Problems with ethics from principles

[bugzysegal]

Labmath, message me if you wan't to have a discussion. I am dropping out of the forum. I'm bringing questions straight to the top.

[dsayers]

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? 

 

I think so, yes. I've made the case many times (even here). It remains unassailed. Here goes:

 

Humans possess the capacity for reason. That is the ability to conceptualize self, the other, formulate ideals, compare behaviors to those ideals, and calculate consequences. Therefore we own ourselves since we are in control of and understand our voluntary behaviors. Humans are not fundamentally different, so this means everybody owns themselves. So theft, assault, rape, and murder are the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights.

 

That's it! You asked for sentences or words. Well the case is just a few sentences. The words are "do not steal, assault, rape, or murder." Anything else is aesthetic and therefore not binding upon others. What do you think?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

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

You talked about probabilities and possibilities. 

 

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

 

If you're talking about determinism then you can talk about if you like. I talk about it all the time.

[labmath2]

dsayers, i love you brother which is why i have to do this to you. List of concepts/words that you have to explain/define as precisely as possible before the block of words that is this

 

Humans possess the capacity for reason. That is the ability to conceptualize self, the other, formulate ideals, compare behaviors to those ideals, and calculate consequences. Therefore we own ourselves since we are in control of and understand our voluntary behaviors. Humans are not fundamentally different, so this means everybody owns themselves. So theft, assault, rape, and murder are the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights.

 

can begin to take on any concrete (not abstract) meaning.

 

Humans, Possess, reason, conceptualize self, the other, those ideals, own ourselves, fundamentally different, everybody, theft, assault, rape, murder, property rights.

 

Just to show what i mean, since many of those concepts/words can seem rather trivial.

 

Human: 

1. of, relating to, or characteristic of people or human beings.

2. a human being, especially a person as distinguished from an animal or (in science fiction) an alien.

People: 

1. human beings in general or considered collectively.

2. the men, women, and children of a particular nation, community, or ethnic group.

Person: a human being regarded as an individual.

 

Do you notice the problem? Apart from the second definition of human and the second definition of people, we basically just get a tautology. Now simple case, i will list variations of humans and you can tell me who counts and who doesn't: Dead human, Mentally impaired human, Child human, Human in a coma, Black human, white human, Deformed human, Human with a gun to his head, regular human. I decided to stop since i think i have  illustrated the point. Now imagine i did that for every single word/concept i listed. 

[Des]

Part 3: The well chosen test

 

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

What about ethics from my personal principle that I don't wan to die, and have a preference against being among people who may kill me either by murder or by aggressions which may add up to my death.

 

Let me assume you don't contest my assumption that many other people will share my preference for life.

 

Is it not rational for me to desire a pact with all people (who might otherwise harm me), in which we trade abstention from aggression, for abstention from aggression?

 

Would there be any rational reason for me to freely agree to not aggress against someone who reserves the right to aggress against me?

 

For example, is it rational for me to agree that some class of other pact member may aggress against me (directly kill me, or lock me up with killers)?

 

Is it not more rational for me to say: well if you don't agree to refrain from all types of aggression against me - then I don't agree to refrain from any type of aggression against you?

 

Does not the absolute minimum standard of behaviour derive from the principle of the irrationality of agreeing to not kill people whilst those people (now safe from me), refuse to agree to not pinch my stuff when I am not looking?

 

I am not saying that there must be a formal pact for this principle to be true, I am saying that in the exercise of drawing up a pact which each member could sign, the question of members with aggression privileges, and the question of what has to fall into the net of aggressive acts, are each less fuzzy [not to say all fuzziness disappears, just to say that it is clear enough for the best reduction of my odds of death from aggression(s)].

 

Working from the principle of not dying, also helps resolve the lifeboat scenarios: We are working from the principle of [me/you] not dying, so not dying comes first, and ethics comes in behind that, after that in a sequence of priority, because I can't enjoy the benefit of sticking to the pact of ethics, after my death.

[labmath2]

While i enjoyed your post Des, i feel like getting into that discussion strays from the main point of this thread. Unless you want to make the. Case that what yiu proposed is ethics from principles.

[Will Torbald]

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.

