Non aggression principle

[Will Torbald]

Yes, I've read it, but I've found no proof within its pages. So now I am here, hoping that a libertarian can offer some defence or other proof of the claim regarding the NAP. Theatrics are not as absurd as having a libertarian refuse to give proof, which is what you did; It seems you have given up on explaining, defining, or presenting anything.

 

If UPB isn't proof to you, what is? UPB is enough proof for me, and to many others here. Do you have a standard of proof that is higher and stronger? I don't know of any other philosophical construct that needs to be further than UPB, or anything else.

 

Instead of continiously and rather pedantically reject all arguments and moving the goal posts you must define your standard of proof, because you are asking for the unrealistic.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

1. You absolutely did what I described; there's no strawman. If you feel so strongly about it, then quote your initial post and tell me how it can be interpreted. Maybe the definitions are hidden between the lines, along with all the steps you took to reach the conclusion that a violation of the NAP is morally evil.

 

At any rate, it seems worth moving on because you've offered me a little substance now.

 

2. You say that defining "evil" is not necessary to make an argument that... a violation of the NAP is evil. I don't know whether to laugh or cry, but I am glad that you have taken the time to give me definition now. Thank you, but let me explain the problem with the definition:

 

If evil is the term that refers to an actor performing an action that he knows is "wrong", then what does "wrong" mean as applied to an action? Here is what I am saying:

 

"Lykourgos is wearing a hat" is a wrong statement, because I'm not wearing a hat. Yet, if someone batters someone, how is that wrong? I guess it's right, actually, because now it's a reality.

 

So I guess battering people is right... but seriously, does "evil is when someone knows an action is wrong but does it anyway" mean anything different than, "wrong is when someone knows an action is evil but does it anyway"? Please just give me the definition of this moral measure, whether you want to call it evil, bad, or wrong. Until then, you're barely at the first stage of showing why the NAP is an objective moral rule.

 

So, moving on to your handling of the divine commandment:

 

3. You give two arguments against the validity of positing a divine pronouncement as an objective moral rule.

 

(A) You say that the divinely created rule "rape is morally good" is impossible because... "someone" will declare that the opposite is true? What? Who is this powerful being that will contradict god, and why would god care about someone making a declaration? It's an objective rule, who cares if humans say things.

 

(B) You say that if rape is an objective moral good, then everyone must agree that being raped is good, and willingly be raped (which is an impossible desire). Why do you think that logically follows? It's wrong for a couple of reasons:

 

i) You are positing an unnecessary law that requires man to necessarily want the good. Here, good is what is in accordance with god's will; it's objective morality and whether people want it or agree with it is irrelevant. Humans could all be dead, or amoral, or pure evil for all it matters. Hell, let's pretend humans do necessarily want the good; their inability to achieve it in all instances doesn't invalidate the rule.

 

Even if we accept this unnecessary law of yours, and we further accept that the impossibility of 100% of humans to be 100% good would somehow invalidate the divine decree, it still wouldn't matter:

 

ii) There is rape the concept, and then there are the countless instances of it occurring. "Rape is good" is a moral rule stating that the universal is the good; it's not a direct and continuous command to commit every possible rape at every specific time and location.

 

If (a) rape is good, and (b) there's a further rule that all people must be good, then we need to discuss what rape means. Mentally, rape consists of 2 different states; wanting to commit sexual penetration, and unwanting to be sexually penetrated. So if people must always want to be good, then what they actually want is to always hold these two mental states:

 

- to want to sexually penetrate other people

- to not personally be sexually penetrated

 

Thus, if you put two people in a room together they would want to sexually penetrate the other person while not wanting their own body sexually penetrated. There's no necessity that a person want to personally fall prey to rape.

 

At any rate, it's largely besides the point. I don't need to posit your additional law; there's no logical clusterfuck. The divine rule is a valid system, but it's factually unsound. On the other hand... what does good/right mean in your system? What does evil/bad/wrong mean in your system? It's not based on god's pronouncement, so what's the measure of this objective morality?

 

Moving on to the final point, "universally preferable behaviour",

 

4. Still no explanation as to what you think this is or why you think it's an essential measure of any system of objective morality. The hidden definitions line is just as true as ever; there's a total failure to affirmatively show anything about the NAP. Please, show me the proof that the initiation of aggression is evil.

 

What's absurd here to me is that even in a world where it is impossible to posit an objective rule that rape is good, you still wouldnt have proven anything. Nothing affirmative has been shown; I could just as well throw my arms up and say there is no morality. There's just physical objects, movement, and mathematic/logical consistency. Libertarianism would live or die by practical concerns and personal desire.

 

Instead, people claim that there really are objective moral rules, and that they protect libertarianism from practical and personal objections. So someone needs to step up and affirmatively show that the foundation is real.

 

 

 

Yes, I've read it, but I've found no proof within its pages. So now I am here, hoping that a libertarian can offer some defence or other proof of the claim regarding the NAP. Theatrics are not as absurd as having a libertarian refuse to give proof, which is what you did; It seems you have given up on explaining, defining, or presenting anything.

 

I didn't just jump to the conclusion like you said. I gave a reason for it. 

I didn't say that evil is not necessary to make an argument that a violation of the NAP is evil. I said evil is not necessary to make the argument that the NAP is objective and that violations of it are wrong. I also explained what I meant by wrong in the context of morality. Wrong refers to those moral theories/ propositions / justifications that logically fail (and may fail in other ways but logic is enough for now). 

 

It's not specifically the battering of someone that is wrong. That action in and of itself can't be right or wrong. It's assault that's wrong.  IOW, is the battering assault or defense? If it it assault then it cannot be justified (because all moral justifications collapse into contradiction). If it's defense then it CAN be justified. That's an objective difference in the underlying theories / justifications in these behaviors.

 

I'm assuming the divine rule was not actually from God but from a human claiming it was from God. As such all it is is an arbitrary declaration. Another person can also make a similar declaration that claims the opposite. It's meaningless. It's not a valid justification. 

 

I'm not positing any law that requires man to want the good. If you say rape is morally good then you're saying everyone should rape and accept being raped (what they happen to want is not the issue). With every rape comes a being raped. You can't accept one without the other. So in order to accept the moral rule then you'd have to accept being raped. But as being raped by definition means not accepting it then the moral rule is logically impossible to follow. Logically impossible rules are not valid. 

 

So you have provided no valid justification for rape. They quickly fall into logical contradiction. 

 

 

 

What's absurd here to me is that even in a world where it is impossible to posit an objective rule that rape is good, you still wouldnt have proven anything. Nothing affirmative has been shown; I could just as well throw my arms up and say there is no morality. There's just physical objects, movement, and mathematic/logical consistency. Libertarianism would live or die by practical concerns and personal desire.

Well it would prove that no valid justification for rape is possible. Therefore anyone who rapes does so knowing their behavior can have no valid moral justification. It's quite literally immoral. That's a demonstrable objective difference between acts of aggression and acts of non-aggression. The aggressive acts cannot be justified. The non-aggressive acts can. 

[Lykourgos]

"Thus, if you put two people in a room together they would want to sexually penetrate the other person while not wanting their own body sexually penetrated. There's no necessity that a person want to personally fall prey to rape."

 

If one makes the claim that rape is moral then it must also apply to the one claiming. I am making the universal claim that rape is a behavior that should be approved by all humans. I am advocating the action of sex against my own will. I can't advocate and be against the same action. Maybe it's clearer if we are judging someone else's behavior. If I am watching my sister getting raped I would be saying, "If you want to be moral you should want the rape and at the same time not want it."

 

If one posits an objective moral rule that applies to humans, then of course it applies to the speaker. What you don't need to posit is that humans want to be good. Further, you don't need to posit it must always be possible for everyone to be good at all times. Please, if I'm wrong on this point explain why, but as it is I've posited a moral objective rule that doesn't seem to need either of those things.

 

Yet, even if we make those additions, you are still drawing the wrong conclusions. There is no contradiction that destroys the system; let's take it step by step.

 

1. rape is objective moral good

2. people must want to be good.

 

At that point, you have to ask what rape means. Here, it's referring to the concept, not a particular rape on a particular date and time between two or more particular people.

 

So what is rape conceptually? Two mental states.

So how can a person be good? Adopt the two mental states.

 

The end. No contradiction; the person can always adopt these two mental states. Show me the contradiction that says a person can't be good here in all circumstances. Further, evil is the opposite of good, so wanting to be raped would be evil. The claim that a person would want to be raped is logically invalid.

 

So, for your sister, you would want her to fight her best against the sexual assault, and do her best to commit sexual assault on her attacker. Again, it's weird even to single out rape as a moral principle to being with, especially when talking about your sister, because it's just a shock tactic given the availability of battery.

 

The rule that you're actually challenging is totally different, it's "always committing every conceivable act of rape is the good". In that rule, nobody actually needs to want to be like the concept or adopt anything regarding rape. They just want a particular phenomenon to occur as much as possible. Follow that line of thought, and there will be no possible good at all, rape or otherwise.

 

If UPB isn't proof to you, what is? UPB is enough proof for me, and to many others here. Do you have a standard of proof that is higher and stronger? I don't know of any other philosophical construct that needs to be further than UPB, or anything else.

 

Instead of continiously and rather pedantically reject all arguments and moving the goal posts you must define your standard of proof, because you are asking for the unrealistic.

 

Deary me, how many posts are you going to make before you actually define the terms you use. How do I know if UPB is proof of anything, given that literally nobody will define it and explain why it is somehow necessary for objective moral rules. Even the text UPB gives multiple definitions for UPB.

 

I have never moved the goal posts. I have defined the proof I'm looking for. What I am doing now is asking you to either define UPB, or stop using this made-up term that does nothing more than muddy the waters and keep outsiders at bay.

 

I didn't just jump to the conclusion like you said. I gave a reason for it. 

I didn't say that evil is not necessary to make an argument that a violation of the NAP is evil. I said evil is not necessary to make the argument that the NAP is objective and that violations of it are wrong. I also explained what I meant by wrong in the context of morality. Wrong refers to those moral theories/ propositions / justifications that logically fail (and may fail in other ways but logic is enough for now). 

 

It's not specifically the battering of someone that is wrong. That action in and of itself can't be right or wrong. It's assault that's wrong.  IOW, is the battering assault or defense? If it it assault then it cannot be justified (because all moral justifications collapse into contradiction). If it's defense then it CAN be justified. That's an objective difference in the underlying theories / justifications in these behaviors.

 

I'm assuming the divine rule was not actually from God but from a human claiming it was from God. As such all it is is an arbitrary declaration. Another person can also make a similar declaration that claims the opposite. It's meaningless. It's not a valid justification. 

 

I'm not positing any law that requires man to want the good. If you say rape is morally good then you're saying everyone should rape and accept being raped (what they happen to want is not the issue). With every rape comes a being raped. You can't accept one without the other. So in order to accept the moral rule then you'd have to accept being raped. But as being raped by definition means not accepting it then the moral rule is logically impossible to follow. Logically impossible rules are not valid. 

 

So you have provided no valid justification for rape. They quickly fall into logical contradiction. 

 

Well it would prove that no valid justification for rape is possible. Therefore anyone who rapes does so knowing their behavior can have no valid moral justification. It's quite literally immoral. That's a demonstrable objective difference between acts of aggression and acts of non-aggression. The aggressive acts cannot be justified. The non-aggressive acts can. 

 

You did claim that the definition of evil is unnecessary to argue that a violation of the NAP is evil, but the ball is being hidden through your unexplained use of words with multiple meanings. You won't take my word for it, so let's look at your words:

 

"I said evil is not necessary to make the argument that the NAP is objective and violations of it are wrong".

 

Huh, you are positing a moral system where violations are wrong. Wrong is being used to characterise actions that can occur, so you cannot mean wrong in the strictly logical sense. It's a moral judgment, of course, so you're using it as synonymous with "evil".

 

Yet, elsewhere you use wrong in the strictly logical sense.

 

"evil is when someone knows an action is wrong but does it anyway"

 

So in other words, violations are evil. But I thought violations were wrong? Well, in this second quote wrong would be logically invalid. So now wrong has served two different definitions in different places without explanation, and here's another example:

 

"It's not specifically the battering of someone that is wrong. That action in and of itself can't be right or wrong."

