preference

 

It's not even a choice. If you can conceptualize self, the other, formulate ideals, compare behaviors to those ideals, and calculate consequences, then you cannot escape the fact that you are then responsible for how you make use of your body, time, and effort. It is a characteristic of the capacity for reason.

[Pelafina]

One can hold such a belief, but the belief would not be valid as it would be internally inconsistent.

 

 

It's not even a choice. If you can conceptualize self, the other, formulate ideals, compare behaviors to those ideals, and calculate consequences, then you cannot escape the fact that you are then responsible for how you make use of your body, time, and effort. It is a characteristic of the capacity for reason.

 

Show me why you believe that it would be internally inconsistent.  Claiming someone is inconsistent is not an argument.

[dsayers]

It's not a belief. X and NOT X cannot simultaneously be true. Whether that's an argument or not, it does refute the claim of validity, as was its purpose.

 

Additionally, your claim of preference, followed by avoiding it's refutation suggests that you are not interested in accuracy. Why then would you originally post under the guise of correction if accuracy was not your purpose?

[Pelafina]

It's not a belief. X and NOT X cannot simultaneously be true. Whether that's an argument or not, it does refute the claim of validity, as was its purpose.

 

Additionally, your claim of preference, followed by avoiding it's refutation suggests that you are not interested in accuracy. Why then would you originally post under the guise of correction if accuracy was not your purpose?

 

Accuracy is my purpose and I am being accurate what I say that self-ownership is a preference.  If one exercises control over the body they inhabit, they can still hold the valid belief that it is okay to own and control a different person or a different body.  Just because you don't think it's fair does not mean that the belief against self-ownership is invalid.

[Josh F]

Well just because people respect it intuitively doesnt mean anything when it come to validy of property.

 

My friend has trouble understanding how one goes from doing something like making a chair froma tree and then it becoming his property that he can exclude other from, this is because while true one doest make the chair simply by making someto him is differant from owning the body since it is "you" while the chair is still not. And pouring ones time and energy is jsut action in reality doesnt follow to owning anyhting. Now when i asked about murder and theft and so on... and owning those. He said that youre jsut responceable for murder, but dont "own" it.

 

Infact the whole concept of "own" was to him (and soemwhat to me too) foggy.

 

Well he didnt really give any example other than:

 

"You claim property as your own like chair that you made, someone else comes to the scene and wants to use it. You say its yours and he cant just take it. He says what gives him the right to deprive him of using it?"

 

 

Well its the "just because there was an action of creating a chair by you doesnt mean that therefore you ought to have property right to it or that you ought to respect that persons property"

 

He considers arms to be his since its his body and arms. But chair is totally outside of him and thus no matter how much energy and skill one pours unto it he doesnt see any reason who one should "own" it. He accepts self ownership but doesnt accept property rights of objects persay and relies social acceptance and social interactions with others to establish property right but doesnt see that theyre objective. Outside of social interactions he has no moral qualms of me taking his phone evidently... he would still get annoyed and complain but wouldnt try to claim that i am stealign from his other than in the context of social contract with other humans in society.

 

Also look up my reply to the other quate for mroe information

 

PS. Also quotes:

 

"""Like what is the logic that takes you from you being responsible for creating a chair for it being wrong for someone else to use the chair."""

 

"""How do you esbatlish property right without mutual understandin between people?"""

 

"""Oh sure I would probably complain. But the way I understand that I own my phone is by some form of social contract. There's nothing inherently about my relationship with the phone that makes it mine, I would argue."""

 

"""The fact that youre responceable for something leading to you having some right to deprive other the right from using or utilizing something requires still the explanation i havent gotten."""

Ownership is a concept, it doesn't physically exist nor does it come divinely inspired from some world of the forms.  Private property is a concept that you own yourself and the effects of your actions.  The acceptance of property rights is internally and rationally consistent.  The acceptance of any other concepts of poverty is rationally inconsistent.  

