Problems with ethics from principles

[labmath2]

Ethics from principles are debates about axioms. The three laws of logic are not sufficient to demonstrate the logical failures of the many moral propositions put forth. I will deal with two axioms in Libertarian philosophy to show my point.

 

1. UPB cannot be rejected without being asserted. This is the proposition that makes UPB unassailable. Lets take the statement "there is no UPB," and figure out what is being said.

A) It is universally preferable that there is no UPB. This is obviously self detonating.

B) UPB is like a pegasus or yeti, it simply does not exist. Its a myth.

C) UPB is an empty set. Otherwise stated as an abstraction without a particular instance of it.

 

There is the option that UPB like the scientific method is not a claim, but a way of evaluating claims. How is it different from principle of non-contradiction.

 

2. Self ownersip as a self evident axiom.

A) Sure I concede that you control yourself, but that is distinct from the normative claim of ownership. The moment you move from the descriptive "i control my arms" to the normative "i ought to control my own arms" you are describing two different things.

B) self control is subject to other considerations, like the good of society.

 

Now Stefan says its a contradiction to say gravity should point down except on thursdays in the middle of the ocean. Actually, its not. Remember for it to be a contradiction, it must say A is not A in the same way and at the same time. It turns out such a claim is untrue, but it could be true in some bizzare universe.

[bugzysegal]

Ethics from principles are debates about axioms. The three laws of logic are not sufficient to demonstrate the logical failures of the many moral propositions put forth. I will deal with two axioms in Libertarian philosophy to show my point.

 

1. UPB cannot be rejected without being asserted. This is the proposition that makes UPB unassailable. Lets take the statement "there is no UPB," and figure out what is being said.

A) It is universally preferable that there is no UPB. This is obviously self detonating.

B) UPB is like a pegasus or yeti, it simply does not exist. Its a myth.

C) UPB is an empty set. Otherwise stated as an abstraction without a particular instance of it.

 

There is the option that UPB like the scientific method is not a claim, but a way of evaluating claims. How is it different from principle of non-contradiction.

 

2. Self ownersip as a self evident axiom.

A) Sure I concede that you control yourself, but that is distinct from the normative claim of ownership. The moment you move from the descriptive "i control my arms" to the normative "i ought to control my own arms" you are describing two different things.

B) self control is subject to other considerations, like the good of society.

 

Now Stefan says its a contradiction to say gravity should point down except on thursdays in the middle of the ocean. Actually, its not. Remember for it to be a contradiction, it must say A is not A in the same way and at the same time. It turns out such a claim is untrue, but it could be true in some bizzare universe.

OMG this post is beautiful. Where the hell were you in all my other posts? There is a distinct problem with asserting absolute consistency in the laws of nature.

[NotDarkYet]

UPB is, in fact, a framework for evaluating the validity of moral statements.   

 

The validity of UPB itself is not in jeopardy because you take issue with any specific example (body control vs body ownership, or the gravity example).  

 

You can go ahead and reject either of those as valid examples, but it doesn't mean we can make valid arguments for the universal goodness of theft and violence.

 

UPB stands, regardless of how we snip along the edges.

[bugzysegal]

UPB is, in fact, a framework for evaluating the validity of moral statements.   

 

The validity of UPB itself is not in jeopardy because you take issue with any specific example (body control vs body ownership, or the gravity example).  

 

You can go ahead and reject either of those as valid examples, but it doesn't mean we can make valid arguments for the universal goodness of theft and violence.

 

UPB stands, regardless of how we snip along the edges.

It stands as a practical measure, just as the scientific method, but it does not validate it's own principles.  To be precise: validity is correctly drawing inferences amongst propositions of arguments. This technical term cannot be applied to axioms.

 

This discussion, and the one I have in the thread about intuitions of ethics, is a meta-ethical one: a discussion a level above the one about individual evaluative systems. Instead it compares evaluative systems amongst each other. That begs questions like, "how do we do that without reflecting to the belief systems, which are out of bounds?" 

 

I tend to think the best answer is "you don't, you proceed with what is useful and discard what is not. Also, act with empathy." And yes I realize this is heresy. 

 

Oh and if I'm misrepresenting the posters views, please disregard me.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Ownership is a descriptive claim too. You own your comment. That's true before we even get to any oughts. 

I do not understand the argument you're making with the rest of this. Could you put it into some logical form?

There is a distinct problem with asserting absolute consistency in the laws of nature.

 

Are you still spouting this nonsense? For the billionth time, this must also apply to your argument. If you keep trying to instill your insecurity about the foundations of reason and science using arguments that rely on those foundations then you are a blatant troll and should be removed from this forum. 