 

Violation is wrong, violation isn't wrong, I'm getting dizzy here; let's have some consistency and definitions!

 

Bottom line: if you posit a moral system, you necessarily posit morality. Explain how you can posit this moral system without any account of moral measure, or stop this and just give me the definitions so all this double-speak and confusion can end.

 

 

Anyway, moving on to the substance:

 

1. I'm assuming the divine rule was not actually from god...

 

Factual determinations are irrelevant here. We're talking about whether I can posit an objective and valid system, not a sound one. If a person screams, "god says battery is evil", it doesn't affect the validity or objective nature of what I posited. I did what was asked of me: I posited a moral system that is objective and valid.

 

2. I'm not positing any law... If you say rape is morally good then you'r esaying everyone should rape and accept being raped...

 

No, and I want to focus in on something tasty here. Look at your own words:

 

"It's not specifically the battering of someone that is wrong. That action in and of itself can't be right or wrong. It's assault that's wrong."

 

Putting aside the complete confusion as to what you mean by wrong, it looks like you've reached my understanding. Look above in this post, and in my prior posts: I've pointed out that rape is a concept. I posited the concept was good, and if people want to be good they must embody that concept. That is to say, they must adopt the two mental states that go with rape. There is no requirement to desire a specific occurrence of rape, and, in fact, wanting to be sexually penetrated would be evil.

 

As you say yourself, "it's not specifically the battering of someone that is wrong." The moral rule is not a command to commit every single imaginable instance of a crime at all times in all places. So your notion that someone would need to want their own rape is flat-out wrong; if "rape is good" then to be good people must want to maintain the two states of (A) wanting to sexually penetrate others, and (b) unwanting to be sexually penetrated.

 

I will again repeat for the record, in addition, that even the idea that a person would have to want their own rape is not a destruction of rule. It remains perfectly valid, because even though a person cannot want and not want their own rape in the same sense at the same time, the rule is independent from human opinion. The rapes that do go through are good, and the rapes that don't go through are bad, and humanity's inability to successfully achieve a 100% goodness rate is not fatal to the validity of the objective rule.

 

You could only show that the rule is logically invalid by positing these additional rules, which I previously listed and am happy to do so again, and also misinterpreting what rape being the good. It's a totally unnecessary clusterfuck, to borrow your term, that is coming out of the ultimate clusterfuck of all time, the UPB text.

 

 

3. Well it would prove...

 

Woah, wait right there. It would not show anything regarding moral justification, because you've not shown anything regarding morality at all. You haven't defined morality, you haven't defined good or evil, you haven't defined or posited any of this. It would not show anything other than that, if a number of unexplained and seemingly unnecessary logical rules are imposed, something cannot be logically consistent.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

You did claim that the definition of evil is unnecessary to argue that a violation of the NAP is evil, but the ball is being hidden through your unexplained use of words with multiple meanings. You won't take my word for it, so let's look at your words:

 

"I said evil is not necessary to make the argument that the NAP is objective and violations of it are wrong".

 

Huh, you are positing a moral system where violations are wrong. Wrong is being used to characterise actions that can occur, so you cannot mean wrong in the strictly logical sense. It's a moral judgment, of course, so you're using it as synonymous with "evil".

 

Yet, elsewhere you use wrong in the strictly logical sense.

 

"evil is when someone knows an action is wrong but does it anyway"

 

So in other words, violations are evil. But I thought violations were wrong? Well, in this second quote wrong would be logically invalid. So now wrong has served two different definitions in different places without explanation, and here's another example:

 

"It's not specifically the battering of someone that is wrong. That action in and of itself can't be right or wrong."

 

Violation is wrong, violation isn't wrong, I'm getting dizzy here; let's have some consistency and definitions!

 

Bottom line: if you posit a moral system, you necessarily posit morality. Explain how you can posit this moral system without any account of moral measure, or stop this and just give me the definitions so all this double-speak and confusion can end.

 

 

Anyway, moving on to the substance:

 

1. I'm assuming the divine rule was not actually from god...

 

Factual determinations are irrelevant here. We're talking about whether I can posit an objective and valid system, not a sound one. If a person screams, "god says battery is evil", it doesn't affect the validity or objective nature of what I posited. I did what was asked of me: I posited a moral system that is objective and valid.

 

2. I'm not positing any law... If you say rape is morally good then you'r esaying everyone should rape and accept being raped...

 

No, and I want to focus in on something tasty here. Look at your own words:

 

"It's not specifically the battering of someone that is wrong. That action in and of itself can't be right or wrong. It's assault that's wrong."

 

Putting aside the complete confusion as to what you mean by wrong, it looks like you've reached my understanding. Look above in this post, and in my prior posts: I've pointed out that rape is a concept. I posited the concept was good, and if people want to be good they must embody that concept. That is to say, they must adopt the two mental states that go with rape. There is no requirement to desire a specific occurrence of rape, and, in fact, wanting to be sexually penetrated would be evil.

 

As you say yourself, "it's not specifically the battering of someone that is wrong." The moral rule is not a command to commit every single imaginable instance of a crime at all times in all places. So your notion that someone would need to want their own rape is flat-out wrong; if "rape is good" then to be good people must want to maintain the two states of (A) wanting to sexually penetrate others, and (b) unwanting to be sexually penetrated.

 

I will again repeat for the record, in addition, that even the idea that a person would have to want their own rape is not a destruction of rule. It remains perfectly valid, because even though a person cannot want and not want their own rape in the same sense at the same time, the rule is independent from human opinion. The rapes that do go through are good, and the rapes that don't go through are bad, and humanity's inability to successfully achieve a 100% goodness rate is not fatal to the validity of the objective rule.

 

You could only show that the rule is logically invalid by positing these additional rules, which I previously listed and am happy to do so again, and also misinterpreting what rape being the good. It's a totally unnecessary clusterfuck, to borrow your term, that is coming out of the ultimate clusterfuck of all time, the UPB text.

 

 

3. Well it would prove...

 

Woah, wait right there. It would not show anything regarding moral justification, because you've not shown anything regarding morality at all. You haven't defined morality, you haven't defined good or evil, you haven't defined or posited any of this. It would not show anything other than that, if a number of unexplained and seemingly unnecessary logical rules are imposed, something cannot be logically consistent.

 

I did not claim that evil is necessary to argue that violations of the NAP are evil. I have explained my words. Of course I won't "take your word for it". 

 

Violations of the NAP can be wrong but the person doing it may not necessarily be evil. People violate the NAP all the time without even knowing they are doing it. As I explained, evil is when you know something is wrong but do it anyway. 

Let's say spanking is objectively morally wrong. It would be morally wrong regardless of what someone thought. So a parent who genuinely believed it was right would be wrong but not necessarily evil. Get  it?

 

I'm not sure that factual determinations are irrelevant but even if we accept that, your rule from god is an still arbitrary declaration. Arbitrary declarations are not objective or valid. They are subjective and as such have no standard by which they can be proven right or wrong. One can just assert the opposite and it would be equally as valid. It's an appeal to magic (anti-logic).

 

In fact it's not surprising you WENT for a divine rule first. I've found many people tend to do this when asked the same question. People have always turned to the supernatural / magic to justify their clearly illegitimate moral claims / rights. The divine right of kings. It is God's will. And so on. I think that's because they instinctively know there's no valid justification so they HAVE to turn to magic. But that's an aside. 

 

Why are you confused about what I mean by "wrong"? In the context of morality, wrong refers to those moral justifications / propositions / theories that fail the test of logical consistency (I think I already stated this). I don't just mean internal consistency. I mean consistency when applied. So if you posit a moral rule that leads to logical inconsistency in reality then that rule cannot be correct; IOW, wrong.

 

 

"As you say yourself, "it's not specifically the battering of someone that is wrong." The moral rule is not a command to commit every single imaginable instance of a crime at all times in all places. So your notion that someone would need to want their own rape is flat-out wrong; if "rape is good" then to be good people must want to maintain the two states of (A) wanting to sexually penetrate others, and (b) unwanting to be sexually penetrated."

 

 

First, "wanting to sexually penetrate others", is not rape. It would be wanting to penetrate others who you know do not want it". See? You are describing only the action. In reality one cannot hold that rape is right because if it is right then it is right that THEY be raped (such rules must be universal if they are to be valid). A moral rule that you must resist is not logical. 

 

Second, it's not that they would need to want their own rape. Remember, moral rules do not HAVE to be followed. There's a choice so I'm not saying anyone HAS to want anything in actually. It's in the rule itself. In order to follow the rule they would have to accept being raped because rape is a moral good (right, what one ought to do, correct action, etc). It is a rule that is logically impossible to follow. Therefore it's not valid. 

 

 

"It remains perfectly valid, because even though a person cannot want and not want their own rape in the same sense at the same time, the rule is independent from human opinion. The rapes that do go through are good, and the rapes that don't go through are bad, and humanity's inability to successfully achieve a 100% goodness rate is not fatal to the validity of the objective rule."

 

 

Again, everyone must able to follow the rule in theory. If you make a rule that is logically impossible to follow then that rule is not valid. Your justifications for rape logically fail. They obviously cannot be followed. It is impossible for you to provide any valid moral justification for rape that does not collapse into logical contradiction. 

 

"that is coming out of the ultimate clusterfuck of all time, the UPB text."

 

Rather than insult the text you can go debate it with Stef anytime you want. https://freedomainradio.com/callinshow/

 

"Woah, wait right there. It would not show anything regarding moral justification, because you've not shown anything regarding morality at all. You haven't defined morality, you haven't defined good or evil, you haven't defined or posited any of this. It would not show anything other than that, if a number of unexplained and seemingly unnecessary logical rules are imposed, something cannot be logically consistent."

 

 

 

Sorry but in "in a world where it is impossible to posit an objective rule that rape is good" this would obviously show that no such justification for rape is possible. Because THAT's what that means.

I assumed you meant good in the sense of right /justified,etc. YOU used the word "good" in this context. Why are you asking ME to define it? 

It's frustrating that even when I demonstrably defined something like "evil" (even though I didn't initially use the word) you brazenly declare I didn't define it.  You can argue that my definition is not valid or whatever but don't tell me I didn't provide one. 

[Will Torbald]

 

Deary me, how many posts are you going to make before you actually define the terms you use. How do I know if UPB is proof of anything, given that literally nobody will define it and explain why it is somehow necessary for objective moral rules. Even the text UPB gives multiple definitions for UPB.

 

I have never moved the goal posts. I have defined the proof I'm looking for. What I am doing now is asking you to either define UPB, or stop using this made-up term that does nothing more than muddy the waters and keep outsiders at bay.

 

 

All the definitions I use are in UPB. I told you that is what I use. All your objections in so far can be summed up as "I don't understand" and that's not an indictment of the theory, only of your capacity to reason. All terms are made up terms, it doesn't muddy the waters nor does it keep outsiders at bay to tell you to read the text and understand it. UPB is a meta-ethical framework of evaluation. It evaluates theories, not actions. If you say that an action is moral or immoral you are using a moral theory to define it. For your theory to be a valid and true theory, it must be universallizable. It must be a theory everyone can properly apply in the real world. Everyone. At the same time. Always. That's what universal means. Universally preferable behavior is a limit. It says that if your theory of morality can't be universally preferable behavior, then it can't be a valid moral theory. That's what it is.

[Frosty]

----I'll take things in order, with sections marked off with hyphens. Let's start!

 

It sounds like we have a similar definition for objective. I still don't see why you are using the term universal, though. It also looks like you have two separate definitions for the one term, one normal and one special. See as follows:

 

1. Applicable or present for everything in a category. (normal definition)

Example: (a) gravity applies to all physical substances, so it is universal to physical substances.

(b) all my guests today desire ice cream, so my guests today universally desire ice cream.

 

2. Objective (independent from opinion). (special definition)

Example: 1+1=2 is true regardless of opinion, so 1+1=2 is universally true.

 

When you say NAP is universal because its truth comes from logic rather than human opinion, it sounds like you're repeating yourself. NAP is objective and objective. Or, alternatively, NAP is a rule that applies to X, so it is a rule that applies to X.

 

That gravity is not entirely universal, in the sense that it does not apply to logical formulas, is proof that the term is superfluous here. Let's go further, let's say that there is a physical rule that causes things to vibrate when they are in a certain physical location. That rule would still be universal, because by definition it applies only to that particular physical location. Even if you disagree (and please explain if you do), the rule about vibrations would still be objective because it is totally independent from opinion. You're going to vibrate there whether you like it or not, it exists independent of our desires.