 

So lets say there is no 'private property' and I take something from the commons and use it exclusively.  Since there was no owner, since in this model no one 'owns' private property, one can not say you "took" something.  Additionally, anyone else attempting to use that object has no greater claim on it than you do.  Therefor you have no responsibility to share or return the object.  If you don't own it, they don't own it, and can't claim any injustice in you maintaining exclusive control over the object.  How can someone make a claim about what you can or can't own if they themselves do not own it?  Where does their 'right' to it come from and why doesn't that right extend to you?  

[Anuojat]

Ownership is a concept, it doesn't physically exist nor does it come divinely inspired from some world of the forms.  Private property is a concept that you own yourself and the effects of your actions.  The acceptance of property rights is internally and rationally consistent.  The acceptance of any other concepts of poverty is rationally inconsistent.  

 

So lets say there is no 'private property' and I take something from the commons and use it exclusively.  Since there was no owner, since in this model no one 'owns' private property, one can not say you "took" something.  Additionally, anyone else attempting to use that object has no greater claim on it than you do.  Therefor you have no responsibility to share or return the object.  If you don't own it, they don't own it, and can't claim any injustice in you maintaining exclusive control over the object.  How can someone make a claim about what you can or can't own if they themselves do not own it?  Where does their 'right' to it come from and why doesn't that right extend to you?  

 

Well he went unto talking about social contract and how only trough agreements with other people could any form of property right exist and thenw e went unto tlaking about democracy.... and he said that it was basically mod rule but could see any other way of dealing with thing in society at the moment. So... in doing this he did remind of something we had agree upon earlier: That since neither model "to him" seemed to be be logically sound only emotionally pleasing or not and pracmatically working, he would probobly go with capitalims and free market if "need" be.

Show me why you believe that it would be internally inconsistent.  Claiming someone is inconsistent is not an argument.

 

 

It's not a belief. X and NOT X cannot simultaneously be true. Whether that's an argument or not, it does refute the claim of validity, as was its purpose.

 

Additionally, your claim of preference, followed by avoiding it's refutation suggests that you are not interested in accuracy. Why then would you originally post under the guise of correction if accuracy was not your purpose?

 

 

Accuracy is my purpose and I am being accurate what I say that self-ownership is a preference.  If one exercises control over the body they inhabit, they can still hold the valid belief that it is okay to own and control a different person or a different body.  Just because you don't think it's fair does not mean that the belief against self-ownership is invalid.

Hmmm this seems to be steering slightly away from the initial questiosn psoed by my freidn. And i did add another part to my friends answer in my last post which sums up every thing so far quite well:

 

[21.10.2014 17:55:37] Friend: yeah well UPB invalidates ethical theories based on it's own criteria

[21.10.2014 17:57:03 | Muokattu 17:57:24] Anssi Jauhiainen: Well the use of the word "its own" criteria here is bit strange IF its "own" critarea is objective and valid.

[21.10.2014 17:58:40] Friend: I mean you still have to provide reasons for why we should use the UPB criteria to invalidate ethical theories

[21.10.2014 18:01:05] Anssi Jauhiainen: Well do we want to debate ethics at all? Thats the first question. If yes then we msut ask do we use reason and evidence and logic in our debate? And if yes then we cannot have two conflicting criteria for ethics.

[21.10.2014 18:01:17] Anssi Jauhiainen: ITs like having 2 scientific methods

[21.10.2014 18:12:09] Friend: Well I mean it's a good question. What is the purpose of ethics anyways? What is the goal? If we don't have a goal then it seems kinda useless.

 

The goal of science is to find out more about the world. It doesn't claim to say anything else. I don't understand how you can say the same of ethics? I mean you can apply logic in the sense that you do to check wheather a ethical theory is valid according to UPB standards, but the fact that we should use such standards in ethics, I don't understand.