The MBR proves uniformity because it is a picture of the entire energy of the universe when it as small enough to see it all at once. Now the universe has expanded beyond what we can see today, but the MBR is the entire universe when it was indeed small enough to see. It proves it is isotropic and geometrically flat barring quantum fluctuations. Your argument, using an analogy, us like asking if a baby could have turned into a horse after growing up in Alaska where you haven't seen him in years. The fact that you can't see him in Alaska doesn't change the fact that babies don't grow into horses. Similarly, the MBR is a baby picture of the universe, and just because we can't see beyond a certain distance doesn't mean it has turned into a horse universe over there.

[bugzysegal]

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? 

The problem of self-ownership is a very messy one. What it comes down to I think, is the idea that we cannot alienate certain properties in the person. The last few paragraphs of this article http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/pateman/Self-Ownership.pdf bare this out. However, she notes in earlier paragraphs that what once was considered inalienable bodily possessions, kidneys, bits of liver, and other organs, has changed in the advent of modern science. Now there are even underground markets in these things. What if neuroscience advances to the state that even our very source of our volition could be produced by another?

[labmath2]

Koriviev, i just noticed you said in another thread that i ignored you. I did not mean to, but i did.

Can you please rewrite your critisism this time do not state what Stefan said, unless you think i misrepresented or misinterpreted him, just address the points.

 

When you do address the points, any proposition you make must either be a true axiom, refer to part 2 and 3, or provide empirically true.

 

The reason i am not doing a irect address out s because i dont fully understand most of youfr comment.

[Koroviev]

Koriviev, i just noticed you said in another thread that i ignored you. I did not mean to, but i did.

Can you please rewrite your critisism this time do not state what Stefan said, unless you think i misrepresented or misinterpreted him, just address the points.

 

When you do address the points, any proposition you make must either be a true axiom, refer to part 2 and 3, or provide empirically true.

 

The reason i am not doing a irect address out s because i dont fully understand most of youfr comment.

 

I'm not sure I said anything that Stefan has said. I did interpret what I understand into my own words but they were my own arguments. If you want me to clarify specific parts that were maybe hard to understand I'd be more than happy to do that but I don't see any use in restating everything since it's all right there. But I guess a summation would be it seems you'd misinterpreted UPB.

 

Side note: I am not hurt or anything that my post got missed I was simply responding to Bugzysegal who'd told me to come read this.

 

 

The problem of self-ownership is a very messy one. What it comes down to I think, is the idea that we cannot alienate certain properties in the person. The last few paragraphs of this article http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/pateman/Self-Ownership.pdf bare this out. However, she notes in earlier paragraphs that what once was considered inalienable bodily possessions, kidneys, bits of liver, and other organs, has changed in the advent of modern science. Now there are even underground markets in these things. What if neuroscience advances to the state that even our very source of our volition could be produced by another?

 

This was already talked about as well above: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/45392-problems-with-ethics-from-principles/?p=414801

In a nutshell either they would have to take control of your body by force (immoral) or you would have to give them permission to take control of your body (you are responsible for what happens).

[dsayers]

dsayers, i love you brother which is why i have to do this to you. List of concepts/words that you have to explain/define as precisely as possible before the block of words that is this

 

I understand what you're saying. And I'm sure the reason UPB is an entire book is because Stef takes the time to do all of this and more. It's meant to be the succinct representation, which we could discuss any aspect of that a person doesn't understand or agree with. However, I don't see how defining human would be useful. For one, it's something I'm confident most people have a grasp of. I don't think many people are going to stumble on the fact that dead humans don't engage in any behaviors or possess the capacity for reason. Secondly, because my use of the word humans here is temporal. If dolphins someday develop the capacity for reason, then they will become moral actors/people as well and pointing out that humans have the capacity for reason will no longer be accurate by way of exclusion. The point being that the capacity for reason brings with it an understanding of ourselves, others, our options, the consequences of behaviors, etc. By being aware, we are responsible.

 

If it's an inaccurate summary, of course I'd like to revise it to be more accurate. When people get morality wrong, millions of people get killed, so it's very important stuff. Was there a particular part that you think might not fit? If I bothered with defining every term every time I posted something like that, I'd be putting theses and/or books everywhere. My intention is to make it more approachable by starting with the main ideas.