 

----So much for universal; if you disagree I'd love to hear it, but at this point I think the term should be abandoned.

 

Next, let me touch on your brief description of rape. Rape in these discussions isn't just "without consent", otherwise you could just have one person sexually penetrate another by accident without consent. Rape involves at least two parties with their respective wants, and a physical act. The lack of consent is a reference to the fact that one actor wants to sexually penetrate the other, and the other actor unwants to be sexually penetrated.

 

From here on out, though, I'm going to change the offense from rape to battery. I've never understood the point of using rape, it just muddies the water because it's a more controversial topic. If you think the offense of rape is distinct from battery for purposes of proving the NAP, then please let me know why you think that, because I just don't see it. Rape is an offense within the category of battery.

 

----Moving on to the point about the meaning of good and evil

 

Maybe it will help to take a step back. I am trying to understand why you believe that "aggression is evil". To do that, I need to know whether you believe the statement "aggression is evil" is,

 

(A) A first principle (irreducible)

 

or

 

(B) A rule deduced by way of first principles.

 

I understand it to be (B). I therefore want to know how the rule "aggression is evil" was deduced. I need to know,

 

(A) What aggression is.

 

and

 

(B) What evil is.

 

Then, I will either submit the building blocks to further examination, or be able to conclude whether "aggression is evil" is an objective rule.

 

 

So, let us pick up where I understood "aggression is evil" to be a rule derived from principles:

 

1. Are "aggression" and "evil" synonymous?

No.

1. (A) What is the definition of aggression?

Aggression is an act that at least one human participant wants and one human participant unwants.

1. (B) What is the definition of evil?

Evil is everything that a human unwants.

 

Conclusion 1: "aggression" is "evil" because it consists of an action that a human participant unwants.

 

2. Does evil have an opposite?

Yes

2. (A) What is the opposite?

Good

2. (A) (i) What is the definition of good?

Good is that which is wanted.

 

Conclusion 2: "aggression" is "good" because it consists of an action that a human participant wants.

 

3. Are the two conclusions logically consistent?

No.

 

So then I stop, because if it is taken objectively it will violate the principle of non-contradiction. However, I can apply the test subjectively because then a single physical event is good to one person and evil to another.

 

When libertarians define aggression, they improperly omit the term "at least one human participant wants". You cannot have aggression with an aggressor, who by definition wants the act, so I have elucidated the full definition. If you disagree, please explain your objection, because I don't see how one would have aggression without both want and unwant. Yet, this exact issue makes it a contradictory standard unless we admit that it is subjective.

 

----- Finally, the examination of the fistfight

 

First, I just want to make sure we have the same facts here, because our language is different We agree that, objectively, the punch occured, and that Herakles wanted to punch Theseus. I said that Theseus "unwanted" to be punched, but you say that he "does not want" to be punched. Obviously, "unwant" is not a word that we use in common speech, but I'm saying it because it is the opposite of want; a repulsion, rather than an absence of any desire. So, objectively speaking, the physical movement occurred, Herakles formed the want, Theseus formed the unwant.

 

With that established, I now notice several problems. You say, "there's no consent for this action", yet there clearly is consent from Herakles; you can't have a battery without at least one person consenting. You acknowledge this in your next post (which I read after writing this all out, doh!) when you say consent is "permission for something to happen or agreement to do something". You also say it's the consent of people to the action, plural. That definition is the one I have, it's the common definition for the term; an expression of willingness, whether by someone proactively doing something or passively experiencing something.

 

Here, there is consent from Herakles, he agrees to this battery. If he didn't, there'd be no battery! Only Theseus shows dis-consent (opposite of consent, not negation). So, it is inaccurate to say there is no consent. You can never have aggression without want and unwant; consent to a physical event like battery is an issue on both sides.

 

I think you realise this when you say, "whether the action is wanted by the person taking the action isn't relevant to the morality of the situation otherwise you'd have a world where any action is morally permissible providing the person doing it wanted to do it". Yet, that is exactly my point, it is a subjective standard. If you have reached this conclusion, then it is time to unshackle yourself from the NAP and probably libertarianism in general.

 

The notion that NAP is an objective rule is rotten to the core; the attempts to prove it are a minefield of ill-combined definitions. To say that a battery took place "because Theseus did not consent" is actually false; if Theseus had just stared silently at the fire thinking "I don't consent to battery!" then there would be no battery, because Herakles would never have taken a swing. For the battery to occur, someone needs to consent to the physical action taking place, whereupon that person will then accordingly move his body. Battery involves 2 people with 2 different mental states.

 

I'm  not using 2 terms in the sense that I rely on that for the argument, I'm differentiating between those terms and saying that the NAP is objective in the 2nd sense which is to say that it's objectively true because it's true by definition, that to be otherwise would be a logical contradiction. The use of the first (you call normal) sense, is merely to stop a common deviation in the argument towards subjectivity of peoples preferences.

Your definition in 1)a is what I take issue with, things aren't universal through happen-stance, universal would refer to all cases not just present but future, and it's possible for future tastes be that not everyone prefers ice cream, in which case that preference isn't universal.

 

Yes, it's a repetition to say that it's objective and doesn't come from human opinion, but I point this out again to differentiate it's objectivity, you have to understand that many of us have explained this to others in the past and it's just easier to address the common issues in peoples response which is to tend towards aggression being some kind of subjective preference, but it's not and that's dealt with in the way we define these words.

 

Gravity is universal because this sentence has scope, when we talk about gravity as defined as interaction of physical forces we inherently limit the scope to physical objects. It is for example not true that 1+1=2 in all scopes because that assumes certain things like counting systems such as decimal, in binary 1+1=2 doesn't make any sense. So in that sense we can say that in fact 1+1=2 is universal but it's universal within some scope that is defined by meaning of these symbols. To define "universal" otherwise would mean nothing could be truly universal and the term would be useless.

 

Objective truth and universal truth are similar but not synonymous, they're both required in a moral principle for it to be logically coherent and internally consistent.

 

Your comments on vibrations get's at this point of scope, if we define a rule to specific, then we can say it's universal within the scope of the rule, but the same can be said for definitions, when we use a word like "gravity" what we really mean is what gravity is defined as, which is physical force between matter.

 

Sexual penetration without consent even by accident is still rape, in fact one of the rape cases that made the news in the last few years was of just that, a man who supposedly slipped during vaginal intercourse and penetrated the anus. Rape is sometimes used because it's about as close to unambiguously wrong and evil as you can get, so there's little room for error in the discussion regarding examples. Use whatever examples you like it doesn't really bother me, the NAP applies in all cases of assault/battery/rape.

Regarding the phrase "aggression is evil", I claim this is reasoned from first principles, I've given my account of this in my 2nd post.

 

You've reached the conclusion that the 2 positions of good and evil are not consistent because you've ignored the scope of the issues, you've completely ignored the fact that one (or more) person/people are committing some action, and another person is the recipient of that action. And so who wants what matters. Of course we cannot say that things are moral just because the people taking the action want to do it, we have to consider the consequences of that action and who that effects, and their position on whether or not that action is wanted. When you take this into consideration there is no logical contradiction.

 

Libertarians do not omit the above, it's contained within the definition of aggression, we inherently understand that the initiation of aggression is between moral agents and that there's an aggressor/aggressee paradigm associated with that. The NAP doesn't need to be that verbose as long as we agree on definitions, and near as I can tell we do.

 

In an attempt to condense this conversation I'm going to skip over responding to some parts and just go for the meat of the matter where we seem to disagree. Firstly, all moral agents involved in some interaction need to consent in that interaction before there can be considered consent, when I say the wants of the aggressor aren't relevant it's because we understand that the aggressor want's to aggress, otherwise they probably wouldn't be doing it, but because logically both the aggressor and the aggressee need to consent for consensual action to occur we only need worry about one person not consenting. Oh and additionally, simply not wanting something rather than opposing the action (the opposite) is sufficient to meet the conditions of not consenting.

 

You conclude that the NAP is a subjective standard because it relies on the desires of someone, but desires are objective, they're not subjective. Objectivity hinges on truth, and if someone genuinely desires something, lets say ice cream, then it's true to say they objectively desire ice cream, and I'd go out on a limb and say we could in theory scientifically demonstrate that desire to be objectively true through a sufficiently advanced understanding of the brain and with a brain scan. No ones opinion or feelings on the evidence of that desire alter the fact that the desire is something that objectively exists.

 

It's even true to say that the person who holds the desire's opinions don't alter that fact. Take an example of a man who is physically attracted to an aroused by other men and not by women, we can measure physical attraction, dilation of the pupils, increased heart rate and blood flow, increased sweating, arousal. But that persons opinion of his own sexuality might be that he's straight simply because of the social pressures, and this happens in real life, people have denial of their own desires.

 

You have to really get a grip on the difference here, back to the ice cream example for a moment. You can objectively say that someone has a desire for ice cream, a subjective opinion that person might give is that ice cream is the best food. That would be subjective because it would depend on the feelings or opinion of the person experiencing what it's like eat ice cream, we can't assert objectively that ice cream is the best food, even if everyone subjective opinion happens to align at that moment. We can however assert someone has a desire for it, and we can be objective in that statement, and the opinions and feelings of moral agents don't alter that fact.

 

Remember that wanting something is objective, consenting is a decision that's made that's objective, people can have opinions on these things that are subjective but the actual actions themselves are objective, they're fundamentally true.

[Frosty]

If UPB isn't proof to you, what is? UPB is enough proof for me, and to many others here. Do you have a standard of proof that is higher and stronger? I don't know of any other philosophical construct that needs to be further than UPB, or anything else.

 

Instead of continiously and rather pedantically reject all arguments and moving the goal posts you must define your standard of proof, because you are asking for the unrealistic.

 

It would be interested to hear an account of what he actually believes and let us do an analysis of that because we might get to the bottom of where we disagree faster that way. The defence of the NAP is just as much in the incoherence and lack of universality or objectivity in other moral systems than it is about it's own strength, it's not just that the NAP meets these standards but that everything else we've seen simply fails.

 

I have a nasty feeling this is a case of nihilism or something similar, where the response seems to be a stubborn refusal of everything, the impression that I get (which may be inaccurate) is that we could argue this backwards until we're fundamentally disagreeing on metaphysics and ontological principles which I have no intention to do. It's very easy to be lazy and just reject the validity of everything you read and simply keep rolling the conversation backwards to more and more basic principles, or get lost in a daze of interpretations of every single word, the ballooning in size of the conversation seems to be evidence of this.

[Will Torbald]

It would be interested to hear an account of what he actually believes and let us do an analysis of that because we might get to the bottom of where we disagree faster that way. The defence of the NAP is just as much in the incoherence and lack of universality or objectivity in other moral systems than it is about it's own strength, it's not just that the NAP meets these standards but that everything else we've seen simply fails.

 

I have a nasty feeling this is a case of nihilism or something similar, where the response seems to be a stubborn refusal of everything, the impression that I get (which may be inaccurate) is that we could argue this backwards until we're fundamentally disagreeing on metaphysics and ontological principles which I have no intention to do. It's very easy to be lazy and just reject the validity of everything you read and simply keep rolling the conversation backwards to more and more basic principles, or get lost in a daze of interpretations of every single word, the ballooning in size of the conversation seems to be evidence of this.

Indeed I sensed this tendency of regressing to ontological infinity very early in the discussion. It is very easy to start sophistry with "but you can't prove objective reality exists" or so diatribe like that. The very fact that you can construct sentences with disbelief and skepticism of a theory is not proof that the theory isn't true, and that's something a lot of people don't get. "Look at me, I don't believe in the NAP, therefore it is wrong!".

[Lykourgos]

 

 

I did not claim that evil is necessary to argue that violations of the NAP are evil. I have explained my words. Of course I won't "take your word for it". 

 

Violations of the NAP can be wrong but the person doing it may not necessarily be evil. People violate the NAP all the time without even knowing they are doing it. As I explained, evil is when you know something is wrong but do it anyway. 

Let's say spanking is objectively morally wrong. It would be morally wrong regardless of what someone thought. So a parent who genuinely believed it was right would be wrong but not necessarily evil. Get  it?