[21.10.2014 18:13:08] Friend: like I think that you have to look at consequences in a way

[21.10.2014 18:14:46] Anssi Jauhiainen: Well that is because if ethics is to be objective it must be universally preferable behavior. And the goal of ethics is (in my mind i am sure to get rolled over by stef and other philosofers) is to achieve moral exelelnce or atleast aim to that goal. If someone says they dotn care waht is right and wrong... well theyre free to do that ofcourse but then cant complain back either

[21.10.2014 18:15:41] Anssi Jauhiainen: If it aint universal morality, universality differentiatess morality from opinion and science from religion/supersticion ect. (well one big differance anyhow)

[21.10.2014 18:28:17] Friend: But I mean, why must ethics be objective in any way? What does it even mean, I don't really understand. It's just a mind bending concept to me. You say that we can tell from nature how nature ought to be basically? Surely it is only from a human perspective(or other sentient life perhaps) that ethical questions are of value. Then how can nature and logic tell us anything about what is good or bad without us first deciding on a goal.

[21.10.2014 18:30:19] Friend: like it's as if science would be able to answer the question of how things ought to be

[21.10.2014 18:34:09] Anssi Jauhiainen: 1. Again with the ough thing. Didnt i already tell you i fully accept that we need an IF first.

2. True it is of value same way mathematics... dont exist in the real world. But theyre still valid and also objective. (not to say ethics and math is exactly the same though)

3. Scientific method, theories about physical reality are valid or invalid.

UPB, thoeries about ethics are valid or invalid. Both are optional to use, both are objective. Both are binding once person uses scientific method or upb and ocne person uses IF+something.

[21.10.2014 18:35:10] Anssi Jauhiainen: Now you can have alternative to upb jsut like to scientific method if youd like to propose one, i would be lisening with the rest of the philosofy/scientific community. If you dont want to use either be my guest.

[21.10.2014 18:36:03] Friend: well yeah I mean you can use UPB, once you accept it as the standard for sure

[21.10.2014 18:36:26] Friend: the thing with science is that it provides real life solutions and applications

[21.10.2014 18:36:47] Anssi Jauhiainen: Ahhh

[21.10.2014 18:37:03] Friend: there's no way you can measure how good an ethical theory is without using said ethical theory

[21.10.2014 18:37:09] Friend: it's kind of arbritrary

[21.10.2014 18:37:20] Anssi Jauhiainen: hey so i claimed that upb is BOTH logically consistent and emperical rihgt? So is this the part where we look at the empiricality of upb?

[21.10.2014 18:38:19] Friend: well sure, but it's like I kind of agree to it already I think

[21.10.2014 18:38:41] Friend: but you still have the same problem

[21.10.2014 18:39:49] Anssi Jauhiainen: Well you can measure how good is ethical theory, logical consistency and how empirical it is. Like same tests for upb itself (even though upd evuluates morel theories).

[21.10.2014 18:40:19] Anssi Jauhiainen: Try to think it this way: Scientific method vs superstation or religion, both make truth claims about reality right?

[21.10.2014 18:40:57] Anssi Jauhiainen: Same witrh ethics, if one claims murder is moral see whcih framework is the best (and work and is logical) then do the same with its own application

[21.10.2014 18:41:22] Anssi Jauhiainen: Like scientific method itself has to be valid not JUST the thoeries it validates

[21.10.2014 18:42:04] Anssi Jauhiainen: And upb is nto an ethical theory once again.

[21.10.2014 18:43:09] Friend: but how do you measure what moral theory is the best?

[21.10.2014 18:43:29] Friend: like as soon as you use upb for that purpose, you've accepted upb as that standard

[21.10.2014 18:45:33] Friend: where does that standard come from? How do you logically go from: "the world is this way" to "we should use upb to determine the validity of moral theories"?

[21.10.2014 18:47:29] Anssi Jauhiainen: Well i didnt say ""the world is this way so we should use upb to determine the validity of moral theories"". What i am saying is...

[21.10.2014 18:48:41 | Muokattu 18:48:56] Anssi Jauhiainen: IF you prefer reason and evidence (+logic) and if you want to debate ethics AND if you use upb to make any arguements then upb is both valid and the preferred methodology for ethical theories.

[21.10.2014 18:57:07] Friend: well I do prefer reason and evidence.

 

I want to debate ethics, but first we have to establish how we want to debate ethics. Like we could debate if ethical questions are objective or subjective and what makes them that, or we could debate the internal logic of some ethical system.