[NotDarkYet]

Is your declaration true, objectively?

Or is this your opinion.

[Koroviev]

Ethics from principles are debates about axioms. 

 

Aren't all discussions of ethics debates about axioms? Unless you consider ethics to be subjective, but it would seem like that would bring on a whole host of other issues.

 

1. UPB cannot be rejected without being asserted. This is the proposition that makes UPB unassailable. Lets take the statement "there is no UPB," and figure out what is being said.

A) It is universally preferable that there is no UPB. This is obviously self detonating.

B) UPB is like a pegasus or yeti, it simply does not exist. Its a myth.

C) UPB is an empty set. Otherwise stated as an abstraction without a particular instance of it.

 

There is the option that UPB like the scientific method is not a claim, but a way of evaluating claims. How is it different from principle of non-contradiction.

 

With UPB, at least the way I understand it, Stef is proposing that morality can be derived logically thus removing the need for a ruler (church or state) to inform the people what is or is not moral. It stems from the fact that there are indeed property rights since no other person can control another's body. The proposal is that since there are property rights then it would be immoral for someone to infringe on those rights without permission and outside of self defense. When something is said to be moral what that means is that it is universally preferable since morality pertains to all people just like all things with mass are subject to gravity, and it is preferable since morality is the choice to be "good". UPB itself is a framework for judging whether or not something is moral based off of property rights and thus the NAP.

 

2. Self ownersip as a self evident axiom.

A) Sure I concede that you control yourself, but that is distinct from the normative claim of ownership. The moment you move from the descriptive "i control my arms" to the normative "i ought to control my own arms" you are describing two different things.

B) self control is subject to other considerations, like the good of society.

 

A) I agree that this seems like the "is from an ought" conundrum however, the difference is you could never say someone else ought to control my arms since no one else can control your arms. The thing that makes someone else controlling your arms (without permission and outside of self defense) wrong is they are, or would be, removing your right to control your own arms since you both cannot be controlling them at the same time. Therefor if someone attempts to control your arms they are being immoral since if they succeed you no longer have property rights over your arms. I haven't quite gotten there yet but apparently FDR 148 talks more about this http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/148/the-ought-to-challenge-morality-does-not-exist-in-reality

B) how can something be good for the society and bad for the individuals that make up the society? 

 

 

Now Stefan says its a contradiction to say gravity should point down except on thursdays in the middle of the ocean. Actually, its not. Remember for it to be a contradiction, it must say A is not A in the same way and at the same time. It turns out such a claim is untrue, but it could be true in some bizzare universe.

 

I don't think this claim has ever been made. What has been said is that all things with mass are subject to gravity therefor if something has mass and is not always subject to gravity then gravity is invalid or the thing is invalid. Just as since morality is universal all people are subject to it no matter where they are, what they are wearing, or how many of them there are.

 

Great points, hope this helped some!!

[NotDarkYet]

So we ought to all believe there are no oughts to believe in?

[Will Torbald]

Ethics from principles are debates about axioms. The three laws of logic are not sufficient to demonstrate the logical failures of the many moral propositions put forth.

 

1 - Yeah, it's a method, not a claim in itself.

2 - We don't live in a bizarre universe, so all morality is for the people living in this universe.

[dsayers]

B) self control is subject to other considerations, like the good of society.

 

There is no such thing as the good of society. Society is a concept. It describes an aggregate of people, which do exist.

 

Now Stefan says its a contradiction to say gravity should point down except on thursdays in the middle of the ocean. Actually, its not. Remember for it to be a contradiction, it must say A is not A in the same way and at the same time. It turns out such a claim is untrue, but it could be true in some bizzare universe.

 

But saying something is true because it might exist in a universe where it would be true is meaningless. Truth and logic is derived the from the consistency of matter and energy in our universe. So in order to determine what is true in our universe, it must be consistent (universal).

 

I really wish people wouldn't focus on things like UPB. The case for objective morality is so much simpler and less confusing.

 

you could never say someone else ought to control my arms since no one else can control your arms.

 

Humans are electrical and there have been fantastic strides in such things for the purpose of health and prosthetics. This is precisely why a fundamental acceptance of property rights is so important. The day will come when when humans can be controlled remotely. If we still accept things like the State, the "greater good," etc, that's going to lead to real problems. I mean, the proof is easy enough; I'm using my arm to control your arm is a performative contradiction. But it will be easier if we make that easy case now before it will become more confusing to those who cannot think rationally.