 

I'm not sure that factual determinations are irrelevant but even if we accept that, your rule from god is an still arbitrary declaration. Arbitrary declarations are not objective or valid. They are subjective and as such have no standard by which they can be proven right or wrong. One can just assert the opposite and it would be equally as valid. It's an appeal to magic (anti-logic).

 

In fact it's not surprising you WENT for a divine rule first. I've found many people tend to do this when asked the same question. People have always turned to the supernatural / magic to justify their clearly illegitimate moral claims / rights. The divine right of kings. It is God's will. And so on. I think that's because they instinctively know there's no valid justification so they HAVE to turn to magic. But that's an aside. 

 

Why are you confused about what I mean by "wrong"? In the context of morality, wrong refers to those moral justifications / propositions / theories that fail the test of logical consistency (I think I already stated this). I don't just mean internal consistency. I mean consistency when applied. So if you posit a moral rule that leads to logical inconsistency in reality then that rule cannot be correct; IOW, wrong.

 

 

 

First, "wanting to sexually penetrate others", is not rape. It would be wanting to penetrate others who you know do not want it". See? You are describing only the action. In reality one cannot hold that rape is right because if it is right then it is right that THEY be raped (such rules must be universal if they are to be valid). A moral rule that you must resist is not logical. 

 

Second, it's not that they would need to want their own rape. Remember, moral rules do not HAVE to be followed. There's a choice so I'm not saying anyone HAS to want anything in actually. It's in the rule itself. In order to follow the rule they would have to accept being raped because rape is a moral good (right, what one ought to do, correct action, etc). It is a rule that is logically impossible to follow. Therefore it's not valid. 

 

 

 

Again, everyone must able to follow the rule in theory. If you make a rule that is logically impossible to follow then that rule is not valid. Your justifications for rape logically fail. They obviously cannot be followed. It is impossible for you to provide any valid moral justification for rape that does not collapse into logical contradiction. 

 

"that is coming out of the ultimate clusterfuck of all time, the UPB text."

 

Rather than insult the text you can go debate it with Stef anytime you want. https://freedomainradio.com/callinshow/

 

 

 

Sorry but in "in a world where it is impossible to posit an objective rule that rape is good" this would obviously show that no such justification for rape is possible. Because THAT's what that means.

I assumed you meant good in the sense of right /justified,etc. YOU used the word "good" in this context. Why are you asking ME to define it? 

It's frustrating that even when I demonstrably defined something like "evil" (even though I didn't initially use the word) you brazenly declare I didn't define it.  You can argue that my definition is not valid or whatever but don't tell me I didn't provide one. 

 

 

 

On Definitions

 

The definitions still aren’t complete. We have finally boiled the term “wrong”, as you use it, down to three things:

1. Any conclusion that is logically invalid under any system or premises in question

1. Any conclusion that would be logically invalid under the NAP

1. Any act embodying a conclusion that would be logically invalid under the NAP, when the actor doesn’t know the conclusion is logically invalid.

I am still waiting for you to explain the distinction between 1 and 2. What makes the NAP a moral logical rule, rather than an amoral logical rule? I ask this in part because you defined evil as,

 

 

"evil is when someone knows an action is wrong but does it anyway"

 

 

Let’s assume you are using definition 2 for “wrong”, because I want to know why NAP is an objective moral system. So a person is doing evil when he knows an action embodies a conclusion that is logically invalid under the NAP, and he does it anyway. Looking at this, the definitions have not been presented because ultimately it leads back into the impenetrable mystery that is your notion of morality.

 

Yet, what if you are playing a joke on me and just using definition 1? Now, wrong is anything logically invalid, and evil is doing anything that could be logically invalid under any rule. So everything is evil in some sense. You are not here to joke around, so you cannot be using definition 1. So, please, after all this back and forth, please define wrong and moral so that I can finally understand what makes the NAP an objective moral rule.

 

Until that happens, I will always maintain that you have failed to define your terms. Without these terms, a discussion about an objective moral system can only boil down to a dog chasing its tail. I cannot know why you think the NAP is an objective moral system, and nobody else can, either, until the information is available.

 

 

On the relevance of factual determinations

 

Factual determinations are unimportant when questioning the internal validity of the system because the system posits their truth. Attacking the facts is a great idea if you want to show that the system is unsound and the rule is not really in force, but it doesn't help to show that the system is logically impossible. I hope you are sure now that factual arguments are irrelevant here, just like we are both sure that there isn't really an anthropomorphic god.

 

 

On arbitrary and subjective declarations

 

I went to “God’s will” because it’s the quickest way to show you’re wrong. You challenged me on a point of objectivity and validity, so I don’t need to care if I’ve posited a magical man. Point is that I posited an objective moral rule, not that I think I’ve posited a real rule that is in force. This exercise is pointless because I’m free to define moral how I want, because you still haven’t told me what it means (see above).

 

Next, what are these new definitions for objective and valid that you are using in this section? I don’t understand why you think arbitrary things cannot be objective or valid, or why you think they cannot be proven right or wrong. Perhaps you could share what sense you’re using arbitrary, too, because this whole section just doesn’t makes sense to me right now.

 

Objective is independent from human opinion; yet now this rule-creation that occurred regardless of human opinion… is not objective anymore? Valid is what is logically consistent, but now you’re saying a god’s rule is inherently inconsistent? What happens to all the other rules he created, I guess logic is invalid now, too. As for a standard to show right and wrong… I guess all of reality is now ultimately subjective. After all, there is no standard outside existence to show existence is right or wrong. Luckily, in my system I posited what was right, so there is an internal standard.

 

In fact, now you create a new problem.  I really want to hear you define arbitrary, objective, and valid so that your latest statements make sense, but I can’t resist moving forward just a little. The use of the NAP relies on the subjective decisions of the actors within any given example. We say their subjective decision objectively occurred, hence we can say the system is in some sense objective, but now we say that we cannot use god’s crafting of a rule? Oh dear.

 

 

On the definition of rape

 

It would help if rape was defined in the UPB or by anyone here. Because I was challenged to posit a new rule about rape I went and defined the term using my understanding of criminal law.

 

Simply put, “wanting to penetrate others who you know do not want it” is not a complete definition of rape consistent with the NAP or with the practice of law in states that I’m familiar with. Let’s look at it in the sense of NAP:

 

Suddenly, we can actually want ourselves to be raped, because our opinion of the rape doesn’t matter anymore. Rape is now purely in the eye of the rapist.

Let’s look at criminal law:

 

A person goes and commits a sexual act on another person. The other person wants it. Regardless of what the person initiating the sexual act thought, a rape has not occurred. The person only committed an inchoate offense.

 

So, as I explained, rape consists of two mental states:

 

1. Wanting to sexually penetrate another
2. Unwanting to be sexually penetrated

 

One actor holds mental state 1, the other actor holds mental state 2. This is why punching someone in the back of the head is still battery. Technically, you don’t know if the person wants it or not. Hell, the man could be your friend and you know he doesn’t care about his head. Still, at law it’s a battery if the guy didn’t want to be punched and you willfully slugged him in the back of the head.

 

But the challenge I raised against your argument is being left untouched:

 

You are 100% wrong to say that I am “describing only the action”. I described the universal, which is what the rule is declaring to be good. Rape is a set of mental states. To be good is to embody rape; that is to do the following:

 

1. Want to sexually penetrate another
2. Unwant to be sexually penetrate

 

The physical motion naturally follows from those twin desires, and in court we examine the particular instances. There is no contradiction, and there is no need to want to be raped. You could have one person left on the planet and still be good, because the person would truly dedicate themselves to rape. Actually, all moral actors could be exterminated and the rule would still be valid. It’s an objective rule.

 

Explain how this moral point is invalid or subjective. I have defined morality and what constitutes good (and therefore, by it’s opposite, evil). I have made the rule independent of human opinion and therefore objective. I have shown the rule to be valid, because actually it is just a single statement which is inherently true and therefore always valid come what may. I then went forward and even took up your burden of it being a valid rule that can always be embodied by humans in every sense at every time.

 

The point is untouched, I have met your challenge, and I want to go back to the NAP now. I want someone, anyone, to explain how the NAP is an objective rule of morality that we ought to follow.

 

 

On obedience:

 

You claim that “everyone must (be) able to follow the rule in theory.” Why do you think that? The rule posited is objective, it is internally valid, and I gave a definition for moral. As far as I am concerned, I have posited an objective rule of morality that says rape is good; we’re done here unless you cough up a definition for moral and ask me to play through this scenario again.

 

You require me to show that everybody can conceivably follow the rule: “if you make a rule that is logically impossible to follow then that rule is not valid”. Yet, that is not a burden of it being objective or valid. You are drawing on some hidden definition of morality or validity that is distinct from the definition I gave; you are saying that part of the definition of morality is that it must be possible for all humans to be good at all times in all ways.

 

At any rate, I have played along and showed you why my objective rule meets even your standard. But here is the problem: you have an idea of morality that you won’t define. Share this meaning of morality! It is clearly distinct from just logical statements, so please tell me what it is.

 

We are so close to getting to the point where you finally reveal why the NAP is an objective rule of morality. So close.

 

 

On the UPB:

 

I was invited by Stef to call into his show some time ago. When I accepted the invitation by e-mail and by multiple posts on this forum, I did not receive a response. I can only assume he is very busy. There's no need to act like I’m attacking the UPB behind his back; after all, I'm the one who walked into the lion's den here. As for the term “clusterfuck”, you’re the first one to start slinging shit; I have no desire to get my hands dirty.

 

 

On what is proven:

 

No, “in a world where it is impossible to posit an objective rule that rape is good” we would still be in a world where you haven’t defined what good even means. You haven’t proven good exists, that there is any morality at all. All you would have done is somehow magically proven that a proposition doesn’t accord with “good”, whatever that means.

 

Now here is the kicker, you are saying,

 

“YOU used the word “good” in this context. Why are you asking ME to define it?”

 

I am flabbergasted. I can’t even believe I just read that. I come to this forum and ask libertarians to show me why they claim that “practical objections to libertarianism are insufficient, because there is an objective moral foundation that says we ought to follow the NAP”.  Yet I'm supposed to define morality for you?

 

You asked ME to play some weird game where I posit an objective moral rule about rape. I played along, and because YOU fundamentally refuse to define morality, I made a quick definition and completed the game. Now I am being shit on because (a) I didn’t follow your hidden definition of morality that I still don’t know, and (b) I don’t accept that even if my definition of morality doesn’t work, your secret definition is somehow proven and the NAP is an objective moral rule. Unbelievable!

 

I don’t want to fight, I just want to know what you mean when you say all these words. You haven’t defined your terms, because every time you purport to do so, you just talk in a circle. The morality, the moral unit... you keep passing the buck and coming up with a new word each time I pounce. You can define terms all day long if you just create a circle of words. Yet, this thread will never receive a satisfactory answer until someone takes the bull by the horns. Someone needs to (a) define the terms and (b) proceed from first principles. If nobody can do that, then Libertarianism must offer itself up at the altar of practical considerations.

 

 

All the definitions I use are in UPB. I told you that is what I use. All your objections in so far can be summed up as "I don't understand" and that's not an indictment of the theory, only of your capacity to reason. All terms are made up terms, it doesn't muddy the waters nor does it keep outsiders at bay to tell you to read the text and understand it. UPB is a meta-ethical framework of evaluation. It evaluates theories, not actions. If you say that an action is moral or immoral you are using a moral theory to define it. For your theory to be a valid and true theory, it must be universallizable. It must be a theory everyone can properly apply in the real world. Everyone. At the same time. Always. That's what universal means. Universally preferable behavior is a limit. It says that if your theory of morality can't be universally preferable behavior, then it can't be a valid moral theory. That's what it is.

 

Yet another post, and still no definition of what UPB means! If this were a boxing match, you'd be flat on the ground with the ref counting past 10.

 

Tell me what "UPB" means! Just define the term! I told you I looked at the text and found multiple definitions, so tell me the one you're using! If you love the text and think it's infallible, then give me the page number you want me to read!

 

It's not a trick question. I just want you to define the term and stop using it as a magical wand!

 

 

I'm  not using 2 terms in the sense that I rely on that for the argument, I'm differentiating between those terms and saying that the NAP is objective in the 2nd sense which is to say that it's objectively true because it's true by definition, that to be otherwise would be a logical contradiction. The use of the first (you call normal) sense, is merely to stop a common deviation in the argument towards subjectivity of peoples preferences.

