Regular everyday life.

[bugzysegal]

 

I wish you could see that this is the beauty of objective morality: I am nobody to say that you are wrong; YOU are telling me that it's internally inconsistent You are choosing to use your property to declare that others cannot choose how to use their property. Hence unethical proposition as all unchosen positive obligations are. Please, check out alex's video on this. I already understood the ideas when I first watched it, but I think it does a good job of attaching a coherent description of it: 

Ok problem one: this person glosses over how we own ourselves.

2. The argument from self-ownership to the ownership of property is also not explicit. I am responsible for my actions. I own my actions. This is mere substitution(tautological). Even if you do own your actions, which needs to be explained, why do the consequences of those actions now belong to you?

3. You also have to demonstrate that self-ownership, unlike ordinary ownership, is inalienable. 

4. A duty to preserve the lives of those who it would cost us little to help outweigh the standard negative rights we typically observe.

 

 

 

Way to avoid the first principle that a=a is true and a!=a is false. I'm done with you. I apologize to those who might find what you say convincing, as they were the primary reason I was bothering.

 

Oh and governments aren't binding. And damages accrue to the responsible party. I can't swim. That doesn't mean I get to use my property to deny others use of their property. It would be like saying to you that language isn't useful.

 

How am I avoiding a principle? Moreover, I was merely surveying intuitions. Is a yes or no too much to ask for? Furthermore, you are not using your property, your property is in the process of ceasing to exist. Necessarily the world is better off with you alive.

[SamuelS]

The thing w moral prohibitions vs prescriptions is that I can -- actually, really -- theoretically employ force in order to stop that action from occurring. You cannot, however, force me to act. You can compel my action, but you cannot force it. In the case of the drowning person, it is aesthetically negative to not intervene perhaps, but if you shot me for not doing so, that wouldn't solve the problem...which it would in the case of rape, theft, assault, etc.

[bugzysegal]

The thing w moral prohibitions vs prescriptions is that I can -- actually, really -- theoretically employ force in order to stop that action from occurring. You cannot, however, force me to act. You can compel my action, but you cannot force it. In the case of the drowning person, it is aesthetically negative to not intervene perhaps, but if you shot me for not doing so, that wouldn't solve the problem...which it would in the case of rape, theft, assault, etc.

Whats kind of different about situations like these is that any effort you could put into forcing the person to do something, would be effort you would better spend just helping. The coercion comes after the act when other people are around.

[SamuelS]

Yes, and that's one reason they do not fall into the category of ethics. Not only is effort better applied in solving the problem yourself, but shooting the person wouldn't do anything to solve it at all.

 

Also, if one were to accept your position, where would it end? Should I be required to put all my efforts toward the good of others, or is it an enumerated list? Does the drowning person have any obligation to not get into that mess in the first place which detracts from my own good? Is there any consistent methodology to follow here or how does one know how one can act ethically in such a system?

[bugzysegal]

Yes, and that's one reason they do not fall into the category of ethics. Not only is effort better applied in solving the problem yourself, but shooting the person wouldn't do anything to solve it at all.

 

Also, if one were to accept your position, where would it end? Should I be required to put all my efforts toward the good of others, or is it an enumerated list? Does the drowning person have any obligation to not get into that mess in the first place which detracts from my own good? Is there any consistent methodology to follow here or how does one know how one can act ethically in such a system?

1. It would allow you to deter immoral, psychopathic behavior. You are creating self-interested reasons to save drowning people who are right in front of you.

 

2. Slippery slope. I would restrict it to immediately impending danger with minimal or negligible cost to the actor.

 

3. Accidents happen, they shouldn't cost lives if they don't have to. (If you're ever drowning I hope you don't reach for your own bootstraps and that someone helps you out of the situation)

 

4. Reasonable people can assess immediate impending danger with minimal cost as easily as they can assess consent.

 

5. In all other cases I would defer to market forces, consent, choice, or however you like you pie.

[dsayers]

Consciousness emerges from brains, not just matter. A lump of coal doesn't have consciousness.

 

How do you know that consciousness emerges from brains, not matter? Are brains not comprised of matter? Can a brain without blood circulating work? Does this mean consciousness emerges from hearts? The whole reason it's called an emergent property is because we cannot explain WHY it comes to be, so of course we cannot say with any certainty that it comes from brains. Regarding the coal remark, "consciousness is an emergent property of matter" is different from "all matters exerts consciousness."