 

And I don't understand what it means to use upb to make arguments and how from using it it necessarily follows that it is the preferred methodology to deal with ethical theories.

 

WHICH i think is the direction towards understand goals and underlying causes for holding cetain things true or valid. (or invalid or subjective ect.)

[Josh F]

Well he went unto talking about social contract and how only trough agreements with other people could any form of property right exist and thenw e went unto tlaking about democracy.... and he said that it was basically mod rule but could see any other way of dealing with thing in society at the moment. So... in doing this he did remind of something we had agree upon earlier: That since neither model "to him" seemed to be be logically sound only emotionally pleasing or not and pracmatically working, he would probobly go with capitalims and free market if "need" be.

 

Yes, private property only functions as a concept if people adhere to it.  Much like language or morality or the rules to a game.  Private property does not 'exist' since it is conceptual, but as a concept it is superior to other concepts of property because it is rationally consistent and provides objective rules for ownership claims.  All other concepts are inferior because they're fundamentally rationally inconsistent.  

 

For example, slavery is an inconsistent model because two functionally identical entities have competing or contradictory definitions of property.  The owner must own himself, but must claim the slave is incapable of self-ownership.  The slavery model works like this "people with x arbitrary characteristics are capable of self ownership, and people without x are not capable of self ownership."  This model is therefor not universalizable.  It can not be true for all people in all times.  Only private property can be true for all people in all times.

 

And to clarify by 'x arbitrary characteristic' I mean being an owner was often predicated on things like skin color, wealth, family name, your ability to swing a sword, etc.

[dsayers]

Accuracy is my purpose and I am being accurate what I say that self-ownership is a preference.  If one exercises control over the body they inhabit, they can still hold the valid belief that it is okay to own and control a different person or a different body.  Just because you don't think it's fair does not mean that the belief against self-ownership is invalid.

 

So basically, you've started with a conclusion, cannot explain how you've arrived at that conclusion, and buck anything that contradicts that conclusion, up to and including baseless claims (when was "fair" or "my thoughts" ever part of our discourse?). This is called bigotry or bias confirmation and is not a characteristic of accuracy.

[Anuojat]

Yes, private property only functions as a concept if people adhere to it.  Much like language or morality or the rules to a game.  Private property does not 'exist' since it is conceptual, but as a concept it is superior to other concepts of property because it is rationally consistent and provides objective rules for ownership claims.  All other concepts are inferior because they're fundamentally rationally inconsistent.  

 

For example, slavery is an inconsistent model because two functionally identical entities have competing or contradictory definitions of property.  The owner must own himself, but must claim the slave is incapable of self-ownership.  The slavery model works like this "people with x arbitrary characteristics are capable of self ownership, and people without x are not capable of self ownership."  This model is therefor not universalizable.  It can not be true for all people in all times.  Only private property can be true for all people in all times.

 

And to clarify by 'x arbitrary characteristic' I mean being an owner was often predicated on things like skin color, wealth, family name, your ability to swing a sword, etc.

 

 

All of which my friedn agrees, but from the post i just made. He has trouble taking any of them to be soemthing we should adhere to. Ive made i clear to him several times that there is no ough until IF and still he keeps insisting that merely by being empirical and logically consistent doesnt mean he or anyone should respect anyone propert of that anyone "shouldt" murder. I guess he has tied ethics in his mind to oughts so hard that once you try to propose ethics and morality without and make it optional just like scientific method... he feels its not "binding enough" to choose over anything else (plus his continue confusion regarding property as seen from above and rearlier posts iver made)

[Pelafina]

So basically, you've started with a conclusion, cannot explain how you've arrived at that conclusion, and buck anything that contradicts that conclusion, up to and including baseless claims (when was "fair" or "my thoughts" ever part of our discourse?). This is called bigotry or bias confirmation and is not a characteristic of accuracy.

 

Respond to my argument instead of calling me a bigot.