Your definition in 1)a is what I take issue with, things aren't universal through happen-stance, universal would refer to all cases not just present but future, and it's possible for future tastes be that not everyone prefers ice cream, in which case that preference isn't universal.

 

Yes, it's a repetition to say that it's objective and doesn't come from human opinion, but I point this out again to differentiate it's objectivity, you have to understand that many of us have explained this to others in the past and it's just easier to address the common issues in peoples response which is to tend towards aggression being some kind of subjective preference, but it's not and that's dealt with in the way we define these words.

 

Gravity is universal because this sentence has scope, when we talk about gravity as defined as interaction of physical forces we inherently limit the scope to physical objects. It is for example not true that 1+1=2 in all scopes because that assumes certain things like counting systems such as decimal, in binary 1+1=2 doesn't make any sense. So in that sense we can say that in fact 1+1=2 is universal but it's universal within some scope that is defined by meaning of these symbols. To define "universal" otherwise would mean nothing could be truly universal and the term would be useless.

 

Objective truth and universal truth are similar but not synonymous, they're both required in a moral principle for it to be logically coherent and internally consistent.

 

Your comments on vibrations get's at this point of scope, if we define a rule to specific, then we can say it's universal within the scope of the rule, but the same can be said for definitions, when we use a word like "gravity" what we really mean is what gravity is defined as, which is physical force between matter.

 

Sexual penetration without consent even by accident is still rape, in fact one of the rape cases that made the news in the last few years was of just that, a man who supposedly slipped during vaginal intercourse and penetrated the anus. Rape is sometimes used because it's about as close to unambiguously wrong and evil as you can get, so there's little room for error in the discussion regarding examples. Use whatever examples you like it doesn't really bother me, the NAP applies in all cases of assault/battery/rape.

Regarding the phrase "aggression is evil", I claim this is reasoned from first principles, I've given my account of this in my 2nd post.

 

You've reached the conclusion that the 2 positions of good and evil are not consistent because you've ignored the scope of the issues, you've completely ignored the fact that one (or more) person/people are committing some action, and another person is the recipient of that action. And so who wants what matters. Of course we cannot say that things are moral just because the people taking the action want to do it, we have to consider the consequences of that action and who that effects, and their position on whether or not that action is wanted. When you take this into consideration there is no logical contradiction.

 

Libertarians do not omit the above, it's contained within the definition of aggression, we inherently understand that the initiation of aggression is between moral agents and that there's an aggressor/aggressee paradigm associated with that. The NAP doesn't need to be that verbose as long as we agree on definitions, and near as I can tell we do.

 

In an attempt to condense this conversation I'm going to skip over responding to some parts and just go for the meat of the matter where we seem to disagree. Firstly, all moral agents involved in some interaction need to consent in that interaction before there can be considered consent, when I say the wants of the aggressor aren't relevant it's because we understand that the aggressor want's to aggress, otherwise they probably wouldn't be doing it, but because logically both the aggressor and the aggressee need to consent for consensual action to occur we only need worry about one person not consenting. Oh and additionally, simply not wanting something rather than opposing the action (the opposite) is sufficient to meet the conditions of not consenting.

 

You conclude that the NAP is a subjective standard because it relies on the desires of someone, but desires are objective, they're not subjective. Objectivity hinges on truth, and if someone genuinely desires something, lets say ice cream, then it's true to say they objectively desire ice cream, and I'd go out on a limb and say we could in theory scientifically demonstrate that desire to be objectively true through a sufficiently advanced understanding of the brain and with a brain scan. No ones opinion or feelings on the evidence of that desire alter the fact that the desire is something that objectively exists.

 

It's even true to say that the person who holds the desire's opinions don't alter that fact. Take an example of a man who is physically attracted to an aroused by other men and not by women, we can measure physical attraction, dilation of the pupils, increased heart rate and blood flow, increased sweating, arousal. But that persons opinion of his own sexuality might be that he's straight simply because of the social pressures, and this happens in real life, people have denial of their own desires.

 

You have to really get a grip on the difference here, back to the ice cream example for a moment. You can objectively say that someone has a desire for ice cream, a subjective opinion that person might give is that ice cream is the best food. That would be subjective because it would depend on the feelings or opinion of the person experiencing what it's like eat ice cream, we can't assert objectively that ice cream is the best food, even if everyone subjective opinion happens to align at that moment. We can however assert someone has a desire for it, and we can be objective in that statement, and the opinions and feelings of moral agents don't alter that fact.

 

Remember that wanting something is objective, consenting is a decision that's made that's objective, people can have opinions on these things that are subjective but the actual actions themselves are objective, they're fundamentally true.

 

On objective and universal

 

You say you object to definition 1)a), but I think you meant to write 1)b), correct? That makes more sense, and you specifically mention ice-cream, so I’m pretty sure you meant 1)b). If so, I now understand what you mean by universal. It seems true by definition, and useful in the sense of correcting someone’s mistaken judgment:

 

Theseus: “this sword will not move when I release it!”

Herakles: “no, gravity is universal to physical substance, so it will exert force on your sword and cause it to move”.

 

Anyway, moving on. It seems like we agree with gravity and 1+1=2 and all that good stuff; they are universal by definition because they apply to everything in the scope we give them. 1+1=2 is different from gravity in the sense that it is also a demonstration rather than the name of the principle, but at any rate the system is universal by its definition.

 

 

On moral principles

 

“Objective truth and universal truth are similar but not synonymous, they're both required in a moral principle for it to be logically coherent and internally consistent.”

 

How can an objective moral principle not be universal? I thought we just concluded that the principles are universal by definition. I couldn’t tell you an objective moral principle that isn’t universal.

 

When you say “logically coherent” you mean the same thing as “internally consistent”, right? As in, it has to be valid? If so, sure, a valid system has to be valid. A lot of this stuff seems to be repetitive, but I guess you double up because you had trouble with someone else at some other time. Maybe it’s like saying “last will and testament”, and “peace and quiet”, or something.

 

Anyway, point is, I agree that if a moral principle is to be valid then it has to be valid. I also agree that objective moral principles have to universal because these are all universal by definition.

 

 

On definition of rape

 

No, “sexual penetration without consent by accident”, without anything else, is not rape in any jurisdiction I’m familiar with. If you have a new definition for rape, then go ahead and give it to me, but unless it’s statutory rape then each element requires a certain mental state. You’ll forgive me if I don’t trust journos to give me an accurate account of a criminal case; just cut to the chase and give me the statute.

 

Or, better yet, give me your specific definition of rape that you want me to use. Not that I really see how defining and designing a valid but unsound moral rule proves the system of morality that allegedly results in libertarianism.

 

As for whether the NAP applies to accidental penetration… it applies in the sense that it applies to all people. It wouldn’t apply in the sense that there would be no moral judgment regarding the actor in this instance because he acted accidentally. There was no initiation of aggression. Unless you have a new definition of aggression to offer, too.

 

 

On aggression being evil

 

Excellent, you have started to work through the steps.

 

You say that “aggression is evil” is reasoned from first principles. Then, you tell me you have given an account of this in your 2^nd post. Fantastic; here’s what I’ll try to find in your 2^nd post:

 

(A) What aggression is.

and

(B) What evil is.

 

So, let's go back… oh dear. You didn't give a definition for aggression, you just said you liked mine: "force or deceit unwanted by the subject". I point out in that same post, and many subsequent posts, that every act of aggression had two subjects and one wants and the other wants, so the system falls apart.

 

Moving on to your definition for evil...

 

The definition for evil is that it’s synonymous with bad. Bad is... ""bad" is just something which is unwanted or undesirable"

 

So in a roundabout way you reached the ultimate goal of describing morality, which is...

Desire. Want being good, unwant being evil.

 

The entire system, as indicated in the post that you quoted on the other page, falls apart because an act of aggression is both wanted and unwanted by the subject. Wanted and unwanted, as you'll recall, are good and evil.

 

So the system collapses.

 

If evil means something else, if morality is something different than desire, now is the time to speak up. Because the libertarianism is broken under these definitions. You'd need to start again and:

 

(a) define aggression

(b) define evil

 

and then, if "evil" and its opposite, "good", are just opposite sides of morality, then tell me what morality is! What it is to be moral and not just logical; the entity or measure that gives good and evil some meaning.

 

So no, saying “the answer is in my 2^nd post” is not sufficient. There are no answers there, because that post contains the definitions that I gave, and I pointed out that they are boil down to nothing more than a subjective system. If you disagree with the system being subjective, then explain how morality as desire, and good as want and evil as unwant, is not subjective. Failing that, present the real definitions that you've been hiding all this time.

 

 

On logical contradiction and the scope of the issues

 

 

You say that I am ignoring the “scope of the issues”, and that one person is committing an action and another is the recipient of that action.

 

The problem is, you have consistently failed to tell me what moral means and therefore how to determine what is evil. The only system I've heard of is that evil is unwant and good is want, which doesn't give any special status to the active or passive physical object. The subject of aggression is two people, and they each hold an opposing mental state, and that makes the aggression good and evil at the same time. It's a subjective system as it stands right now.

 

If the above definitions that I came up with are unsatisfactory, then you are yet to show or adopt any definitions. I am not ignoring the scope. I know that one person wants the action to take place, and one person does not want the action to take place. What I do not know is what you think “moral” means. Therefore, I do not know what you think evil means. You do not define your terms, I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

 

On skipping ahead to the “meat of the matter”

 

 

All of this is totally meaningless until you reveal what you mean by good and evil. Yet, you haven’t successfully defined those terms, and you never will until you explain the term “moral” in a way that doesn't result in a subjective mess. I am still waiting after all this time.

 

 

I don't understand why you think the wants of the initiator aren’t relevant, when the want of the initiator are inherent to something being evil. You say that we don’t need to worry about the initiator, because we only need to check if one party didn't consent.

 

All right, let me walk down that path:

 

Herakles wants to punch Theseus in the face. Theseus unwants to be punched in the face.

 

We look, and... yes, there it is, Theseus unwanted to be punched! Therefore… the act is evil!

 

So evil is unwant, morality is a term referring to what people unwant! Oh no, the opposite of evil would be want… and Herakles wanted! So I guess it’s good! Now we’re in a mess, and it’s all because you refuse to share the inner mysteries of libertarian morality.

 

 

On subjectivity

 

I have a grasp on objective and subjective. Do you know why? It’s because I actually sought to define the terms. Objective is something that is independent of our particular feelings, and subjective is the opposite.

 

It’s you who has to understand what is going on here. A person deciding to have sex involves a subjective process. It is dependent on the individual forming a particular mental state, you cannot take the individual out of it. All of these wants and unwants are subjective in their creation, they're not pre-determined. Or are you saying that everything is pre-determined and there is no agency, that we are strictly atoms moving in a pre-ordained pattern with no possibility of divergence or agency, and everything past, present, and future is objective? That I could successfully posit that a week from now you are going to want to kick a football, and even if I told you and you changed your mind to scorn me, you would inexorably want to kick the ball when the time came?

 

If that is what you are saying, then what do you think humans are, and what is agency? The definitions need to be totally revisited, because you said and evil is bad, bad is unwant, morality deals with good and bad behaviour... so morality is desire. But what does desire mean in this pre-ordained, materialist vision?

 

Because, so long as we are talking about desire, The NAP is only objective because we are talking about the past. The mental state was formed, and that it was held is an objective fact. The person felt like battering Theseus, Theseus felt like he unwanted to be battered. The process is subjective, but it’s objective that it occurred.

 

As for ice-cream, it can be a point of objective truth that ice-cream is the best food. You just have to define best, first. The reason it doesn’t work in your mind is because you’re probably thinking “best” as a question of desire which… as illustrated above… is subjective.

 

 

It would be interested to hear an account of what he actually believes and let us do an analysis of that because we might get to the bottom of where we disagree faster that way. The defence of the NAP is just as much in the incoherence and lack of universality or objectivity in other moral systems than it is about it's own strength, it's not just that the NAP meets these standards but that everything else we've seen simply fails.