 

The distinction between your consciousness, brain, or body being the possessor is not only untraceable, but not of use in any moral examination. From objective morality, to religious "morality," to utilitarianism... All proposed systems of morality have one thing in common: Enumerating behaviors that ought to be engaged in/refrained from. In other words, they all present themselves as binding upon OTHERS. In terms of property of self, examinations from within are useless because the discussion is examination from without. I apologize for being the one to introduce the distinction of self-ownership coming from consciousness or body. It wasn't my intention to side track the discussion.

[bugzysegal]

How do you know that consciousness emerges from brains, not matter? Are brains not comprised of matter? Can a brain without blood circulating work? Does this mean consciousness emerges from hearts? The whole reason it's called an emergent property is because we cannot explain WHY it comes to be, so of course we cannot say with any certainty that it comes from brains. Regarding the coal remark, "consciousness is an emergent property of matter" is different from "all matters exerts consciousness."

 

The distinction between your consciousness, brain, or body being the possessor is not only untraceable, but not of use in any moral examination. From objective morality, to religious "morality," to utilitarianism... All proposed systems of morality have one thing in common: Enumerating behaviors that ought to be engaged in/refrained from. In other words, they all present themselves as binding upon OTHERS. In terms of property of self, examinations from within are useless because the discussion is examination from without. I apologize for being the one to introduce the distinction of self-ownership coming from consciousness or body. It wasn't my intention to side track the discussion.

This is one of the most frustrating and difficult subjects in philosophy/science.

 

Daniel Chalmers:

http://consc.net/papers/facing.html

Sam Harris (who is a materialist!):

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-mystery-of-consciousness-ii

[Will Torbald]

How do you know that consciousness emerges from brains, not matter? Are brains not comprised of matter? Can a brain without blood circulating work? Does this mean consciousness emerges from hearts? The whole reason it's called an emergent property is because we cannot explain WHY it comes to be, so of course we cannot say with any certainty that it comes from brains. Regarding the coal remark, "consciousness is an emergent property of matter" is different from "all matters exerts consciousness."

 

The distinction between your consciousness, brain, or body being the possessor is not only untraceable, but not of use in any moral examination. From objective morality, to religious "morality," to utilitarianism... All proposed systems of morality have one thing in common: Enumerating behaviors that ought to be engaged in/refrained from. In other words, they all present themselves as binding upon OTHERS. In terms of property of self, examinations from within are useless because the discussion is examination from without. I apologize for being the one to introduce the distinction of self-ownership coming from consciousness or body. It wasn't my intention to side track the discussion.

 

We have personal and scientific evidence that consciouness comes from brains. No evidence that non brains do it. If we had proof that chairs and flan can think and feel, that would be great. Though I'd feel a bit bad after sitting down to eat a slice for it.

 

I don't have a comment about the second paragraph because I didn't understand it.

[SamuelS]

1. It would allow you to deter immoral, psychopathic behavior. You are creating self-interested reasons to save drowning people who are right in front of you.

 

2. Slippery slope. I would restrict it to immediately impending danger with minimal or negligible cost to the actor.

 

To deter is not to stop. I can stop a violation of property w a bullet, I can only deter one with a law.

 

In order to hold the second you're going to need to define "negligible cost" in reference to some objective standard of value. Or is the cost in relation to what one would have otherwise been doing? Does a firefighter get a pass if there's two+ lives at risk in the fire he was heading to? What if he doesn't know how many people are in the fire?

[bugzysegal]

To deter is not to stop. I can stop a violation of property w a bullet, I can only deter one with a law.

 

In order to hold the second you're going to need to define "negligible cost" in reference to some objective standard of value. Or is the cost in relation to what one would have otherwise been doing? Does a firefighter get a pass if there's two+ lives at risk in the fire he was heading to? What if he doesn't know how many people are in the fire?

So an example of a negligible cost would be throwing a life saver to someone, or shouting "hey lookout," Money isnt the kind of cost that needs to be negligible. Life is the cost that must be negligible, So no compulsion to dive into a burning building. Risk to one's own life is tangible in cases like that. "negligible" is as objective as "consent" or any other word. If a reasonable person would use the word in the same way, then you are using it correctly. Meaning is use.