[Koroviev]

Humans are electrical and there have been fantastic strides in such things for the purpose of health and prosthetics. This is precisely why a fundamental acceptance of property rights is so important. The day will come when when humans can be controlled remotely. If we still accept things like the State, the "greater good," etc, that's going to lead to real problems. I mean, the proof is easy enough; I'm using my arm to control your arm is a performative contradiction. But it will be easier if we make that easy case now before it will become more confusing to those who cannot think rationally.

 

Right, I suppose someone else could control your limbs and I definitely agree that there needs to be a fundamental acceptance of property rights. I guess the question then becomes if someone else can control your arm at any time without your permission do you still own your arm? If the person controlling your arm commits a crime who's responsible? All sorts of MKultra-esque scenarios come to mind, but that's besides the point. However, UPB still stands because if someone took control of your arm without your permission that is immoral because initiation of use of force, infringement of property rights, etc., etc., or if you gave control of your arm away voluntarily and did not have provisions ensuring they wouldn't use it to commit a crime well that's still immoral on their part but you're still to blame as well, at least a little.

 

So, a revision of my prior statement would be that no one could control your arm without the initiation of the use of force or voluntarily allowing for control over your arm, thus property rights. The initiation of the use of force to control your arm infringes on property rights therefor it is immoral, thus NAP, thus UPB.

[labmath2]

I am in a bit of a transition at the moment so i am not in a position to call in, but maybe some other time.

 

Part 2:

I have been thinking about this problem due to reading bugzysegal, but what really tipped me was the debate between Stefan and Walter Block.

 

Stefan opened the debate by laying out facts about spanking, which Walter does not refute. Here i might not do Walter justice, but he rejects the value of those facts as it would mean taking a utilitarian approach to ethics. Even if that is not quite an accurate representation, it strikes me as odd that data would be neglected in a debate about behavior. This is just my opinion.

 

Why does it matter that UPB itself is an axiom and that "there  is no UPB" is not self detonating? It means UPB must also be subjected to some standard, just like any other method or theory. Before i go on, i will like to define a few things (if this seems trivial, you can skip the next few lines. By the way, i am using google defintions where i showed what i typed in).

 

Axiom (axiom definition philosophy): An axiom is an irreducible primary. It doesn't rest upon anything in order to be valid, and it cannot be proven by any "more basic" premises. A true axiom can not be refuted because the act of trying to refute it requires that very axiom as a premise. An attempt to contradict an axiom can only end in a contradiction.

 

Method (method definition): a particular form of procedure for accomplishing or approaching something, especially a systematic or established one.

 

Test (test definition): a procedure intended to establish the quality, performance, or reliability of something, especially before it is taken into widespread use.

 

Empirical (empirical definition): based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

 

Sorry that i wasted your time, Now to the main course.

 

Any proposition on which a moral philosophy is based on must either be a true axiom or be empirically true. If you have bothered reading this far, i think you deserve a good joke, read Ontological argument on wikipedia. This quote is taken from that wikipedia page.

 

"...there is an evident absurdity in pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact, or to prove it by any arguments a priori. Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing, that is distinctly conceivable, implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no being, therefore, whose non-existence implies a contradiction. Consequently there is no being, whose existence is demonstrable." - David Hume.

 

Now if UPB is not a true axiom, then it must be true empirically. If it is a methodology, it must accomplish something, which should be testable or at least observable (other than to show that something is incompatible with itself).

 

Likewise, If self ownership is not a true axiom, it must be true empirically. The descriptive form of self ownership is empirically true, however, the normative form is not. 

Now professionalteabagger brings something important to the table

 

Ownership is a descriptive claim too. You own your comment. That's true before we even get to any oughts. 

I do not understand the argument you're making with the rest of this. Could you put it into some logical form?

 

"Do i own my comment?" Here i think own becomes ambiguous. This statement can be interpreted in multiple ways. Let me do the honor.

1. You own your comment=You typed the words = true.

2. You own your comment=These are your ideas/opinion=true

3. You own your comment=The comments are your possession=unclear

4. You own your comment=The comments are under your control=unclear

 

I do not know where this quote is from, but i think its a good way to end this post. “Words are like eggs dropped from great heights. You could no more call them back than ignore the mess they left when they fall.”

[labmath2]

There is no such thing as the good of society. Society is a concept. It is made up of people.

 

That is true, I thought it would be funny, It was supposed to show the arbitrary nature of propositions that are not empirically true or true axioms.

 

But saying something is true because it might exist in a universe where it would be true is meaningless. Truth and logic is derived the from the consistency of matter and energy in our universe. So in order to determine what is true in our universe, it must be consistent (universal).