 

I have a nasty feeling this is a case of nihilism or something similar, where the response seems to be a stubborn refusal of everything, the impression that I get (which may be inaccurate) is that we could argue this backwards until we're fundamentally disagreeing on metaphysics and ontological principles which I have no intention to do. It's very easy to be lazy and just reject the validity of everything you read and simply keep rolling the conversation backwards to more and more basic principles, or get lost in a daze of interpretations of every single word, the ballooning in size of the conversation seems to be evidence of this.

 

I'm not a relativist, I'll tell you that much. I do find it positively shocking that people who declare that there really is an objective moral rule are unwilling to define what morality is. It blows my mind that anyone would think I'm a nihilist or being lazy here; I am literally fighting tooth and nail to get people to define their terms and show the working that allowed them to conclude that there is an objective moral rule that serves as the wellspring of libertarianism.

 

As far as nasty feelings are concerned, I'm sensing that people here are totally unwilling or unable to explain morality. The ballooning in the size of the conversation is a direct result of people introducing new terms and requirements while simultaneously refusing to explain anything. None of you will start from first principles or give definitions for essential terms.

 

It suggests to me that libertarianism lacks a sound moral foundation. Following that conclusion, the practical objections alone really do constitute a deathblow.

 

Indeed I sensed this tendency of regressing to ontological infinity very early in the discussion. It is very easy to start sophistry with "but you can't prove objective reality exists" or so diatribe like that. The very fact that you can construct sentences with disbelief and skepticism of a theory is not proof that the theory isn't true, and that's something a lot of people don't get. "Look at me, I don't believe in the NAP, therefore it is wrong!".

 

Where have I said "you can't prove objective reality exists"? Where? Point to it. Quote it.

 

Or better yet, step up to the wicket and give me something of substance. It's a shame that we've been going back and forth for so long, and still nobody can provide an explanation of the NAP as an objective rule of morality. You can't even tell me what UPB means. Libertarianism suffers daily on a practical level, and now it's being revealed that the fortress of morality has closed it's doors on the movement.

 

I'm starting to think that Libertarianism is just a power-play. The belief grants individuals supreme authority to declare good and evil within their own domain. I don't want to be taxed, so it's evil! I don't want you to regulate my behaviour, so it's evil! I don't want you to wake me up early, so it's evil! I don't want, I don't want, I don't want!

[DCLugi]

"So, for your sister, you would want her to fight her best against the sexual assault, and do her best to commit sexual assault on her attacker." I would also have to want the rapist to rape her but I can't have it both ways.

[Will Torbald]

Or better yet, step up to the wicket and give me something of substance. It's a shame that we've been going back and forth for so long, and still nobody can provide an explanation of the NAP as an objective rule of morality. You can't even tell me what UPB means. Libertarianism suffers daily on a practical level, and now it's being revealed that the fortress of morality has closed it's doors on the movement.

 

I'm starting to think that Libertarianism is just a power-play. The belief grants individuals supreme authority to declare good and evil within their own domain. I don't want to be taxed, so it's evil! I don't want you to regulate my behaviour, so it's evil! I don't want you to wake me up early, so it's evil! I don't want, I don't want, I don't want!

 

Because you already come with a conclusion and demand others to work for you, as in, give you that which is your responsibility to do I can't take you seriously on your demands. You poison the well, make opinions as if they were facts, and you're very rude. It is not my job to make you understand. Nor is it my job to give you the answer. It is your job to think without premeditated conclusions, and work from there. Since you do not subscribe to the NAP and continuously mock it and straw man to the nth degree to discredit it, I have to assume you are an aggressive person who has no intention of changing his ways. I cannot extend any courtesy to you that way. All the definitions you ask for are in the UPB book, so I don't have to give them again. It is your job to look it up. Here's a short summary of UPB if words in a book/computer screen are too difficult for you:

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

 

 

I'm not sure about the phrase "moral logical rule". The NAP is a principle. Sure, it COULD be referred to as a rule or even a law, but strictly speaking it's a principle.  

But if you want to use the term "Moral logical rules" to describe the NAP then it's a moral logical rule (as opposed to an amoral logical rule") because it's in the realm of morality. If it was scientific principle then it you might describe it as a scientific logical rule. 

 

I did not say it was an objective moral "system". I'm not necessarily objecting to this description but please be careful when adding things like this. The NAP is a principle. A principle that says that aggression is morally wrong.

 

"Looking at this, the definitions have not been presented because ultimately it leads back into the impenetrable mystery that is your notion of morality."

 

 

There's no "impenetrable mystery". I've made an strong effort to be as clear, plain spoken and UN-mysterious as I possibly can. What an insult it is to dismiss my arguments as "impenetrable mystery that is your notion of morality". 

 

"So, please, after all this back and forth, please define wrong and moral so that I can finally understand what makes the NAP an objective moral rule."

 

Wrong refers to those moral theories / propositions / justifications / rules, etc that fail the test of logical consistency. By "moral" I assume you are referring to it in the sense of - "it is MORAL to give to charity, etc". That would be just a synonym for "good". 

 

You can keep maintaining that I've failed to define my terms but I will keep pointing out that you are demonstrably wrong. Either tell how my definitions are not valid or accept them. Do not tell me yet again that I've failed to provide you with definitions. 

 

"This exercise is pointless because I’m free to define moral how I want, because you still haven’t told me what it means (see above)."

 

Use "moral" in a sentence so as I can know what you're talking about. Also, please show a sentence were I used "moral" in that sense. Quote it.  I have to know what sense you are using the word "moral" in order to define it or even know if I need to define it.

 

"Moral" broadly refers to principles of right and wrong behavior, right? What is it YOU'RE talking about? 

 

How am I using NEW definitions for "objective" and "valid"? Please demonstrate.

 

Maybe some arbitrary things CAN be valid but in the context on morality the things I mention can't. I've already explained why. I took your arbitrary declaration that rape is morally right (one ought to rape) and showed how such declarations are not valid. If you are putting forward a moral rule / justification, etc then it can't just be arbitrary because the the opposite could equally be asserted. The declarations of "one ought to rape because god said so" and "one ought NOT rape because god said so" cannot both be correct because they are contradictory. IOW the rules are not valid. They're just arbitrary subjective statements; no more valid than saying "rape is right because ofdfoikndgfngdf"

 

"

Objective is independent from human opinion; yet now this rule-creation that occurred regardless of human opinion… is not objective anymore?"

 

I don't know what this means. Why are the ellipses there? 

"What happens to all the other rules he created, I guess logic is invalid now, too. As for a standard to show right and wrong… I guess all of reality is now ultimately subjective. After all, there is no standard outside existence to show existence is right or wrong. Luckily, in my system I posited what was right, so there is an internal standard.

In fact, now you create a new problem.  I really want to hear you define arbitrary, objective, and valid so that your latest statements make sense, but I can’t resist moving forward just a little. The use of the NAP relies on the subjective decisions of the actors within any given example. We say their subjective decision objectively occurred, hence we can say the system is in some sense objective, but now we say that we cannot use god’s crafting of a rule? Oh dear."

 

What are you talking about? I don't know how to respond to this rambling. The only part I understand is your request that I define "arbitrary, objective, and valid". Well the dictionary definitions will suffice. 

"So, as I explained, rape consists of two mental states:

 Wanting to sexually penetrate another

Unwanting to be sexually penetrated"

 

No, I already refuted this. I want to sexual penetrate others who do not want to be penetrated all the time but that mental state is not anything to do with rape. 

As for punching someone in the back of the head, unless you have some consent, there's a reasonable expectation that the person does not want it. I guess you MIGHT get lucky and coincidentally punch someone who happened to really want it but that's irrelevant. 

Rape is forcing sex on someone. The victim by definition does not want it. If they wanted it it would not be rape. FFS.

 Rapist = Forces sex on someone. Rape victim = does not want the sex that is being forced on them. Get it? 

 

A rule that says it is right to rape is not valid because it can't be followed. It's like a rule that says "thou shalt steal". With every "stealing" there is necessarily a "stolen from". So in order to follow the rule one would have to want (BECAUSE THEY WANT TO FOLLOW THE RULE) to steal and want  to be stolen from. But it is not logically possible to want to be stolen from. It's an illogical rule when applied to reality. Therefore it's not a valid moral rule. It's the same with rape. 

You have not met my challenge or even given an answer I haven't heard many times before from most others. You need to provide a valid moral justification for rape. All you did was say "God says rape is good". That's utterly retarded. 

 

"how the NAP is an objective rule of morality that we ought to follow"

 

Follow it or don't follow it. If you violate it you will be wrong and as such unable to justify your actions. It's like asking "I want someone, anyone to explain how the scientific method is an objective rule of science we ought to follow". Follow it or don't follow it but if you don't you'll be wrong.

You ask why I think everyone should be able to follow the moral rule. That's because if you can't follow the rule then it's not a valid rule is it? If I make moral rule that says "everyone should have daily sex and be permanently celibate" then people can't possibly follow the rule. It's not a valid rule.

If as you claim you think your rules meet my standard (even though you claim not to understand my standard because I've apparently failed to define my terms) then you don't understand my standard.

 

You say you accepted his invitation with multiple posts on this forum. That's pretty strange because your profile says you've only been here since December. So I  assume this is a new account you've opened, right? Could you link me to your other account and your attempt to contact on the forum and I'll try to help?

Also did you go to the call-in show page? 

 

I don't care that you are flabbergasted that I would dare ask why you ask ME to define "good". I gave you a reason. Don't give me some nonsense about me asking you to define morality just because I ask why I have to define "good". That's a red herring. I kept the terms simple and did not use the words "good" or "evil". You brought them in and it was tiresome for me to have to define it when I didn't even know in what sense you were using it in. I politely asked you what you meant and also why I HAD to define it, given that it was YOU who kept using it. 

 

I didn't ask you to play any game and I defined my terms. How are you being "shit on"? I've been nothing but polite. How do I come up with "a new word" every time you "pounce"? "Pounce"? Really? WTF are you talking about? Why do you feel the need to "pounce"? 

 

 

"Someone needs to (a) define the terms and (b) proceed from first principles. If nobody can do that, then Libertarianism must offer itself up at the altar of practical considerations."

 

LOL. Really, we MUST? Is that a moral rule or something? It's often the case that the people who fight most strongly agianst UPB are also the most adamant when it comes to telling people what they OUGHT to do.

 

Sorry but I've defined my terms clearly AND argued from first principles. 

Moral rules/ justifications / theories that do not pass the test of logical consistency are not valid.  Violations of the nap do not pass such a test and so cannot be morally justified. Rape, murder, assault and theft cannot be morally justified. Until you come up with a valid justification for such violations then thatt's an objective fact.

[Lykourgos]

"So, for your sister, you would want her to fight her best against the sexual assault, and do her best to commit sexual assault on her attacker." I would also have to want the rapist to rape her but I can't have it both ways.

 

No, you are adding a step and requiring that people want specific physical acts to occur, rather than wanting people to be good. "Being good" would be to embody rape, because rape is the good. That consists of holding two mental states, and acting accordingly. The physical conclusion that transpires is irrelevant to morality, because we're judging moral actors rather than charting physical objects and the paths they move along.

 

If you want the extra step of requiring that all people be able to want all possible physical events to transpire, then support that claim. Nobody has done so yet. In fact, such a requirement would destroy all moral rules. If you place a hundred people in a room, how would an attacker choose a victim? There are a 99 potential "good acts" under your (as of yet unsupported) model, but he must necessarily reject some to choose others. Hence he would necessarily reject the good despite knowing it to be the good. It's a product of being a human being; actually the idea that we need to be capable of being perfectly good is another unsupported notion.

[Will Torbald]

the idea that we need to be capable of being perfectly good is another unsupported notion.

 

If you do not accept the idea that man is capable of being perfectly moral, then you cannot have an objective and universal standard of morality. To call it an "unsupported notion" is dishonest in the debate you're having. Without universality, ethics is just an opinion. If your moral theory is that humans can never be moral, you are including yourself in your immorality, at which point why should anyone listen to you if you're evil? Or why should you instruct people in proper behavior if they can never be good? Any theory that posits the impossibility of morality is logically inconsistent.

[Frosty]

 

On objective and universal

 

You say you object to definition 1)a), but I think you meant to write 1)b), correct? That makes more sense, and you specifically mention ice-cream, so I’m pretty sure you meant 1)b). If so, I now understand what you mean by universal. It seems true by definition, and useful in the sense of correcting someone’s mistaken judgment:

 

Theseus: “this sword will not move when I release it!”

