neeeel Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 The real question revolves around the fact that who controls our body is merely an accident of nature. Your question only makes sense under the assumption that there are some sort of ( ethereal or otherwise) "whos" floating around that can control bodies, and that could possibly have been put, or arrived in, different bodies by an accident of nature.. This is obviously not true.
SamuelS Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 Would you accept a moral theory if it did the following: Explained why you and only you have the right to do with your body and external bodies over which you exert control, what you will? "external bodies over which you exert control" sounds like "might makes right"...if I'm raping you, I have that right, because I'm doing it? and you see this as consistent w/ NAP? did you hit your head and forget what forum you're posting in?
bugzysegal Posted October 21, 2015 Author Posted October 21, 2015 "external bodies over which you exert control" sounds like "might makes right"...if I'm raping you, I have that right, because I'm doing it? and you see this as consistent w/ NAP? did you hit your head and forget what forum you're posting in? I phrased it that way to avoid use of "possession" which will have people insisting that I'm piggy-backing self-ownership. Like I said, I'll detail everything in private if you like. I'm not sure what your guess is, but I would guess it's not what I've come up with. And no, it's not a bridge or snake oil. Those are much to valuable to just give away in a PM
SamuelS Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 What good is it to avoid a pothole if you end up on your roof in a ditch in doing so?
bugzysegal Posted October 22, 2015 Author Posted October 22, 2015 What good is it to avoid a pothole if you end up on your roof in a ditch in doing so? I'm intentionally leaving out the phrasing I would use to describe what's going on. My framework has nothing to do with might makes right. Eventually I will post it. Just trying to work out the basics.
Guest Gee Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 I'm intentionally leaving out the phrasing I would use to describe what's going on. My framework has nothing to do with might makes right. Eventually I will post it. Just trying to work out the basics. I'll save you the trouble mate because you don't have one. The reason you don't have one is because if you did it would have to be a statement of equivalence to UPB. If you had a theory that was a statement of equivalence to UPB then you would of simply derived UPB from a different starting point. If you derived UPB from a different starting point then your theory would have to either accept the axioms of UPB in the course of your derivation OR imply the axioms of UPB. Given that you are arguing against the axioms of UPB you can not have derived such equivalence and so have no such theory.
bugzysegal Posted October 22, 2015 Author Posted October 22, 2015 I'll save you the trouble mate because you don't have one. The reason you don't have one is because if you did it would have to be a statement of equivalence to UPB. If you had a theory that was a statement of equivalence to UPB then you would of simply derived UPB from a different starting point. If you derived UPB from a different starting point then your theory would have to either accept the axioms of UPB in the course of your derivation OR imply the axioms of UPB. Given that you are arguing against the axioms of UPB you can not have derived such equivalence and so have no such theory. Well thats presuptuous and might neglect some relevent details. You might be right though.
Guest Gee Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 Well thats presuptuous and might neglect some relevent details. You might be right though. The only presumption would be that UPB is valid. If not then it has to be equivalence, or, you need to prove UPB invalid.
bugzysegal Posted October 22, 2015 Author Posted October 22, 2015 The only presumption would be that UPB is valid. If not then it has to be equivalence, or, you need to prove UPB invalid. The argument for property is separate from the core arguments of UPB: 1. Reality is objective and consistent. 2. “Logic” is the set of objective and consistent rules derived from the consistency of reality. 3. Those theories that conform to logic are called “valid.” 4. Those theories that are confirmed by empirical testing are called “accurate.” 5. Those theories that are both valid and accurate are called “true.” 6. “Preferences” are required for life, thought, language and debating. 7. Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable. 8. Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB). 9. Theories regarding UPB must pass the tests of logical consistency and empirical verification. 10. The subset of UPB that examines enforceable behaviour is called “morality.” 11. As a subset of UPB, no moral theory can be considered true if it is illogical or unsupported by empirical evidence. 12. Moral theories that are supported by logic and evidence are true. All other moral theories are false. You may argue that self-ownership is derivative of one or more of these axioms, but that's where I step in. I will argue it's not and that the phenomenon that must be explained for it not to be derivative, are explainable. From what I remember, Stefan establishes self-ownership on its own and then integrates the affects of accepting both UPB and self-ownership.
Guest Gee Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 The argument for property is separate from the core arguments of UPB: 1. Reality is objective and consistent. 2. “Logic” is the set of objective and consistent rules derived from the consistency of reality. 3. Those theories that conform to logic are called “valid.” 4. Those theories that are confirmed by empirical testing are called “accurate.” 5. Those theories that are both valid and accurate are called “true.” 6. “Preferences” are required for life, thought, language and debating. 7. Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable. 8. Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB). 9. Theories regarding UPB must pass the tests of logical consistency and empirical verification. 10. The subset of UPB that examines enforceable behaviour is called “morality.” 11. As a subset of UPB, no moral theory can be considered true if it is illogical or unsupported by empirical evidence. 12. Moral theories that are supported by logic and evidence are true. All other moral theories are false. You may argue that self-ownership is derivative of one or more of these axioms, but that's where I step in. I will argue it's not and that the phenomenon that must be explained for it not to be derivative, are explainable. From what I remember, Stefan establishes self-ownership on its own and then integrates the affects of accepting both UPB and self-ownership. My mistake, I though you were proposing an ethical theory not an argument against property. My apologies.
bugzysegal Posted October 22, 2015 Author Posted October 22, 2015 My mistake, I though you were proposing an ethical theory not an argument against property. My apologies. Well both. The problem, as Stefan points out, is that any theory needs to both conform to those axioms and explain murder, rape, theft, etc. So in my attempt to play ball I will forward an ethical framework fitting in under the overarching maxims of UPB listed above and do so without using self-ownership as the foundation for theft(and omitting self-ownership all together).
The Sage of Main Street Posted October 26, 2015 Posted October 26, 2015 To put it shortly: The concept of property rights begins with possession. Possession leads to an abstraction called 'ownership'. Ownership is a concept that denotes a claim of right. Thus, self-ownership is a concept derived from the realization that no one can be in possession of you. You are your *own* being. Juniorocracy Hereditary Privileges Are the Secret Cancer That Destroys All Civilizations. Doesn't possession end with death> Then the decedent's former property is in the public domain. Suppose a group of hikers gets lost and is running out of food. If one of them dies, shouldn't the others have the right to split his former property equally rather than be forced by some aristocratic immortality to give all the food to his son? The case would be even more relevant to actual society if by splitting up the formerly owned property, everyone survived. As it is only the son survives.
Recommended Posts