 

I really wish people wouldn't focus on things like UPB. The case for objective morality is so much simpler and less confusing.

 

To get slightly off topic, I think your comments really need to be broken down for me to get unambiguous meaning form them.

 

"Truth and logic is derived from the consistency of the matter and energy in our universe."

Consistency: 

1. (of a person, behavior, or process) unchanging in achievement or effect over a period of time.

2. compatible or in agreement with something.

3. (of an argument or set of ideas) not containing any logical contradictions.

 

If you are referring to consistency one, then i am not sure what you mean. "Truth and logic is derived from the consistency (unchanging in achievement or effect over a period of time) of the matter and energy in our universe. Do you mean truth and logic do not change over time?

 

If you are referring to consistency two, then i have to ask what is matter and energy consistent with. "Truth and logic is derived from the consistency ( compatible or in agreement with something) of the matter and energy in our universe.

 

If you are referring to consistency three, then i do not see how my hypothetical world has logical contradictions. "Truth and logic is derived from the consistency ((of an argument or set of ideas) not containing any logical contradictions) of the matter and energy in our universe.

 

Remember Law of non-contradiction: It states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive.

 

So if gravity reverses in this hypothetical world at a particular place and time, it does not contradict gravity doing something else at every other place and time. This would certainly mean gravity is arbitrary and weird, but i do not see why it is contradictory. 

 

You use the word consistency in the statement "So in order to determine what is true in our universe, it must be consistent (universal)." 

Universal: of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases.

 

The problem with that is grouping, Who determines what group is relevant and what group isn't. In science, this is achieved by taxonomy, In moral philosophy, how do you determine moral categories? To play devils advocate, Why shouldn't children be treated different from adults? Why shouldn't government officials be treated different from non officials? Why shouldn't doctors be treated different from non doctors? 

 

Do not make the mistake that i advocate moral relativism or subjective morality. However, you cannot claim moral superiority where there are no objective standards. 

[bugzysegal]

So we ought to all believe there are no oughts to believe in?

this is equivocation, no? from practical, to moral.

There is no such thing as the good of society. Society is a concept. It is made up of people.

Good for a group of people....now what? Or "net good" if you like.

 

But saying something is true because it might exist in a universe where it would be true is meaningless. Truth and logic is derived the from the consistency of matter and energy in our universe. So in order to determine what is true in our universe, it must be consistent (universal).

 

 Logic comes from consistency in our sensory perceptions extrapolated to the workings of the universe. Also mathematicians making it up(inventing conventions). The universe itself isn't necessarily consistent, it just has been so far. True there is no reason to act as if it won't continue to do so, but there is nothing requiring that it does. See Hume's black swan argument, quantum physics, and paraconsistent logic.

 

I really wish people wouldn't focus on things like UPB. The case for objective morality is so much simpler and less confusing.

 

 

Right... super simple. Have you evaluated other moral systems claiming to be "objective"? Have you thoroughly tried to undertake their views? From you representations of Utilitarianism, it doesn't seem so.  Mill's harm principle is remarkable similar to the NAP.

Humans are electrical and there have been fantastic strides in such things for the purpose of health and prosthetics. This is precisely why a fundamental acceptance of property rights is so important. The day will come when when humans can be controlled remotely. If we still accept things like the State, the "greater good," etc, that's going to lead to real problems. I mean, the proof is easy enough; I'm using my arm to control your arm is a performative contradiction. But it will be easier if we make that easy case now before it will become more confusing to those who cannot think rationally.

You are assuming property rights and Utilitarian calculations are incompatible. Even if they are, what happens if you have two objective standards, contradictory, and equally complex. 

[bugzysegal]

Ownership is a descriptive claim too. You own your comment. That's true before we even get to any oughts. 

I do not understand the argument you're making with the rest of this. Could you put it into some logical form?

 

Are you still spouting this nonsense? For the billionth time, this must also apply to your argument. If you keep trying to instill your insecurity about the foundations of reason and science using arguments that rely on those foundations then you are a blatant troll and should be removed from this forum. 

Can the following sentence have meaning? "Some things are ineffable?" Think about that for a minute, then call me a troll. 

[bugzysegal]

1 - Yeah, it's a method, not a claim in itself.

2 - We don't live in a bizarre universe, so all morality is for the people living in this universe.

Now ask yourself..."what if the universe we live in is infinite?"