Herakles: “no, gravity is universal to physical substance, so it will exert force on your sword and cause it to move”.

 

Anyway, moving on. It seems like we agree with gravity and 1+1=2 and all that good stuff; they are universal by definition because they apply to everything in the scope we give them. 1+1=2 is different from gravity in the sense that it is also a demonstration rather than the name of the principle, but at any rate the system is universal by its definition.

 

 

On moral principles

 

“Objective truth and universal truth are similar but not synonymous, they're both required in a moral principle for it to be logically coherent and internally consistent.”

 

How can an objective moral principle not be universal? I thought we just concluded that the principles are universal by definition. I couldn’t tell you an objective moral principle that isn’t universal.

 

When you say “logically coherent” you mean the same thing as “internally consistent”, right? As in, it has to be valid? If so, sure, a valid system has to be valid. A lot of this stuff seems to be repetitive, but I guess you double up because you had trouble with someone else at some other time. Maybe it’s like saying “last will and testament”, and “peace and quiet”, or something.

 

Anyway, point is, I agree that if a moral principle is to be valid then it has to be valid. I also agree that objective moral principles have to universal because these are all universal by definition.

 

 

On definition of rape

 

No, “sexual penetration without consent by accident”, without anything else, is not rape in any jurisdiction I’m familiar with. If you have a new definition for rape, then go ahead and give it to me, but unless it’s statutory rape then each element requires a certain mental state. You’ll forgive me if I don’t trust journos to give me an accurate account of a criminal case; just cut to the chase and give me the statute.

 

Or, better yet, give me your specific definition of rape that you want me to use. Not that I really see how defining and designing a valid but unsound moral rule proves the system of morality that allegedly results in libertarianism.

 

As for whether the NAP applies to accidental penetration… it applies in the sense that it applies to all people. It wouldn’t apply in the sense that there would be no moral judgment regarding the actor in this instance because he acted accidentally. There was no initiation of aggression. Unless you have a new definition of aggression to offer, too.

 

 

On aggression being evil

 

Excellent, you have started to work through the steps.

 

You say that “aggression is evil” is reasoned from first principles. Then, you tell me you have given an account of this in your 2^nd post. Fantastic; here’s what I’ll try to find in your 2^nd post:

 

(A) What aggression is.

and

(B) What evil is.

 

So, let's go back… oh dear. You didn't give a definition for aggression, you just said you liked mine: "force or deceit unwanted by the subject". I point out in that same post, and many subsequent posts, that every act of aggression had two subjects and one wants and the other wants, so the system falls apart.

 

Moving on to your definition for evil...

 

The definition for evil is that it’s synonymous with bad. Bad is... ""bad" is just something which is unwanted or undesirable"

 

So in a roundabout way you reached the ultimate goal of describing morality, which is...

Desire. Want being good, unwant being evil.

 

The entire system, as indicated in the post that you quoted on the other page, falls apart because an act of aggression is both wanted and unwanted by the subject. Wanted and unwanted, as you'll recall, are good and evil.

 

So the system collapses.

 

If evil means something else, if morality is something different than desire, now is the time to speak up. Because the libertarianism is broken under these definitions. You'd need to start again and:

 

(a) define aggression

(b) define evil

 

and then, if "evil" and its opposite, "good", are just opposite sides of morality, then tell me what morality is! What it is to be moral and not just logical; the entity or measure that gives good and evil some meaning.

 

So no, saying “the answer is in my 2^nd post” is not sufficient. There are no answers there, because that post contains the definitions that I gave, and I pointed out that they are boil down to nothing more than a subjective system. If you disagree with the system being subjective, then explain how morality as desire, and good as want and evil as unwant, is not subjective. Failing that, present the real definitions that you've been hiding all this time.

 

 

On logical contradiction and the scope of the issues

 

 

You say that I am ignoring the “scope of the issues”, and that one person is committing an action and another is the recipient of that action.

 

The problem is, you have consistently failed to tell me what moral means and therefore how to determine what is evil. The only system I've heard of is that evil is unwant and good is want, which doesn't give any special status to the active or passive physical object. The subject of aggression is two people, and they each hold an opposing mental state, and that makes the aggression good and evil at the same time. It's a subjective system as it stands right now.

 

If the above definitions that I came up with are unsatisfactory, then you are yet to show or adopt any definitions. I am not ignoring the scope. I know that one person wants the action to take place, and one person does not want the action to take place. What I do not know is what you think “moral” means. Therefore, I do not know what you think evil means. You do not define your terms, I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

 

On skipping ahead to the “meat of the matter”

 

 

All of this is totally meaningless until you reveal what you mean by good and evil. Yet, you haven’t successfully defined those terms, and you never will until you explain the term “moral” in a way that doesn't result in a subjective mess. I am still waiting after all this time.

 

 

I don't understand why you think the wants of the initiator aren’t relevant, when the want of the initiator are inherent to something being evil. You say that we don’t need to worry about the initiator, because we only need to check if one party didn't consent.

 

All right, let me walk down that path:

 

Herakles wants to punch Theseus in the face. Theseus unwants to be punched in the face.

 

We look, and... yes, there it is, Theseus unwanted to be punched! Therefore… the act is evil!

 

So evil is unwant, morality is a term referring to what people unwant! Oh no, the opposite of evil would be want… and Herakles wanted! So I guess it’s good! Now we’re in a mess, and it’s all because you refuse to share the inner mysteries of libertarian morality.

 

 

On subjectivity

 

I have a grasp on objective and subjective. Do you know why? It’s because I actually sought to define the terms. Objective is something that is independent of our particular feelings, and subjective is the opposite.

 

It’s you who has to understand what is going on here. A person deciding to have sex involves a subjective process. It is dependent on the individual forming a particular mental state, you cannot take the individual out of it. All of these wants and unwants are subjective in their creation, they're not pre-determined. Or are you saying that everything is pre-determined and there is no agency, that we are strictly atoms moving in a pre-ordained pattern with no possibility of divergence or agency, and everything past, present, and future is objective? That I could successfully posit that a week from now you are going to want to kick a football, and even if I told you and you changed your mind to scorn me, you would inexorably want to kick the ball when the time came?

 

If that is what you are saying, then what do you think humans are, and what is agency? The definitions need to be totally revisited, because you said and evil is bad, bad is unwant, morality deals with good and bad behaviour... so morality is desire. But what does desire mean in this pre-ordained, materialist vision?

 

Because, so long as we are talking about desire, The NAP is only objective because we are talking about the past. The mental state was formed, and that it was held is an objective fact. The person felt like battering Theseus, Theseus felt like he unwanted to be battered. The process is subjective, but it’s objective that it occurred.

 

As for ice-cream, it can be a point of objective truth that ice-cream is the best food. You just have to define best, first. The reason it doesn’t work in your mind is because you’re probably thinking “best” as a question of desire which… as illustrated above… is subjective.

 

I'm not a relativist, I'll tell you that much. I do find it positively shocking that people who declare that there really is an objective moral rule are unwilling to define what morality is. It blows my mind that anyone would think I'm a nihilist or being lazy here; I am literally fighting tooth and nail to get people to define their terms and show the working that allowed them to conclude that there is an objective moral rule that serves as the wellspring of libertarianism.

 

As far as nasty feelings are concerned, I'm sensing that people here are totally unwilling or unable to explain morality. The ballooning in the size of the conversation is a direct result of people introducing new terms and requirements while simultaneously refusing to explain anything. None of you will start from first principles or give definitions for essential terms.

 

It suggests to me that libertarianism lacks a sound moral foundation. Following that conclusion, the practical objections alone really do constitute a deathblow.

 

I'm going to skip over what we seemingly agree on because if we can't cut out the wheat from the chaff I'm going to have to abandon this conversation, it's become too bloated with irrelevance, we're getting too side tracked on issues which we may or may not agree on, but have no burden on the discussion of the NAP.

 

Yes, sorry I got mixed up, I meant 1)b), the rest we seem to agree on, universal is something that you can apply a modifier to, in order to give it scope, i.e universal within some constraint. Usually this modifier is inherent in the definition of what you're describing as universal, i.e gravity refers to matter and so gravitational forces are universal with respect to matter.

 

I've explained already why I double up on some things, I'm not explaining again and this is a distraction from where we fundamentally disagree and so is just more chaff. Keep these observations to yourself to shorten the dialogue please.

 

As for the definition of rape, I'll simply go by the google result as it seems reasonable:

 

Rape - Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration perpetrated against a person without that person's consent.

 

I don't really want to get side tracked with this issue because I don't think it's at the core of where we disagree either. Sure lot's of legal systems define it differently, some of which might excuse accidental rape (I've not studied law), but I don't agree that all legal systems are particularly moral with respect to the NAP, a large number of the laws we have are not consistent with the NAP and I consider immoral. I'm using the term rape not as a strict legal definition that changes from place to place, but in the general way that we all colloquially understand it, sex without consent.

 

Yes I did give a definition for aggression, it was contained in the definition of the NAP, specifically quoting myself here:

 

 

NAP (Non aggression principle) - is an ethical doctrine that states that aggression is wrong, aggression being defined as the initiation of physical force or fraud against persons or property, or the threat of the same.

 

Yes you've pointed out that every action has at least 2 subjects and what they want can differ, we can more or less assume someone taking an action wants to take that action, however you need to consider what the subject (victim) of the action wants.

 

Let's walk through it.

 

1) An act isn't aggression if there is consent to the action (i.e sex isn't rape if there's consent)

2) Consent is required by ALL parties affected by the actions, an action cannot be considered consensual if one of the parties doesn't consent.

3) Lack of consent of the victim means the act isn't consensual and therefore it can be considered aggression.

 

Yes, the basic reasoning could be sumarized as Desire = good/want. But what you seem to immediately forget is that this is with respect to interactions between moral agents, one moral agent acting on another. The desire is in the context is relevant to whoever is experiencing the effect of the action, it boggles my mind that anyone would need this explained in a verbose way.

 

The system does not fall apart when you consider what people want in context, moral actions exist between moral agents and you have to consider whom the action effects. I don't know why you're ignoring the fact that consent of actions (which differentiates aggression vs non aggression) requires the consent of everyone involved.

 

You're struggling with the objectiveness of desire and I think you're just getting confused. Whether any instance of an action is desirable is not something that has an objective truth, it's subjective depending on who the target of that action is. However the fact that in any one particular moral interaction is desired by the target of that action is indeed objective, that's an objective fact of reality that at the moment they either desire or do not desire the action, and if they do not consent to the action then it's considered aggression which makes the instance of that action immoral.

 

The a different instance of the same action with different moral actors with different desires could be perfectly moral, and the NAP accounts for that in the definitions of the words used.

 

You go on to talk about logical contradictions and scope, I've addressed that but I'll quickly re-iterate where your reasoning is wrong, and that's for an action to be considered moral it needs to be wanted by everyone involved, there's no contradiction here, if one person wants the action and the other person untwants it then the action is immoral because there's no consent to the action, for an action to be consensual everyone involved needs to be consenting.

 

You go on to re-iterate that I haven't defined things, I've defined everything I'm talking about, explicitly in most cases, go back and re-read my old post, the definitions are in there, you've accused me of missing them before and I'm specifically quoting where they've been defined.

 

We've now identified where we disagree, you seem to think that as long as one person wants an action then it's good even if the target of the action doesn't want it, I've offered a correct way of thinking about this which is that the morality of the action is judged based on the condition that all involved (or affected) want it, this creates a coherent system where analysis of the action by anyone will arrive at the same moral judgement making it universal, objective, internally consistent and coherent.

 

This will likely be my last big reply, my suggestion to you if you want to keep the discourse open with me is that you focus on the point of logic where we disagree specifically, I believe I've correctly identified where that is, I suspect you'll disagree with the logic presented, so lets focus there first, see if we can resolve that and if we can then we can move on to where else you disagree afterwards.

 

Preferably let's discuss consent first, and what it means for actions between individuals who want or don't want an action to occur. For what it's worth I agree with you, if your moral system relied on merely what an individual wanted then you'd end up with a contradictory world view where actions were both wanted or uwanted, but that's not how morality is constructed from the NAP, it considers the morality of the action as singular and objective and can be considered consensual if only everyone involved consents, that is a judgement that can be (at least in theory) be objectively made.

