Problems with ethics from principles

[labmath2]

 

 

 

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.

This is why precision is necessary. I was under the impression that the individuals capacity for reason was the test, now it seems you are asserting its the species capacity for reason. 

The comment about it causing me unease was a reference to moral intuition. It was intended as an argument.

[Guest Gee]

Did anyone with an issue with UPB actually register to call in or are you all just trolling the board with postmodern sophistry?

[labmath2]

Did anyone with an issue with UPB actually register to call in or are you all just trolling the board with postmodern sophistry?

I think i have actually discerned my issue with UPB, but i need to reread the book this weekend before scheduling a call in. I need to make sure i am not mistaken about something already addressed in the book.

[dsayers]

I was under the impression that the individuals capacity for reason was the test, now it seems you are asserting its the species capacity for reason.

Not at all. The individual is responsible for their actions (another way of saying owning themselves) because they possess reason. The explanation for why we might feel uneasy killing somebody who is physically a human but mentally not a moral actor is BECAUSE of their physical identity being that of a species that has the capacity for error.

 

Early on, I tried to make a big deal out of how your initial challege for me helped me to identify the difference between being reasonable and having the capacity for reason, and how this helped me make the case for the personhood of children based not on current characteristics, but future expectations. I noticed that you didn't respond to that, which I didn't push the issue since I thought it might appear as trying to dodge your challenge. However, with this post here, I think it would've been a useful distinction to explore.

 

@Graham: I disagree that the only place to discuss something is calling Stef.

[bugzysegal]

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.

Err, Ok so technically the Higgs-boson only accounts for the mass of electrons right? The protons and neutrons are due to other inter-quark forces right? but for the argument I was simplifying(misrepresenting of course) to statements about higgs-boson affected particles falling. 

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"

 

Oh, definitely. I think dsayers and samuel and I disagree about whether or not they exist at all.  But your if/then statement I don't at all contradict.

[Koroviev]

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.

That's really too bad I was hoping you had some good arguments. Good luck!

[bugzysegal]

That's really too bad I was hoping you had some good arguments. Good luck!

If I could throw my two cents in here, I think Socratic interrogation is one of the very methodological approaches that is functionally limited. Hammering away for definitions will eventually lead to exhausting the questioned persons patience. Labmath, are you doing this intentionally to demonstrate the overarching argument you were making from the beginning? That the appeal to axioms is a dead end?  That's meta as fuck.

[Koroviev]

If I could throw my two cents in here, I think Socratic interrogation is one of the very methodological approaches that is functionally limited. Hammering away for definitions will eventually lead to exhausting the questioned persons patience. Labmath, are you doing this intentionally to demonstrate the overarching argument you were making from the beginning? That the appeal to axioms is a dead end?  That's meta as fuck.

As impressive as that would be isn't that the same argument as words have no meaning. Also it does not answer my first point which was that all discussions of principles and ethics are debates about axioms.

[bugzysegal]

As impressive as that would be isn't that the same argument as words have no meaning. Also it does not answer my first point which was that all discussions of principles and ethics are debates about axioms.

Hmm, Labmath may contend that the ambiguity contained within words renders them meaningless, but that might be stronger than what he said throughout this discussion. I. of course, would say that inherent ambiguity is not problematic, simply demonstrated by the fact that we use these words. I point to a barn and say "tree" and you know I'm an idiot. Conversely, you say "Hey look at that tree over there" and I will locate the nearest tree and evaluate what peculiarities may have caught your eye.

 

It might be true that one, all arguments are arguments about definitions, and that two in some sense these arguments will often be fruitless where they seek to dig beneath the inherent foundation-less axioms they are built upon.  In stead, if you want to know what a word means, yes for an approximation you can consult a dictionary, but if you want the full course on when to use a word, look to how others do and see if your practice is playing the game correctly.  

[Koroviev]

Hmm, Labmath may contend that the ambiguity contained within words renders them meaningless, but that might be stronger than what he said throughout this discussion. I. of course, would say that inherent ambiguity is not problematic, simply demonstrated by the fact that we use these words. I point to a barn and say "tree" and you know I'm an idiot. Conversely, you say "Hey look at that tree over there" and I will locate the nearest tree and evaluate what peculiarities may have caught your eye.