[labmath2]

Dsayers i cannot accept that everyone roughly undetstands what you mean by humans. I used standard definitions to show you just how ambiguous the word human is. If we are having adscussion where me slightly misunderstading you leads to bad conclusions, then i would rather not assume anything. It may seem trivial, but i see this a lot in discussions. I did read the book and if i do decide to call in, this is precisely the discussion i will be having with Stefan. Despite his attempt to clarify certain issues, the built in ambiguity in language still reared its ugly head.

[labmath2]

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

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? 

 

 

 

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!!

 

The red parts i either do not understand or I fail to see the link between the two propositions or you are assuming the thing you are trying to prove. For example, "It [morality] stems from the fact that there are indeed property rights since no other person can control another's body." First off all, you will have to define morality, property rights, control, and body. Second, demonstrate that in fact no other person can control another's body (i.e. does organ transplant count as someone else controlling your body?). Then, show how the fact that no other person can control another's body logically demonstrates property rights.

 

For the yellow part, Can you point to the person that said that so i can try to read their proposition to understand what they mean by it. Does that mean all things with mass are subject to gravity in the same way?

[dsayers]

Dsayers i cannot accept that everyone roughly undetstands what you mean by humans. I used standard definitions to show you just how ambiguous the word human is. If we are having adscussion where me slightly misunderstading you leads to bad conclusions, then i would rather not assume anything. It may seem trivial, but i see this a lot in discussions. I did read the book and if i do decide to call in, this is precisely the discussion i will be having with Stefan. Despite his attempt to clarify certain issues, the built in ambiguity in language still reared its ugly head.

 

The only ambiguity I see in the definitions you put forth is the difference between an individual and an aggregate of those individuals. Kind of like how "man" can refer to humankind or the male of the species. I suppose since the universalization comes later in the case, human in the beginning would refer to the individual. However, the individual possessing reason is a product of humans in general having the capacity for reason.

 

In fact, this was something I was thinking about this morning thanks to the challenge you put forth. Not trying to skirt the challenge at hand, but wanted to see what you think of this anyways. I was recently challenged with making the case for the personhood of children which is NOT EASY! One of the things I was challenged over is one of the things I've had the hardest time with myself. The fact that while a child isn't a moral actor, they will become one. And it occurred to me that the problem I was encountering was that I was using "possesses the capacity for reason" without differentiating it from "possessing reason." In light of this, I would revise my case to humans possess reason and the explanation for why we observe the extension of personhood to children is because they posses the CAPACITY FOR reason. What do you think?

[labmath2]

The only ambiguity I see in the definitions you put forth is the difference between an individual and an aggregate of those individuals. Kind of like how "man" can refer to humankind or the male of the species. I suppose since the universalization comes later in the case, human in the beginning would refer to the individual. However, the individual possessing reason is a product of humans in general having the capacity for reason.

 

In fact, this was something I was thinking about this morning thanks to the challenge you put forth. Not trying to skirt the challenge at hand, but wanted to see what you think of this anyways. I was recently challenged with making the case for the personhood of children which is NOT EASY! One of the things I was challenged over is one of the things I've had the hardest time with myself. The fact that while a child isn't a moral actor, they will become one. And it occurred to me that the problem I was encountering was that I was using "possesses the capacity for reason" without differentiating it from "possessing reason." In light of this, I would revise my case to humans possess reason and the explanation for why we observe the extension of personhood to children is because they posses the CAPACITY FOR reason. What do you think?

 

I think its easier if i point out why i am being picky particularly with humans. Earlier i gave a few examples and you quickly pointed out a dead human is not part of the set/category. I hoped in the next response you will narrow the set down to precisely what you mean. I will take the proposition as "humans possess the capacity for reason." If i can show one example where a subset of humans do not possess capacity for reason, then the proposition is false.

 

A case where i am clearly making a mistake: Sperm is a subset of humans. Capacity for reason is "if i do nothing differently for 18 years, then human will be able to speak and understand human language." Assuming i am a virgin, then clearly not all humans possess the capacity for reason.

 

If i know as precise as possible what counts as humans, and how we check capacity for reason, then mistakes will likely not happen. If the claim "Humans possess the capacity for reason" is not a true axiom (cannot be rejected without being asserted), then it must be empirically true, or its false. If it is empirically true, then we can begin to move forward as to how you derive any other proposition from it.