[labmath2]

I typed two long responses last night that are stuck in limbo. Before those come in, i will quickly address the notion that you ought to believe anything. You do not have to subscribe to any philosophy, but there is a reality around us and the only processes we have of understanding it are philosophy and scientific method. Do not take my principles or propositions as true unless i give you adequate data on which you can independently arrive at the same conclusion.

[Will Torbald]

Now ask yourself..."what if the universe we live in is infinite?"

 

It probably is according to science. It wouldn't make any difference with regards to human behavior on this planet.

[bugzysegal]

It probably is according to science. It wouldn't make any difference with regards to human behavior on this planet.

Somewhere, then bizarre things are happening. In fact, somewhere there is a planet just like this, with people exactly like you and me having a very similar conversation, but the fundamental consistency of the laws of nature is violated regularly. The odds of violations of nature are extremely, mind bendingly small. However, since these are non-zero probabilities, in an infinite universe they are actual. That means there a world exactly like this one, where apples spontaneously assemble themselves on chair tops on a semi-regular basis. 

[Will Torbald]

Somewhere, then bizarre things are happening. In fact, somewhere there is a planet just like this, with people exactly like you and me having a very similar conversation, but the fundamental consistency of the laws of nature is violated regularly. The odds of violations of nature are extremely, mind bendingly small. However, since these are non-zero probabilities, in an infinite universe they are actual. That means there a world exactly like this one, where apples spontaneously assemble themselves on chair tops on a semi-regular basis.

1 - If this were true it would only matter in the planet where that happened, not here.

 

2 - Highly precise experiments at the LHC are proving the symmetry of the universe, that is the consistency of the laws of nature understood so far. Apologies for not having a source at hand, but it's new stuff, but searching symmetry and LHC would yield the results I'm talking about.

 

2.1 - This also means that wherever we look at the universe is the same. It simply expands, but its characteristics are equal everywhere in the universe.

 

3 - Therefore you would need an entirely different universe from this one to have the effects you describe. And that universe would have it's own logic,a and ethics would have to apply to their laws. We wouldn't be cross compatible.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Can the following sentence have meaning? "Some things are ineffable?" Think about that for a minute, then call me a troll. 

Groan. A paradox?  I guess I'm supposed to be blown away or something? How boring.

Stop trying to undermine the foundations of reason while using those foundations to make your arguments or GTFO this forum. 

 

In fact, somewhere there is a planet just like this, with people exactly like you and me having a very similar conversation, but the fundamental consistency of the laws of nature is violated regularly. 

There is no planet like that and this doesn't happen. If it did happen then the arguments you make that it happens could not be valid. So if it does happen you're wrong and if it doesn't happen you're wrong. I don't know why you're allowed to remain on this forum but people who try to piss down our legs with radical skepticism should be booted out.  

[dsayers]

if someone else can control your arm at any time without your permission do you still own your arm?

 

Yes. The "upside of immoral behavior" is that the violator is telling you of their violation. Here, the person preventing you from controlling your arm is using their arm to accomplish this. This contradiction is precisely what the word "immoral" references.

 

However, you cannot claim moral superiority where there are no objective standards. 

 

I don't know what moral superiority means, but morality is based on objective standards. If I steal from you, I am demonstrating that I accept property rights for me but reject them for others. A concept cannot be valid and invalid simultaneously.

 

what happens if you have two objective standards, contradictory

 

So what if reality contradicted reality? Then you wouldn't have logic and wouldn't be able to argue for anything. In other words, your arguing that reality could contradict reality demonstrates that you reject the proposition yourself.

[bugzysegal]

Groan. A paradox?  I guess I'm supposed to be blown away or something? How boring.

Stop trying to undermine the foundations of reason while using those foundations to make your arguments or GTFO this forum. 

 

There is no planet like that and this doesn't happen. If it did happen then the arguments you make that it happens could not be valid. So if it does happen you're wrong and if it doesn't happen you're wrong. I don't know why you're allowed to remain on this forum but people who try to piss down our legs with radical skepticism should be booted out.  

"Some things are ineffable" is not self referential and not paradoxical. That there might be something existent outside the bounds of human understanding and language is not impossible. I'm glad you're omniscient. Arguments like mine aren't radically skeptical. you're being incredibly dismissive. 

1 - If this were true it would only matter in the planet where that happened, not here.

 

2 - Highly precise experiments at the LHC are proving the symmetry of the universe, that is the consistency of the laws of nature understood so far. Apologies for not having a source at hand, but it's new stuff, but searching symmetry and LHC would yield the results I'm talking about.

 

2.1 - This also means that wherever we look at the universe is the same. It simply expands, but its characteristics are equal everywhere in the universe.