 

It might be true that one, all arguments are arguments about definitions, and that two in some sense these arguments will often be fruitless where they seek to dig beneath the inherent foundation-less axioms they are built upon.  In stead, if you want to know what a word means, yes for an approximation you can consult a dictionary, but if you want the full course on when to use a word, look to how others do and see if your practice is playing the game correctly.  

 

Very well put, the only thing that I would add is if you have to spend the entire discussion defining every single word you use you're never going to make any progress in the discussion itself.

[labmath2]

Not at all. The individual is responsible for their actions (another way of saying owning themselves) because they possess reason. The explanation for why we might feel uneasy killing somebody who is physically a human but mentally not a moral actor is BECAUSE of their physical identity being that of a species that has the capacity for error.

 

Early on, I tried to make a big deal out of how your initial challege for me helped me to identify the difference between being reasonable and having the capacity for reason, and how this helped me make the case for the personhood of children based not on current characteristics, but future expectations. I noticed that you didn't respond to that, which I didn't push the issue since I thought it might appear as trying to dodge your challenge. However, with this post here, I think it would've been a useful distinction to explore.

 

I am not sure i understand what you mean by the red part.

 

I am willing to discuss the difference between reasonable and capacity for reason if it will help me understand your proposition better. I was just under the impression that you had worked it out and you were happy with the result. I now realize i should have asked you what the criteria for capacity for reason is, emphasis on capacity. 

[labmath2]

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.

 

This was part of my larger post, which was the third part to the three part exploration. I am not claiming all words are ambiguous. I am claiming dictionary does little to resolve the meaning of some words. I am willing to engage you while i use the colloquial meaning of property, but then we would be talking about current legal definition which is sanctioned by the state.

[bugzysegal]

This was part of my larger post, which was the third part to the three part exploration. I am not claiming all words are ambiguous. I am claiming dictionary does little to resolve the meaning of some words. I am willing to engage you while i use the colloquial meaning of property, but then we would be talking about current legal definition which is sanctioned by the state.

Would you say that when it comes to words with moral content, the problem  persists because moral words are seen as pointing to some fundamental truth?

[Koroviev]

This was part of my larger post, which was the third part to the three part exploration. I am not claiming all words are ambiguous. I am claiming dictionary does little to resolve the meaning of some words. I am willing to engage you while i use the colloquial meaning of property, but then we would be talking about current legal definition which is sanctioned by the state.

 

Soo many snarkuments come to mind, context clues are hard for some people, can you define what you mean by "you don't understand" and you want me to "define," but out of respect for this community and respect for you (although I'm definitely not feeling the respect reciprocated), I will restrain myself and try once more.

 

1. we know we have property because we have property. We have bodies which we have control over and no one else has control over our bodies without our permission or through the initiation of the use of force.

2. If someone else could control our bodies without our permission we would no longer have that property and thus would no longer own our bodies.

3. Since no one else can control our bodies without our permission or the initiation of the use of force then we must have ownership over our bodies.

4. if someone initiates the use of force in order to control our bodies that ownership has been removed.

5. since ownership over one's body is the default then the forceful removal of that ownership must be immoral.

 

Property: 

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

Control:

to exercise restraint or direction over; dominate; command

Body:

the physical structure and material substance of an animal or plant, living or dead.

Own:

of, relating to, or belonging to oneself or itself

Permission:

authorization granted to do something; formal consent

Force:

strength or power exerted upon an object; physical coercion; violence

initiate:

to begin, set going, or originate

We(in this context):

a human being

someone else:

any human being other than the initial one in question

removed:

remote; separate; not connected with; distinct from

immoral:

violating moral principles;

moral:

of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical

Principle:

a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived

truth:

1.    the true or actual state of a matter

2.    conformity with fact or reality; verity

3.    a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like:

sophistry:

1.    a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.

2.    a false argument; sophism.

respect:

1.    esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability

2.    deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment

[labmath2]

Koroviev, at this point, i will have to bow out. I do not think further engaging will result in any meaningful resolution, We seem to be talking past each other.

[Koroviev]

Koroviev, at this point, i will have to bow out. I do not think further engaging will result in any meaningful resolution, We seem to be talking past each other.

 

I'm sorry to hear that. Good Luck!

[labmath2]

Want to call in?

I have read the book and noted my objections. I think i am ready to discuss it with Stefan.

[bugzysegal]

I have read the book and noted my objections. I think i am ready to discuss it with Stefan.

Ill keep my ears peeled