[dsayers]

Life is a requisite for reason, so dead human is right out. Is this not axiomatic? Objective morality is an analysis of voluntary human behaviors that are binding on other moral actors. The dead are incapable of voluntary anything and/or behaviors, so again, aren't eligible. Is this not axiomatic? I can't see, when trying to make the case for objective morality, how these qualifying statements would serve any purpose other than to obfuscate. "Why would somebody who's prescribing a method by which to categorize behaviors be talking about corpses?"

 

For that matter, isn't human's reasonability axiomatic? ALL moral propositions present themselves as binding upon others. The very proposition indicates choice as well as an ideal. Without reason, we wouldn't be able to make such propositions, nor would the people they're being proposed to be capable of understanding or conforming to them intentionally.

 

i will list variations of humans and you can tell me who counts and who doesn't: Dead human, Mentally impaired human, Child human, Human in a coma, Black human, white human, Deformed human, Human with a gun to his head, regular human. I decided to stop since i think i have  illustrated the point. Now imagine i did that for every single word/concept i listed. 

Let's look at mentally impaired and children. There is a gradation. There are times in a person's life span and/or types/severities of impairments and damage where they might not be entirely reasonable. Where is the line? I don't know because there is a continuum, particularly in children because outside of impairments or damage, it is reasonable to anticipate the capability to reason.

 

Same thing with a person who has a gun pointed at their head. This is not somebody who has a choice. That choice was taken from them by somebody else, due to the "credible threat." Well what is a credible threat? Again, we have a gradation.

 

I really don't know where to go from here. Homo sapien has the capacity for reason. A reasonable person understands the consequences of uses of their body and that other people are people also. It follows that they own their body, the effects of their actions, and that any voluntary behavior that is binding upon another moral actor without consent is a violation of property rights.

 

I could even throw a wrench in myself by adding "expectation of consent." Like if a person is passed out in the street, it's not a violation of property rights to pull them out of harm's way since it's reasonable to expect that if they could give consent, they would. AND that if they wouldn't give consent, motorists didn't consent to hitting a person and/or swerving and causing an accident. But how would belaboring all that while attempting to provide a brief overview be helpful?

[labmath2]

Life is a requisite for reason, so dead human is right out. Is this not axiomatic? Objective morality is an analysis of voluntary human behaviors that are binding on other moral actors. The dead are incapable of voluntary anything and/or behaviors, so again, aren't eligible. Is this not axiomatic? I can't see, when trying to make the case for objective morality, how these qualifying statements would serve any purpose other than to obfuscate. "Why would somebody who's prescribing a method by which to categorize behaviors be talking about corpses?"

 

For that matter, isn't human's reasonability axiomatic? ALL moral propositions present themselves as binding upon others. The very proposition indicates choice as well as an ideal. Without reason, we wouldn't be able to make such propositions, nor would the people they're being proposed to be capable of understanding or conforming to them intentionally.

 

Let's look at mentally impaired and children. There is a gradation. There are times in a person's life span and/or types/severities of impairments and damage where they might not be entirely reasonable. Where is the line? I don't know because there is a continuum, particularly in children because outside of impairments or damage, it is reasonable to anticipate the capability to reason.

 

Same thing with a person who has a gun pointed at their head. This is not somebody who has a choice. That choice was taken from them by somebody else, due to the "credible threat." Well what is a credible threat? Again, we have a gradation.

 

I really don't know where to go from here. Homo sapien has the capacity for reason. A reasonable person understands the consequences of uses of their body and that other people are people also. It follows that they own their body, the effects of their actions, and that any voluntary behavior that is binding upon another moral actor without consent is a violation of property rights.

 

I could even throw a wrench in myself by adding "expectation of consent." Like if a person is passed out in the street, it's not a violation of property rights to pull them out of harm's way since it's reasonable to expect that if they could give consent, they would. AND that if they wouldn't give consent, motorists didn't consent to hitting a person and/or swerving and causing an accident. But how would belaboring all that while attempting to provide a brief overview be helpful?