 

3 - Therefore you would need an entirely different universe from this one to have the effects you describe. And that universe would have it's own logic,a and ethics would have to apply to their laws. We wouldn't be cross compatible.

1. True, but it would me that inconsistency could happen here. We are speaking about the limits of empiricism and that we can't assume all swans are white. There is a difference between asserting consistency as fact, and assuming it for practicality. 

 

2. That's fascinating. I had heard something like this. Are the results reflecting this symmetry or are they merely testing for it, with the results yet to be determinate?

 

3. Again, interesting.

 

If what you say is true in 2. above, I'd say my first argument still stands as far as the limits of empiricism. 

 

I don't know what moral superiority means, but morality is based on objective standards. If I steal from you, I am demonstrating that I accept property rights for me but reject them for others. A concept cannot be valid and invalid simultaneously.

 

You don't need to accept property rights to steal. All resources are merely at the disposal of those who do use them. This is not an immoral statement, it is amoral.

[dsayers]

You don't need to accept property rights to steal.

 

You cannot make use of your body (your property) without accepting property rights. Also, the thief would have no incentive to take anything unless property was a valid concept to them.

[Will Torbald]

1. True, but it would me that inconsistency could happen here. We are speaking about the limits of empiricism and that we can't assume all swans are white. There is a difference between asserting consistency as fact, and assuming it for practicality. 

 

2. That's fascinating. I had heard something like this. Are the results reflecting this symmetry or are they merely testing for it, with the results yet to be determinate?

 

3. Again, interesting.

 

 

Yeah, it's within the realm of probability that maybe sometime the laws of physics, thus the laws of logic, could change here, but until we have empirical evidence that they have changed we should still behave as if they haven't.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

"Some things are ineffable" is not self referential and not paradoxical. That there might be something existent outside the bounds of human understanding and language is not impossible. I'm glad you're omniscient. Arguments like mine aren't radically skeptical. you're being incredibly dismissive. 

Dismissive? I made an argument and I continue to make it and you continue to ignore it and instead come back at me with waffling questions you think are somehow mind blowing or even remotely interesting. Then you call me "dismissive"? 

Then after having claimed you know of a planet were the laws of nature break down you accuse me of claiming I'm omniscient? What a jackass.

What has the fact that human perception is limited (a boring fact) got to do with "problems with ethics from principles" or anything? You are depending upon the consistency of matter and energy to make your arguments and holding others to that standard.

Either accept this or get off this forum. Your presence is an insult. 

 

 

 I'd say my first argument still stands as far as the limits of empiricism. 

 

No, by your own standard all your arguments are invalid because the laws of logic could change in 5 seconds so you can't say anything is valid or true. You're not omniscient. 

[bugzysegal]

Yeah, it's within the realm of probability that maybe sometime the laws of physics, thus the laws of logic, could change here, but until we have empirical evidence that they have changed we should still behave as if they haven't.

Agreed. I personally wouldn't want consistency as a foundational basis of my reasoning. The LHC is also working on experiments that would reinforce the many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics. This I think might result in a sort of relativism.

 

You cannot make use of your body (your property) without accepting property rights. Also, the thief would have no incentive to take anything unless property was a valid concept to them.

Non-sense. A squirrel doesn't accept anything about property, but it will hide nuts.

Dismissive? I made an argument and I continue to make it and you continue to ignore it and instead come back at me with waffling questions you think are somehow mind blowing or even remotely interesting. Then you call me "dismissive"? 

Then after having claimed you know of a planet were the laws of nature break down you accuse me of claiming I'm omniscient? What a jackass.

What has the fact that human perception is limited (a boring fact) got to do with "problems with ethics from principles" or anything? You are depending upon the consistency of matter and energy to make your arguments and holding others to that standard.

Either accept this or get off this forum. Your presence is an insult. 

 

 

 

No, by your own standard all your arguments are invalid because the laws of logic could change in 5 seconds so you can't say anything is valid or true. You're not omniscient. 

Er actually prior to proof of uniformity that Will pointed to (and I haven't verified this yet) there was every reason to assume that in an infinite universe, exactly what I said would exist. That is, all probabilities, no matter how unlikely are happening...simultaneously... and forever. Also you are rather hostile.

 

EDIT: I erred in going down this path Professionalteabagger and shouldn't  have gone away from the main point of the argument. Labmath brought it up somewhat tangentially and I fell into the digression. 

 

The point still stands that axioms are not actually "True."