[SamuelS]

What you might consider a negligible cost, in this case wet clothes, another person may find intolerable and more so when compared to what they would have chosen to do had some schmuck not fallen in the water. You don't get to have "reasonable" objective value, its a bullshit equivocation and just gives wheels to your goalposts.

[bugzysegal]

What you might consider a negligible cost, in this case wet clothes, another person may find intolerable and more so when compared to what they would have chosen to do had some schmuck not fallen in the water. You don't get to have "reasonable" objective value, its a bullshit equivocation and just gives wheels to your goalposts.

"objective" literally adds nothing to the conversation. Do you want to know what a reasonable risk is? Survey how these words are used. you'll get as good a definition as any other. "Objective" gives the illusion that any language is steady or stagnant. Just because "reasonable risk" is fuzzy at the edges doesn't mean it's boundless. Try

[SamuelS]

Other than a veiled argument ad populum, you're not adding anything either and evading the question. If ethics are to be binding, how can we have a binding standard of "reasonable" without an objective standard of value? I repeat, what one man deems a negligible cost another may find intolerable for a myriad of reasons...without an objective standard of value there's no way to even judge the cost:benefit other than to allow each man to do as he wishes with regard to saving the schmuck. You say the cost is wet pants, but you omit opportunity cost entirely.

[bugzysegal]

Other than a veiled argument ad populum, you're not adding anything either and evading the question. If ethics are to be binding, how can we have a binding standard of "reasonable" without an objective standard of value? I repeat, what one man deems a negligible cost another may find intolerable for a myriad of reasons...without an objective standard of value there's no way to even judge the cost:benefit other than to allow each man to do as he wishes with regard to saving the schmuck. You say the cost is wet pants, but you omit opportunity cost entirely.

I do not omit opportunity cost. Bill Gates would lose approximately $11,000 dollars for the ten seconds it would take to throw someone a life preserver. That is peanuts to him and this of course scales depending on your capacity to earn.  What you ignore by simply saying this is ad populum is that every meaning from every word simply comes from how it is used. There are specific instances of specialized language, (like scientific or mathematical language), where words take on a meaning by a certain sub-set of language speakers, but even in those instances, the meaning of those words comes down to how they are used.

 

For the sake of argument I'll grant you your definition of property rights and self ownership. Can you respect property rights and have an economy without consent? Go ahead and point to how "consent" is any less up to subjective interpretation than "negligible risk according to a reasonable person."  If you don't think there are problems of assessing consent, talk to any contracts lawyer in the world. I can give you a nice dictionary definition of "negligible" and "risk," but it wouldn't help; and in the same way your definition of "consent" won't help you in many cases of contract disputes. 

[dsayers]

"consent" is any less up to subjective interpretation... talk to any contracts lawyer

People claiming something isn't definite doesn't mean it's not. Consent simply means to choose something where the option to decline is present. In what way does this bring you closer to accepting that unchosen positive obligations are unethical?

[bugzysegal]

People claiming something isn't definite doesn't mean it's not. Consent simply means to choose something where the option to decline is present. In what way does this bring you closer to accepting that unchosen positive obligations are unethical?

And operating under the assumption that consent has been given is a subjective process. The term doesn't having meaning outside its use between individuals. The point is, property rights aren't objective in the way you think they are. Meaning is use, no more or less. If a word is used in some way, it as objective a use as any other  use of another word shared between others similarly.

[dsayers]

When you say the guy by the pool has to do something, the act of saying that is you choosing to say that, the proposition is that the person poolside doesn't have that same choice. Forget property rights and objective analysis; In what way is that proposition not internally inconsistent? *tries to predict where the goalposts are going to be moved to*

[SamuelS]

You're really just highlighting the difference between philosophy and law, which does nothing to weaken philosophy. Philosophy tells us what rape is, law attempts to determine if it happened.