 

Its very helpful. I think understand two things i did not before. The first is that capacity for reason is roughly measured by capacity to make and/or follow propositions (tested through communication). The second is that you use human as shorthand, the more appropriate category is any living thing which can make and/or follow propositions. If you agree with my understanding as stated here, then you must concede a human with mental impairment beyond a certain point is no longer UPB applicable. If i killed such a human, is it not murder? It may just be me, but something about the notion that killing some humans do not count as murder causes me unease. It is possible that i am completely wrong, in which case, i mostly understand what you mean, but not fully.

[Koroviev]

The red parts i either do not understand or I fail to see the link between the two propositions or you are assuming the thing you are trying to prove. For example, "It [morality] stems from the fact that there are indeed property rights since no other person can control another's body." First off all, you will have to define morality, property rights, control, and body. Second, demonstrate that in fact no other person can control another's body (i.e. does organ transplant count as someone else controlling your body?). Then, show how the fact that no other person can control another's body logically demonstrates property rights.

 

For the yellow part, Can you point to the person that said that so i can try to read their proposition to understand what they mean by it. Does that mean all things with mass are subject to gravity in the same way?

 

Come on, you can't really be serious with this...are you? I hope you are perfectly capable of finding the definitions of words you do not understand, I'm not using them in any confusing context or in anyway out of the ordinary. Second, do it. Really, try it right now. Control someone else's body without the use of force or their permission. Spoiler...you can't. Since you can't without the use of force or that person's permission that means that person fundamentally has property rights over their body.

 

I believe it was Isaac Newton who said the yellow part (http://study.com/academy/lesson/newtons-laws-and-weight-mass-gravity.html) what I was saying was in response to this " Now Stefan says its a contradiction to say gravity should point down except on thursdays in the middle of the ocean. Actually, its not." Stef has never said this what he's said was if gravity pulls things down except on Thursdays in the middle of the ocean it is not a universal and therefor contradicts gravity, which is very different from saying it is a contradiction.

[labmath2]

Come on, you can't really be serihowith this...are you? I hope you are perfectly capable of finding the definitions of words you do not understand, I'm not using them in any confusing context or in anyway out of the ordinary. Second, do it. Really, try it right now. Control someone else's body without the use of force or their permission. Spoiler...you can't. Since you can't without the use of force or that person's permission that means that person fundamentally has property rights over their body.

 

I believe it was Isaac Newton who said the yellow part (http://study.com/academy/lesson/newtons-laws-and-weight-mass-gravity.html) what I was saying was in response to this " Now Stefan says its a contradiction to say gravity should point down except on thursdays in the middle of the ocean. Actually, its not." Stef has never said this what he's said was if gravity pulls things down except on Thursdays in the middle of the ocean it is not a universal and therefor contradicts gravity, which is very different from saying it is a contradiction.

I fear we may be unable to have rational discourse. I showed the property example in an earlier post. Its not that i cannot find definitions, its the ambiguity or tautology involved that creates confusion. If i say for example organ transplant is an instance of bodily control, you can reject it (or at least gloss over it) by saying i am misrepresenting your proposition. I will have no way of refuting such a claim unless we have precise definitions.

 

On the last point about what Stef means by gravity, read your comment again. Your comment seems to boil down to gravity does not work that wat. My claim is not that gravity inverses, but that such a claim would not be a contradiction since you are not claiming gravity points up a km d down at the same time and in the same way.

 

Do not take this the wrong way, but when you respond, read your comment for clarity and precision.

[bugzysegal]

This was already talked about as well above: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/45392-problems-with-ethics-from-principles/?p=414801

In a nutshell either they would have to take control of your body by force (immoral) or you would have to give them permission to take control of your body (you are responsible for what happens).

Ok so this is where I get stuck: I own(control in an inalienable fashion) myself and to that extent, the effects of my actions. Therefore I have property rights and violation of these property rights is immoral. But what if someone controls myself(body through the mind)? This is a violation of the property rights established by me owning myself.  <This is circular no?

[Koroviev]

Ok so this is where I get stuck: I own(control in an inalienable fashion) myself and to that extent, the effects of my actions. Therefore I have property rights and violation of these property rights is immoral. But what if someone controls myself(body through the mind)? This is a violation of the property rights established by me owning myself.  <This is circular no?