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Er actually prior to proof of uniformity that Will pointed to (and I haven't verified this yet) there was every reason to assume that in an infinite universe, exactly what I said would exist. That is, all probabilities, no matter how unlikely are happening...simultaneously... and forever. Also you are rather hostile.

Then the possibility of none of that happening must also happen; which would be a contradiction. If you accept contradiction then any rational debate with you is not possible so you should leave. 

There plenty of crackpot forums that debate this stoner babble. Please leave this forum 

[dsayers]

A squirrel doesn't accept anything about property, but it will hide nuts.

 

We're not talking about squirrels. We're talking about the voluntary actions of people who possess the capacity for reason as denoted by use of the word "accept."

[Guest Gee]

Postmodern trash. The laws of physics are the same in all internal reference frames.

[labmath2]

Part 3: The well chosen test

 

I think this will be the final part of the problems with ethics from principles.

I will like to open with a joke.

 

John: Are you gay?

Peter: No.

John: Does your mother know you're gay?

Peter: ...

 

Now to more serious stuff. In this part i will mainly address the point brought up by dsayers, but it should be apply more broadly.

 

I don't know what moral superiority means, but morality is based on objective standards. If I steal from you, I am demonstrating that I accept property rights for me but reject them for others. A concept cannot be valid and invalid simultaneously.

 

Moral Superiority: Moral superiority is the belief or attitude that one's position and actions are justified by having higher moral values than one's opponent. It can refer to: Morality, when two systems of morality are compared. Self-righteousness, when proclamations of moral superiority become a negative personal trait.

 

Law of noncontradiction: It states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive.

 

Steal: take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.

Theft: the action or crime of stealing.

Property: 

1. a thing or things belonging to someone; possessions collectively.

2. an attribute, quality, or characteristic of something.

Belong:

1. (of a thing) be rightly placed in a specified position.

2. (of a person) fit in a specified place or environment.

3. be the property of.

Possession:

1. the state of having, owning, or controlling something.

2. an item of property; something belonging to one.

Own:used with a possessive to emphasize that someone or something belongs or relates to the person mentioned.

Related:belonging to the same family, group, or type; connected.

Relate: 

1. give an account of (a sequence of events); narrate.

2. be connected by blood or marriage.

Have: 

1. possess, own, or hold.

2. experience; undergo.

Control: 

1. the power to influence or direct people's behavior or the course of events.

2. a group or individual used as a standard of comparison for checking the results of a survey or experiment.

Hold:

1. grasp, carry, or support with one's arms or hands.

2. keep or detain (someone).

 

Hold (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hold):to set aside; reserve or retain

Retain:continue to have (something); keep possession of.

 

If reading through all those definition was as exhausting for you as it was for me to find and post them, i sympathize with you.

I have a problem with words whose definition eventually leads back to them. If your property is your belonging and your belonging is your property, then what is property? Without a simple definition of property that is not a tautology, then its hard to have a discussion about theft.

 

We can speak about theft as a performative contradiction.

Performative Contradiction: A performative contradiction (German: performativer Widerspruch) arises when the propositional content of a statement contradicts the presuppositions of asserting it. An example of a performative contradiction is the statement "I am dead" because the very act of proposing it presupposes the actor is alive.

 

When a thief steals property, does he necessarily engage in performative contradiction? Yes, if he believes something is both true and false at the same time. Now if the thief accepts property rights for himself, but rejects them for others, this is not necessarily a contradiction. If the thief accepts he and others are identical when it comes to property rights, then yes, it is a performative contradiction. If however, he puts himself in a different moral category when it comes to property rights, then he is not. Now you can argue he is not being consistent or universal.

 

Consistent: 

1. (of a person, behavior, or process) unchanging in achievement or effect over a period of time.

2. compatible or in agreement with something.

3. (of an argument or set of ideas) not containing any logical contradictions.

 

Universal: of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases.

 

Let us assume he is not changing his definitions over time, then he is consistent. Well, that is easy, his use of property right is not universal. The problem there as i stated in part 2 is that you will have to subject his principles to your grouping, which he can refute by rejecting your grouping. Then it becomes a battle of opinions.

 

The alternative is some objective standard that is independent of anyone's moral axioms or propositions with which we all evaluate our moral propositions. This is where empiricism seems to be the only answer.

 

Empiricism: the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience. Stimulated by the rise of experimental science, it developed in the 17th and 18th centuries, expounded in particular by John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume.

 

Read the wikipedia page on empiricism for more info.

The video in part 2 is actually the wrong video, disregard that, watch this instead

 

Now coming back to Walter Blocks comment about data about spanking being utilitarian, I will like to end on this.