[bugzysegal]

When you say the guy by the pool has to do something, the act of saying that is you choosing to say that, the proposition is that the person poolside doesn't have that same choice. Forget property rights and objective analysis; In what way is that proposition not internally inconsistent? *tries to predict where the goalposts are going to be moved to*

*tries to figure out how to avoid the poisoned well* I'm not sure I understand your argument fully. Are you saying that I think "The man poolside has no choice, but to throw a life preserver?" If so, that is not what I think. Any choice that could be moral or immoral, must be left to the discretion of the person making it. Otherwise it wouldn't be a choice, right? This seems not to be what you mean. So I am a bit confused. Or are you saying my assessment of the morality of the situation, and my utterance of that assessment is instantiating self-ownership, thus(in the case of the poolside man) rendering my limiting of the right to act as one chooses according to the NAP, as inconsistent. This latter assessment begs the question of whether I think self-ownership is anything more than a fiction, or at the least it assumes that I don't think such a thing.  

[bugzysegal]

You're really just highlighting the difference between philosophy and law, which does nothing to weaken philosophy. Philosophy tells us what rape is, law attempts to determine if it happened.

While i describe the measures based on what I think of as moral assessments as legal, the reason those measures are taken is the moral underpinnings of the situation.  When you ask what should be enforceable, as in should that man be killed for not acting, this is a strange situation in that there wouldn't be anyone else there to do so. No would could or should point a gun at the guy (since there would be the easier measure of just throwing a life saver, or if this is retrospective consideration shooting the man won't bring the other back. Law is supposed to trace morality, and reinforce moral behavior.

[bugzysegal]

By the way, so far from what I can discern of your argument for self-ownership, what it boils down is "might makes right" for the exercise of motor control. why do we reject this argument elsewhere, but accept it as the fundamental source of self-ownership? Maybe that's a gross mischaracterization, so if you have an argument for it that would provide clarity, do share.

[SamuelS]

When you ask what should be enforceable, as in should that man be killed for not acting, this is a strange situation in that there wouldn't be anyone else there to do so. No would could or should point a gun at the guy (since there would be the easier measure of just throwing a life saver, or if this is retrospective consideration shooting the man won't bring the other back.

And this is why your pool example gas nothing to do with moraltiy/ethics. Unless you're working w a different definition which I'm unaware of, ethics deals with the subset of behavior which is enforceable. I can force you to stop, I cannot force you to start.

 

You're still going to need objective value to get to "negligible risk", better get cracking on that.

Self ownership, like a lot of things we're talking about here, is interesting in that it seems we accept the conclusion first and try to come up w an explanation later...the conclusion has been around for centuries but the only decent explanations (IMO) were developed in the last couple of decades.

 

I don't understand how you get self ownership from might makes right, though your exercise of self ownership can certainly be explicated that way.

 

I think Kinsella has a very good explanation of how self ownership comes about and even how that extends to children. My understanding of his arguments is that we own ourselves because we have a direct link between our minds and bodies, that we are the only one that even can homestead our own bodies. I don't think this is much different from Stef's approach.

 

Frankly, I accept self ownership as self evident. You can call that bias, and I can call your endeavours a waste of time.

[bugzysegal]

And this is why your pool example gas nothing to do with moraltiy/ethics. Unless you're working w a different definition which I'm unaware of, ethics deals with the subset of behavior which is enforceable. I can force you to stop, I cannot force you to start.

 

You're still going to need objective value to get to "negligible risk", better get cracking on that.

1. I straightforwardly reject your narrowing of the scope of ethics. Ethics is a methodology of arriving at moral solutions to practical problems.

 

2. We objectively value conscious creatures and their well-being.

[SamuelS]

Gee, you should have provided your definition up front. I reject your definition as well. Actually, I'll go one further, I not only reject your definition, I assert that it is wholey untenable, largely unactionable, and frankly entirely evil. Not an argument, I know, I've no more interest.

[bugzysegal]

Gee, you should have provided your definition up front. I reject your definition as well. Actually, I'll go one further, I not only reject your definition, I assert that it is wholey untenable, largely unactionable, and frankly entirely evil. Not an argument, I know, I've no more interest.