 

Do you mean someone uses only their mind to control my body? First off I don't think there have been any advances in this area...ever  Second, this is an abnormal situation so we have to compare it to the normal situation by asking questions like how did the person with telekinetic powers get control over the other person? Did the other person give the psychic give permission? If the person being controlled did not give the psychic permission then the psychic must have forced their way into a position of control over the other person thus the psychic is immoral. I hope we're not basing the soundness of UPB on mind control but it does seem to still hold 

[bugzysegal]

Do you mean someone uses only their mind to control my body? First off I don't think there have been any advances in this area...ever  Second, this is an abnormal situation so we have to compare it to the normal situation by asking questions like how did the person with telekinetic powers get control over the other person? Did the other person give the psychic give permission? If the person being controlled did not give the psychic permission then the psychic must have forced their way into a position of control over the other person thus the psychic is immoral. I hope we're not basing the soundness of UPB on mind control but it does seem to still hold 

First of all "psychic" powers are as laughable as you make them out to be, sort of. While it could be true that consciousness will never be fully understood by science, motor control  most likely will be. If what creates ownership is some link between my consciousness and my actions, when this link is severed, what is to say of self-ownership? Also how does this link get made? and more importantly, the fact that this link exists doesn't mean it ought to right? While our actions are out of the reach of technology for now, I don't assume they will be for long. As you know from our other conversation, I prefer a morality that doesn't rely on these very murky grounds.

What I would be very interested to see is if most people used "ownership" "property" and "self-ownership" (if they even have such a concept already) in the way that property rights theorists do.

[Koroviev]

First of all "psychic" powers are as laughable as you make them out to be, sort of. While it could be true that consciousness will never be fully understood by science, motor control  most likely will be. If what creates ownership is some link between my consciousness and my actions, when this link is severed, what is to say of self-ownership? Also how does this link get made? and more importantly, the fact that this link exists doesn't mean it ought to right? While our actions are out of the reach of technology for now, I don't assume they will be for long. As you know from our other conversation, I prefer a morality that doesn't rely on these very murky grounds.

What I would be very interested to see is if most people used "ownership" "property" and "self-ownership" (if they even have such a concept already) in the way that property rights theorists do.

 

You still have to compare it to the norm and then ask how or why that exception is different.

 

Isn't it more like if there is gravity then the rock ought to fall to the ground. If there are property rights they ought to be respected.

[dsayers]

Come on, you can't really be serious with this...are you?

Generally speaking, his challenge is perfectly valid. It is the communicator's job to communicate and defining terms avoid misunderstandings. A good example of this is once upon a time, I made a thread exploring whether "fraud" was immoral or not. The conversation blew up at the starting line because I didn't define my terms. While I was talking about somebody who is deceived prior to consenting to an exchange, most people received the word as somebody who consents to an exchange and then doesn't deliver their side of the deal after the other person has. All the difference in the world! Had I defined my term ahead of time, even if you didn't agree with my definition, you'd at least know what I was talking about.

 

If what creates ownership is some link between my consciousness and my actions, when this link is severed

Severed how? If somebody uses a device to sever, they are using their property to take from you the ability to use your property. This contradiction is what immorality is. With their action, they are TELLING YOU that their action is wrong.

[bugzysegal]

You still have to compare it to the norm and then ask how or why that exception is different.

 

Isn't it more like if there is gravity then the rock ought to fall to the ground. If there are property rights they ought to be respected.

if there are property rights, they by definition ought to be respected. When we are conducting an inquiry into the origins of where those rights arise, whether they exist at all, we can't assume their existence in the arguments describing the basis of how they function. 

1. Do we own ourselves?

2. Yes, because we alone control our actions

3. But what if we don't own our actions(necessarily)?

4. Doesn't matter because to change who owns our actions you would have to violate property rights. 

2 has to be proven before we can assert 4.

[Koroviev]

Generally speaking, his challenge is perfectly valid. It is the communicator's job to communicate and defining terms avoid misunderstandings. A good example of this is once upon a time, I made a thread exploring whether "fraud" was immoral or not. The conversation blew up at the starting line because I didn't define my terms. While I was talking about somebody who is deceived prior to consenting to an exchange, most people received the word as somebody who consents to an exchange and then doesn't deliver their side of the deal after the other person has. All the difference in the world! Had I defined my term ahead of time, even if you didn't agree with my definition, you'd at least know what I was talking about.