 

If empirical evidence is not the test of ethics, then what is?

[bugzysegal]

We're not talking about squirrels. We're talking about the voluntary actions of people who possess the capacity for reason as denoted by use of the word "accept."

I am quite literally forbidden by forum rules from going down a certain rabbit hole with you. See Sam Harris or private message me.

 

Secondly, respond to the amoral outlook one might have about the world. Are there no groups of people who don't recognize property (apart from autonomy)? How are they inconsistent.

 

Postmodern trash. The laws of physics are the same in all internal reference frames.

If you look above, Will and I had been talking speaking about the actual testing of hypotheses regarding these matters.  From a brief googling, the symmetry Will has described isn't about uniformity in laws across the spans of the universe but rather the symmetry between nuclei and anti-nuclei. http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2015/09/cern-the-fundamental-symmetry-of-the-universe-confirmed-weeks-most-popular.html

 

If anyone has sources as to the uniformity of fundamental forces across the observable universe, as verified by the LHC, please share them.

 

Also it is important to note that the observable universe might not be the bounds of our universe. It merely refers to the projections scientists extrapolate from the cosmic background radiation. "Infinite monkey cage" embeds the principles of infinity into the claim that an infinite number of monkeys would produce shakespear. The universe may be infinite.

Then the possibility of none of that happening must also happen; which would be a contradiction. If you accept contradiction then any rational debate with you is not possible so you should leave. 

There plenty of crackpot forums that debate this stoner babble. Please leave this forum

Your loose grasp of the difference between probability and possibility is telling. Please return when you have sussed out the difference.

[DaVinci]

 

 

I really wish people wouldn't focus on things like UPB. The case for objective morality is so much simpler and less confusing.

 

 

What exactly do you mean here? Objective morality is simple? I'm not trying to be argumentative here, I'm actually just curious what you mean? Can objective morality be boiled down to a few sentences or words? 

[Will Torbald]

If you look above, Will and I had been talking speaking about the actual testing of hypotheses regarding these matters.  From a brief googling, the symmetry Will has described isn't about uniformity in laws across the spans of the universe but rather the symmetry between nuclei and anti-nuclei. http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2015/09/cern-the-fundamental-symmetry-of-the-universe-confirmed-weeks-most-popular.html

 

If anyone has sources as to the uniformity of fundamental forces across the observable universe, as verified by the LHC, please share them.

 

Also it is important to note that the observable universe might not be the bounds of our universe. It merely refers to the projections scientists extrapolate from the cosmic background radiation. "Infinite monkey cage" embeds the principles of infinity into the claim that an infinite number of monkeys would produce shakespear. The universe may be infinite.

 

The importance of the microwave background cannot be overstated. It is a photograph of the entire universe as it was just hundreds of thousands of years after the big bang. That's it. That's the whole universe, a baby picture if you will. It is thoroughly uniform except some tiny quantum disturbances that alter its temperature by a few fractions of degrees. It is proof that the universe is consistent in space and time and in every part of it the same laws apply. The infinity of the universe is in its capacity to expand indefinitely, but not to the point where a point in space becomes so distant from another that the laws of the universe change in one side and not the other. Everywhere we look the universe is the same, and the MBR is definite empirical proof of it. The experiments of the LHC provide evidence of the consistency of matter and antimatter, which is another matter onto itself. It means that what we are made of is also consistent across space and time.

[bugzysegal]

The importance of the microwave background cannot be overstated. It is a photograph of the entire universe as it was just hundreds of thousands of years after the big bang. That's it. That's the whole universe, a baby picture if you will. It is thoroughly uniform except some tiny quantum disturbances that alter its temperature by a few fractions of degrees. It is proof that the universe is consistent in space and time and in every part of it the same laws apply. The infinity of the universe is in its capacity to expand indefinitely, but not to the point where a point in space becomes so distant from another that the laws of the universe change in one side and not the other. Everywhere we look the universe is the same, and the MBR is definite empirical proof of it. The experiments of the LHC provide evidence of the consistency of matter and antimatter, which is another matter onto itself. It means that what we are made of is also consistent across space and time.

How does MBR prove uniformity? The LHC article I cited was about uniformity at extremely small scales and then extrapolates to the larger world. Undoubtedly there is good reason for this. I don't think it reinforces the argument against the idea that in a very remote place, the uniformity of the fundamental forces is not evident. What's the lightyear distance of the observable universe? Is it possible that there is more outside these bounds? I'm not saying there is evidence, but note that we call it the "observable" universe. I really think this is deliberate.