Moo Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 Proving something to be philosophically true? I roughly remember Steph talking about two guys in a room not being able to steal from each other, but that is unfortunately the limit of my memory. Does anyone know the various ways to proof something philosophically. Or know a link to a presentation that explains it. I'm in the middle of an argument on NAP and trying to nail it down.
RuariMilne Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 You can prove something to be philosophically true or false by showing whether or not the system makes logical sense. With the example of the two people in the room and the question on initiating force, you can deduce whether or not initiating force is moral or not by applying it as an absolute rule. If you make the absolute rule that it is immoral not to initiate force, then they must initiate force in order to be moral. However only one person can initiate force, and then the other person would be reacting to that in self defence and therefore not moral. Therefore you cannot have a moral law which makes it immoral not to initiate for because then you create a system where not everyone can be moral.
TheRobin Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 I don't know what you mean with "philosophically true" or "proofing something philosophically". There's no different standard for truth and proof in philosophy, rather philosophy tries to come up with universal standards for these things to begin with.
Better Future Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 Philosophy is just about questioning absolutely everything and constructing logical arguments that lead us to what we conclude to be the truth. Then we question that too. What are you having problems with in your argument? http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Principle_of_non-aggression
Moo Posted May 6, 2015 Author Posted May 6, 2015 if you wanted to prove that the earth revolved around the sun there are various methods one could use to demonstrate that fact, even though it is fairly obvious. With stealing for example how would you go about proving it was unethical, even though it is fairly obvious. I'm trying to get the methodology. From memory Steph had three points or ways to prove it was unethical. One of which had to do with 2 people in a room not being able to steal from one another, therefore it can't be universalize. He of course put it better, i'm trying to remember the wording and the other 2. The argument i was in revolved around Philosophy being comparable to science, much like a Dietitian is concerned with the science of nutrition, a philosopher is consider with the science of ethics and truth. Am I on the right track / or making any sense?
neeeel Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 Stealing is taking someone elses property without permission If stealing is UPB , then it is allowable for anyone to do it , at any time If I allow someone to take my property ( because its UPB) then they are not actually stealing from me, because stealing is without permission Therefore stealing cannot be UPB, because once stealing becomes UPB, its not stealing any more. Its a logical contradiction ( based on the definition of stealing). 1
Kevin Beal Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 Here's the whole book, for free, online: https://board.freedomainradio.com/page/books/universally_preferable_behavior_a_rational_proof_of_secular_ethics.html The relevant section is called: "The First Test: Rape". (That's where "two guys in a room" is introduced).
Recommended Posts