Thanks for calling me evil. Note that I never even contradicted the conclusions about what is enforceable. I arrive at similar conclusions to you, the property rights proponent, through different means. I support your position politically, advocate peaceful parenting, and am a proponent of voluntarism, but I'm evil. In rare circumstances we ought to penalize members of our communities for refraining from acting in certain situations. You are literally alienating an ally,

[SamuelS]

I'm not calling you evil, I'm saying that the position you advocate is evil, or rather that it would mislabel the innocent bystander as evil, opening him up to aggression simply for not acting. The bystander is little more than a slave to the whims of the schmuck and the populace.

 

I'd also like to point out that if you're going to reject principals, then claim slippery slope when I ask where it all leads...well, that's downright hilarious.

 

I reengaged because you sounded reasonable in the call-in show, and maybe a conversational format is more suited to the topic...but, this comes off as extreme trolling -- I don't think for one second you were confused as to the subject of my prior comment.

[bugzysegal]

I'm not calling you evil, I'm saying that the position you advocate is evil, or rather that it would mislabel the innocent bystander as evil, opening him up to aggression simply for not acting. The bystander is little more than a slave to the whims of the schmuck and the populace.

 

I'd also like to point out that if you're going to reject principals, then claim slippery slope when I ask where it all leads...well, that's downright hilarious.

 

I reengaged because you sounded reasonable in the call-in show, and maybe a conversational format is more suited to the topic...but, this comes off as extreme trolling -- I don't think for one second you were confused as to the subject of my prior comment.

Oh. It seemed dismissive and directed at me. I wouldn't disagree that from the perspective of morality built from property rights, you are one hundred percent correct. I just submitted a question to be heard on the radio show attacking Stefan's defense of self-ownership and emerging property rights. What I work off instead is also universally preferable though. I think we should pick this up after my call in. There is a good possibility I'll be on your side of the argument. I'm not afraid to be wrong, but I don't like being dismissed. 

[bugzysegal]

When you say the guy by the pool has to do something, the act of saying that is you choosing to say that, the proposition is that the person poolside doesn't have that same choice. Forget property rights and objective analysis; In what way is that proposition not internally inconsistent? *tries to predict where the goalposts are going to be moved to*

If you ever take anything I've ever said seriously, it should be the following. There is no law without language, no language without ambiguity... There is no ethics without language, no language without ambiguity. Nothing is black and white, no matter how comforting it is to pretend such is true. You can pass judgments under the impression that the world is black and white, on and off, yin and yang, but you would be foolish to think those judgments necessarily reflect reality. The problem is of course, we have to make judgment calls. And we do, but to get caught up in a false sense of certainty is truly egregious.  

[David Ottinger]

Stefan's arguments against the likes of Peter Joseph and others held up to scrutiny, particularly the pragmatic arguments come to mind. Later I read the excellent book Anarchy, State, and Utopia.  In it is an elegant pragmatic argument for voluntarism.

 

Here's a thought that occurred to me a very long time ago, that I hadn't given consideration since before my Libertarian leanings:

 

We are animals born into a world and we claim we "own" things...that there is some magic property that makes things well...property. We flap our mouths and scuttle about on the surface of a planet, rearranging the furniture.The fact of the matter is, we simply borrow everything for a time and then we die. Ownership isn't anything we actually point to, but a method of organizing goods efficiently so as to say who can do what with what, and get on with our lives. That being said, the Sun will extinguish and our solar system will go cold, with all the ownership on this little blue planet having counted for nothing. Even if by some miracle the species escapes our local galactic neighborhood, over the course of time, our likelihood of survival in asymptotic fashion approaches zero. Everything anyone has ever borrowed during their life span will return to the melting pot that is the observable universe. The very atoms that make us up will be churned back into the cosmic stew. What then could be said of ownership? 

 

Sentience bound by our biological shells, has our minds isolated requiring we resort to the pragmatism of property rights. 

 

Don't know that I feel much different about all this. Perhaps these kinds of thoughts use to lean me elsewhere on the political spectrum. If this isn't convincing that's ok. I just don't think property matters in a few billion years.

 

 

Magic?  Well, if agency is magic according to you, then yes magic.  "...flap our mouths and scuttle about..."  i.e. agency

 

Borrow?  From whom?   How can there be a borrower without a lender?  How can there be a lender without ownership? 

 

This anti-property stance is presented by socialist.  I have had this discussion with many of them.  In the end, whether they realize it or not, they're advocating for ownership in common.