[Josh F]

All of which my friedn agrees, but from the post i just made. He has trouble taking any of them to be soemthing we should adhere to. Ive made i clear to him several times that there is no ough until IF and still he keeps insisting that merely by being empirical and logically consistent doesnt mean he or anyone should respect anyone propert of that anyone "shouldt" murder. I guess he has tied ethics in his mind to oughts so hard that once you try to propose ethics and morality without and make it optional just like scientific method... he feels its not "binding enough" to choose over anything else (plus his continue confusion regarding property as seen from above and rearlier posts iver made)

Yeah, it isn't binding at all. It can be wrong to murder, and yet I can still murder people, its very doable.  The point of philosophical ethics compared to other systems is that it isn't about controlling human behavior.  When the church tells you not to steal and threatens you with hellfire, they're trying to control you.  When an objective moralist says don't steal even if there are no personal negative consequences, they're empowering you.  They're accepting that you have moral agency.  

[dsayers]

Respond to my argument instead of calling me a bigot.

 

I don't know you. I was classifying the behavior I observed from you. Saying that "self-ownership is a preference" is an assertion, not an argument. It was challenged and the case was made that self-ownership is not a choice and therefore ineligible for the qualification as preference.

 

That WAS my response to your "argument." Which you have avoided outright, simply re-asserting the same conclusion with no explanation, which is bigotry; You believe what you believe because you want to believe it. Again, this is incompatible with the pursuit of accuracy. Accuracy is predicated on there being truth and truth being preferable to falsehood. You demonstrate acceptance of these ideas when you put forth the objective claim that self-ownership is a preference. I've explained how I know it to be not true. So now in order to ante up, you'll not only have to provide how you know your position to be true, but point out in what way my position is not true.

[Pelafina]

You believe what you believe because you want to believe it. 

 

Does this statement apply to you, and everyone else on this forum for that matter?

[dsayers]

So first it was that I wasn't responding and when I pointed out that I did respond, now it's something else. Thank you for being consistent in your demonstration of lack of interest in accuracy. My time is for people pursuing the truth.

[Pelafina]

Don't be a bot, think for yourself.  Does that statement apply to you?  Do you believe what you believe because you want to believe it?  You don't have to answer me, just answer it to yourself.

[Anuojat]

Last things to ask then for now from my friend is:

 

"Why and how is being responceable for an action same as "owning it"?

 

Is property rights then simply not stating the fact that i am responceable for soemthing and jsut that fact alone?"

 

so I was responsible for an action and now I own it
 what does that own mean
other than it explaining a fact of me having caused something

[Josh F]

Yes, property rights means you're responsible for yourself, your actions, and the products of your actions.  I don't get the question how or why though, I mean this is language its not like property rights exist in physical space, its a concept and thats what it means.  

[Anuojat]

Yes, property rights means you're responsible for yourself, your actions, and the products of your actions.  I don't get the question how or why though, I mean this is language its not like property rights exist in physical space, its a concept and thats what it means.  

 

Well after this my friend seemed to have progress with me

 

Though i am hoping this truly was progress since he sees that self ownership and property rights is/are merely a fact. I am hopinf if this is logical that i told him:

 

"So: Self owenership (havign exclusive control over yourself) > you have control > If you have control over yourself then you have control over your actions > if you perform an action youre in contol of that action because the action was yours > action is yours if you did it and youre in control over such an action > Actions have effects resulting directly from the action itself > thus those effects are also what youre responceable for. Thus you own your actions and theyre effects. Ownership over yourself and somethign is exclusive control. Ownership of actions is both being responceable for it and owning it. This si because = responceability for an action comes from being in control and owning an action comes it being YOU who did such action. PHEW."

 

I hope waht i painstakingly said there is good

 

He is at a point now where he accepts property rights if they mean responceability of your actions and theyre effects. He (and i to some extend) have trough getting the differe between owning and being responceable. If owning jsut means responceable why not just use responceable?

 

Also the issue with CLAIMS over property right to say a chair is being taken care of, though slowly. He now accepts that property rights are valid and so is self ownership, but theres still the issue of ownership claims. "Being responceable for somethign doesnt seem to grant you the right to violently defend your property. Even if youre responceabl for something that doesnt mean you can prevent others from using that."

 

I... hope this isint too brainbending?