 

I agree if you are using a word outside of the commonly accepted definition but all of my definitions directly line up with what we've been talking about the whole time. Is there really that much confusion around the definition of body?

 

 

I fear we may be unable to have rational discourse. I showed the property example in an earlier post. Its not that i cannot find definitions, its the ambiguity or tautology involved that creates confusion. If i say for example organ transplant is an instance of bodily control, you can reject it (or at least gloss over it) by saying i am misrepresenting your proposition. I will have no way of refuting such a claim unless we have precise definitions.

 

Yes an instance of an organ transplant is bodily control, you cannot transplant my kidney without the initiation of the use of force or without my permission, just like you cannot make my arm wave without the use of force or my permission etc., etc.

 

 

On the last point about what Stef means by gravity, read your comment again. Your comment seems to boil down to gravity does not work that wat. My claim is not that gravity inverses, but that such a claim would not be a contradiction since you are not claiming gravity points up a km d down at the same time and in the same way.

 

Do not take this the wrong way, but when you respond, read your comment for clarity and precision.

 

Nope, this is still not what I was saying just like it was not what Stef said. You are absolutely correct that if gravity inverses that claim itself would not be a contradiction. However what I've said (and what Stef has said) is that if gravity inverses in a single instance that would be a contradiction of gravity itself since the very definition of gravity makes it universal.

 

If I must define my terms I will, although I'd much rather give people the benefit of the doubt.

 

Body: the physical structure of a person or an animal, including the bones, flesh, and organs.

Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior

Property rights: the right an individual has to have and protect their property

control: to exercise restraint or direction over; dominate; command

property: that which a person owns; the possession or possessions of a particular owner

if there are property rights, they by definition ought to be respected. When we are conducting an inquiry into the origins of where those rights arise, whether they exist at all, we can't assume their existence in the arguments describing the basis of how they function. 

1. Do we own ourselves?

2. Yes, because we alone control our actions

3. But what if we don't own our actions(necessarily)?

4. Doesn't matter because to change who owns our actions you would have to violate property rights. 

2 has to be proven before we can assert 4.

 

I could be wrong here but how is that different from: 

1. Do things fall when droped?

2. yes because gravity

3. what if gravity does not make things fall when dropped

4. Doesn't matter because to change gravity you have to validate the law of gravity

[GregMerwe]

I do not entertain arguments against self ownership. I have had those discussion, fruitless to say the least. If one can not accept that they own themselves then one does not have any means to justify anything outside of slavery. To me it is beyond consideration to even contemplate anything less than self ownership.

 

UPB makes sense because it is self evident. It basically says that certain ethical judgements are such because they are ethical judgements to begin with. This is quite a new and secular take on ethics. It does not say that you have to be ethical because of an impending sense of doom. It doesn't claim that ethics is egalitarian or that it is utilitarian. Like Rothbard on natural rights, it simply says that ethics is logical self evident in that a bad experience is a bad experience because it is a bad experience. There is nothing subjective about murder or rape or theft. It is what it is. The non aggression principle as popularly proposed by the libertarians and anarcho capitalists is not a demand or a request. It is a framework for the defense against disputes. It does not presuppose that people have to act or behave in a certain way. Only that certain actions and behaviours results in disputes that need mitigation, thus here is a framework to deal with such disputes.

[dsayers]

 

something about the notion that killing some humans do not count as murder causes me unease.

I'm with you. I once was faced with a squirrel that had been in a fight or ran over or fell from a tree. Whatever his story was, it was clear he was done for. I couldn't do it (full disclosure: I had a pet squirrel one summer as a child). But "causes me unease" isn't a principle. I think collectively we would prefer to err on the side of not murdering, so we would likely protect anything that could physically be classified as a human because we understand that humans generally speaking possess the CAPACITY for reason. Even if the individual in question isn't fully a moral actor.

 

I agree if you are using a word outside of the commonly accepted definition but all of my definitions directly line up with what we've been talking about the whole time. Is there really that much confusion around the definition of body?

I understand what you're saying and I feel that way also. But think about it for a moment. One thing to keep in mind is that when people get morality wrong, millions of humans get murdered. What you might feel is superfluous precision is precision nonetheless. On top of that, consider that my initial claim was that UPB is confusing and over-verbose. It's a provocative claim! The challenge reveals both that my summary might not be a sufficient replacement and demonstrates one of the reasons why UPB is verbose by comparison. My point is that if we're seeking the truth, these should be welcome challenges. Because they're either going to disprove the case I made or refine it. Either way, we're all better off for it

[bugzysegal]

 

I could be wrong here but how is that different from: 

1. Do things fall when droped?

2. yes because gravity

3. what if gravity does not make things fall when dropped

4. Doesn't matter because to change gravity you have to validate the law of gravity

Gravity isn't a given. Gravity has been proven(for the sake of argument) to exist wherever a higgs boson interacts with matter. If you can prevent the higgs fields from being operative, then something will not fall when dropped. We have a mechanistic connection between the theory and the effect and it is in that way limited. If you could demonstrate that the higgs field could never be suspended or affected...and could demonstrate the same thing with consciousness and our actions, you would have an analogy.

[labmath2]

I cannot accept the definitiins for morality and property. For me to accept them, you need to define right, wrong, good, bad, own, possess or possession.

[Koroviev]

Gravity isn't a given. Gravity has been proven(for the sake of argument) to exist wherever a higgs boson interacts with matter. If you can prevent the higgs fields from being operative, then something will not fall when dropped. We have a mechanistic connection between the theory and the effect and it is in that way limited. If you could demonstrate that the higgs field could never be suspended or affected...and could demonstrate the same thing with consciousness and our actions, you would have an analogy.

 

Ah, sorry in my original comment I was trying to say that gravity was an analogy for property rights but instead that the proposal of "if there is gravity then things will fall" is more along the lines of "if there are property rights then they should be respected" as opposed to "because there are property rights they should be respected"

 

 

I cannot accept the definitiins for morality and property. For me to accept them, you need to define right, wrong, good, bad, own, possess or possession.

 

We can play that game all day long but it's really really pointless. I trust your judgement as to those definitions do you have a counter argument or not?

 

 

I understand what you're saying and I feel that way also. But think about it for a moment. One thing to keep in mind is that when people get morality wrong, millions of humans get murdered. What you might feel is superfluous precision is precision nonetheless. On top of that, consider that my initial claim was that UPB is confusing and over-verbose. It's a provocative claim! The challenge reveals both that my summary might not be a sufficient replacement and demonstrates one of the reasons why UPB is verbose by comparison. My point is that if we're seeking the truth, these should be welcome challenges. Because they're either going to disprove the case I made or refine it. Either way, we're all better off for it

 

Makes sense I just didn't want to run into the problem we're running into with the comment above.

[bugzysegal]

I cannot accept the definitiins for morality and property. For me to accept them, you need to define right, wrong, good, bad, own, possess or possession.

And this is where problems arise!

[Will Torbald]

Gravity isn't a given. Gravity has been proven(for the sake of argument) to exist wherever a higgs boson interacts with matter. If you can prevent the higgs fields from being operative, then something will not fall when dropped. We have a mechanistic connection between the theory and the effect and it is in that way limited. If you could demonstrate that the higgs field could never be suspended or affected...and could demonstrate the same thing with consciousness and our actions, you would have an analogy.

 

I'm not interested in interjecting the argument about morality, but this is scientifically inaccurate. The Higgs mechanism has nothing to do with gravity, nor does gravity require it. To begin with, gravity isn't detailed in the standard model of particle physics, which is where the Higgs boson works in, so I don't know where you're getting your science here. If this was purposefully a wrong argument to make a point, I retract my previous statement.

[dsayers]

I cannot accept the definitiins for morality and property. For me to accept them, you need to define right, wrong, good, bad, own, possess or possession.

Morality's purpose isn't to determine right or wrong, good or bad. It only serves to identify internal inconsistencies. Take the infamous flag pole scenario. Is the guy trapped on the flag pole "bad" or "wrong" for breaking somebody else's window and occupying their home all without their consent to save their own lives? Who could say? We do know that the guy on the flag pole is responsible for the damages.

 

In fact, saying it that way gives me an idea. I'll make another thread for it.

[labmath2]

Koroviev i am sorry if this bothers you, but its the only process i know of understanding your propositions short of you beaming them in my head.