[DCLugi]

No, you are adding a step and requiring that people want specific physical acts to occur, rather than wanting people to be good. "Being good" would be to embody rape, because rape is the good. That consists of holding two mental states, and acting accordingly. The physical conclusion that transpires is irrelevant to morality, because we're judging moral actors rather than charting physical objects and the paths they move along.

 

If you want the extra step of requiring that all people be able to want all possible physical events to transpire, then support that claim. Nobody has done so yet. In fact, such a requirement would destroy all moral rules. If you place a hundred people in a room, how would an attacker choose a victim? There are a 99 potential "good acts" under your (as of yet unsupported) model, but he must necessarily reject some to choose others. Hence he would necessarily reject the good despite knowing it to be the good. It's a product of being a human being; actually the idea that we need to be capable of being perfectly good is another unsupported notion.

This is why it can't be moral. However it is possible for all people at all times to NOT rape, murder or steal. Universal moral claims apply to what you can't do. I am judging the actions not the states of mind. If someone desperately proclaims that they want to kill me but doesn't go through with it then nothing immoral has happened.

[Lykourgos]

If you do not accept the idea that man is capable of being perfectly moral...

 

Are you part of the debate now? I would really love to see what you think these terms mean and the steps you took to reach your conclusions.

 

Objective is independent from our individual feelings or opinion. Hmm, whether a man can be perfectly moral doesn't seem reliant on our feelings or opinion so... yep, seems objective.

 

Universal, according to Frosty, means to be applicable to everything within its domain; it's also true by definition for rules. Hmm, can a rule apply to its subject if the subject cannot perfectly obey it in every way all the time? Yep, that's entirely possible. Looks like it's universal, although we already determined that when we decided that these sorts of things are universal by definition.

 

Nice strawman, though, regarding immorality. Nobody said it’s impossible to be moral, only that we cannot achieve a “perfect score”. But let's pretend that it is somehow impossible to be at all moral: the morality I proposed is still objective and valid. You are only attacking the soundness, or otherwise using a hidden meaning for the term "moral".

 

I'm going to skip over what we seemingly agree on...

 

Good idea, let's keep it short and to the point. I'll immediately focus on the points you make rather than the fluff.

 

1. Steps you ask me to follow:

 

"1) An act isn't aggression if there is consent to the action (i.e sex isn't rape if there's consent)

2) Consent is required by ALL parties affected by the actions, an action cannot be considered consensual if one of the parties doesn't consent.

3) Lack of consent of the victim means the act isn't consensual and therefore it can be considered aggression."

 

Immediately, step one is wrong because one of the participants is consenting. See the definition of consent, which is also used in step 2 (requiring that all parties consent, therefore admitting one party may or may not consent). In an act of aggression, consent is present.

 

Please correct step 1 so that we may continue with the steps.

 

2. Your definition of morality is incomplete, quote:

 

"Yes, the basic reasoning could be sumarized as Desire = good/want. But what you seem to immediately forget is that this is with respect to interactions between moral agents, one moral agent acting on another. The desire is in the context is relevant to whoever is experiencing the effect of the action, it boggles my mind that anyone would need this explained in a verbose way."

 

So does "Desire = good/want", or not? There's clearly more to it, but it's not in the definition.

 

If there is a special rule that morality is only applicable to the unwanting party, then I am still waiting for you to define morality and the moral measure. The definition I had to draft for you does not include any basis for you to draw this new requirement. If you disagree with the definition, then draft a new one so that your conclusions follow from your proofs.

 

Furthermore, the definition does not account for time. Where is the moment of the desire accounted for in this morality? People change their mind about what they want and unwant. If time is left as a loose string, then things can switch from good to bad depending on the subjective whim of the participant.

 

3. You remain confused about objective and subjective, quote:

 

"You're struggling with the objectiveness of desire and I think you're just getting confused. Whether any instance of an action is desirable is not something that has an objective truth, it's subjective depending on who the target of that action is. However the fact that in any one particular moral interaction is desired by the target of that action is indeed objective, that's an objective fact of reality that at the moment they either desire or do not desire the action, and if they do not consent to the action then it's considered aggression which makes the instance of that action immoral."

 

The occurrence of a person forming a desire yesterday is an objective fact because the truth of the event is independent from human feelings. Its the truth that the event transpired that is objective.

 

The process of forming that desire is subjective, as it stems directly from human feelings. It's wholly dependent on the moral actor. The NAP is subjective morality not only because it would otherwise violate the principle of non-contradiction, but also because the formulation of good and evil is entirely dependent on human feelings. There is no independence, and for that reason we cannot say that a sex act tomorrow will be evil. Tomorrow, the individuals could become lovers; the measure of good or evil is entirely in the hands of human feelings and has no independence. Heck, until someone accounts for time in the definitions, we don't know if things will remain good or evil.

 

That's what makes it an appealing type of moral power-play. It allows an individual to put himself in a moral bubble and have subjective control to decide if other people are evil. "If this person kisses me it will be evil... now it will be good... now it's going to be evil... Now I'm feeling happy so it will be good again..." Other systems posit an objective foundation that these subjective decisions can rest upon (like the one I was made to invent), but that doesn't exist here. In the NAP, "man is the measure of all things".

 

 

 

This is why it can't be moral...

 

Are you saying, then, that you agree that good is not totally possible in the NAP? Isn't that the exact reason why you said the pro-rape rule would be broken in your physicalist moral view? Here's how I read your post:

 

1. You admit there is no good in physical occurrences, because otherwise people would need to reject the good.

2. Therefore, in your system "good" is non-existent, because you believe physical occurrences are the moral unit.

3. There is evil, because you think physical instances of rape are evil.

 

Yet, if the good is impossible to achieve, then you must reject the NAP. Because evil is an unwanted act, good is the opposite (wanted), and you require that it be possible that believers always want all good acts. The latter cannot occur, so the NAP succumbs to your own objection that is based on this mysterious rule you're imposing.

 

Anyway, if someone desperately proclaims they want to kill you, it can be the basis of assault and constitute an immoral physical act in your physicalist system. In my system, if he forms the mental state of wanting to kill you... well, my system was only about rape, because nobody told me to make any other rules.

[Will Torbald]

Nice strawman, though, regarding immorality. Nobody said it’s impossible to be moral, only that we cannot achieve a “perfect score”.

 

Are you actually trying to be wrong on purpose, or do you really not see how it is the same thing? If I can't get a 100 in a test, then the test is impossible to ace. If your morality is impossible to achieve, then it is unavoidable evil. If evil is unavoidable, there is no choice. If there is no choice, there is no morality. Thus morality without perfection is not morality.

[Lykourgos]

Are you actually trying to be wrong on purpose, or do you really not see how it is the same thing? If I can't get a 100 in a test, then the test is impossible to ace. If your morality is impossible to achieve, then it is unavoidable evil. If evil is unavoidable, there is no choice. If there is no choice, there is no morality. Thus morality without perfection is not morality.

 

Turn the question back on yourself. Are you saying that if you can't get 100% on a test, then you can't get any questions right? The comparison doesn't even work, though. You won't encounter every conceivable possibility in life, and I'm still waiting on that definition of morality that requires a perfect response to all possibilities at all times.

 

Again, though, I ask you: are you part of this debate? You haven't shown any definitions, and you won't show your working; you're just sitting in the peanut gallery tossing out baseless criticism. If you're not going to respond to my requests or my questions, and you're not going to explain yourself or your terms, then you've failed to justify the Libertarian assertions that form the basis of this thread.

[Will Torbald]

Turn the question back on yourself. Are you saying that if you can't get 100% on a test, then you can't get any questions right? The comparison doesn't even work, though. You won't encounter every conceivable possibility in life, and I'm still waiting on that definition of morality that requires a perfect response to all possibilities at all times.

 

 

I am saying that if the test is rigged to disallow a perfect score, it's not a valid test. You're the one who brought the "perfect score" comparison to begin with, and now you say it doesn't work. Without an analogy, any morality that has in itself the impossibility of being perfectly moral is not a valid theory.

[Lykourgos]

I am saying that if the test is rigged to disallow a perfect score, it's not a valid test. You're the one who brought the "perfect score" comparison to begin with, and now you say it doesn't work. Without an analogy, any morality that has in itself the impossibility of being perfectly moral is not a valid theory.

 

You still haven't even shown that morality is a test! You won't even define morality or what you mean by any of your terms! You are not an honest participant in this discussion; how can I properly consider your morality when you refuse to show the justification for your conclusions? You can't even attack my morality, because you are using your own secret definitions that you haven't established yet.

 

 

Long ago, there was a group of warriors who would start each fight by laying down on the ground. They would stay perfectly still until their opponent attacked, whereupon they'd counter and win. One day, these mighty warriors decided to launch an attack of their own. They marched right up to an enemy castle, and threw themselves onto the ground. Some people say their attack never truly began.

[Will Torbald]

You still haven't even shown that morality is a test! You won't even define morality or what you mean by any of your terms! You are not an honest participant in this discussion; how can I properly consider your morality when you refuse to show the justification for your conclusions? You can't even attack my morality, because you are using your own secret definitions that you haven't established yet.

 

 

Long ago, there was a group of warriors who would start each fight by laying down on the ground. They would stay perfectly still until their opponent attacked, whereupon they'd counter and win. One day, these mighty warriors decided to launch an attack of their own. They marched right up to an enemy castle, and threw themselves onto the ground. Some people say their attack never truly began.

 

I sent you homework in the form of UPB. I said that my definitions are the UPB definitions of morality, which you already claim to have read. It's not a secret. Morality is the subset of UPB that deals with enforceable behavior. The NAP is a principle that describes that only the defense of property rights is an appropriate use of force. The warriors in your example marched into the private property of the castle owner which already is a violation of property rights. If the warriors had been invited into the castle properly, and thrown themselves to the ground, then the owners have all the right to remove the warriors from the castle by force if they declare an attack on the castle since the warriors are initiating force.

[Lykourgos]

I sent you homework in the form of UPB. I said that my definitions are the UPB definitions of morality, which you already claim to have read. It's not a secret. Morality is the subset of UPB that deals with enforceable behavior. The NAP is a principle that describes that only the defense of property rights is an appropriate use of force. The warriors in your example marched into the private property of the castle owner which already is a violation of property rights. If the warriors had been invited into the castle properly, and thrown themselves to the ground, then the owners have all the right to remove the warriors from the castle by force if they declare an attack on the castle since the warriors are initiating force.

 

Hah, you sent me homework? Thanks "teacher", but the answers don't appear to be contained within.

 

If you can't perceive the meaning behind the story of the warriors, then all is lost. Your attempt to support Libertarianism is nothing more than an abject failure.

[Will Torbald]

Hah, you sent me homework? Thanks "teacher", but the answers don't appear to be contained within.

 

If you can't perceive the meaning behind the story of the warriors, then all is lost. Your attempt to support Libertarianism is nothing more than an abject failure.

 

All I see is that you don't understand.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

All I see is that you don't understand.

 

 

 

 

Imagine being this guy. 

[Frosty]

Good, yes, we're at the fundamental point on which we disagree, or at least reason differently.

 

"1) An act isn't aggression if there is consent to the action (i.e sex isn't rape if there's consent)

2) Consent is required by ALL parties affected by the actions, an action cannot be considered consensual if one of the parties doesn't consent.

3) Lack of consent of the victim means the act isn't consensual and therefore it can be considered aggression."

 

Immediately, step one is wrong because one of the participants is consenting. See the definition of consent, which is also used in step 2 (requiring that all parties consent, therefore admitting one party may or may not consent). In an act of aggression, consent is present.

 

As I explained in my last post, whether an action is consensual or not is an objective fact of reality, and it requires that everyone involved/affected by that action consents to it taking place.

 

Logically it would be an AND statement, an action is consensual if person A AND person B both consent, it's not consensual if either of the parties withhold consent. If A punches B and B doesn't consent to being punched then it's irrelevant what A wants, the action isn't consensual, therefore it's aggression, therefore bad/wrong/immoral.

 

 

 

2. Your definition of morality is incomplete, quote:

 

"Yes, the basic reasoning could be sumarized as Desire = good/want. But what you seem to immediately forget is that this is with respect to interactions between moral agents, one moral agent acting on another. The desire is in the context is relevant to whoever is experiencing the effect of the action, it boggles my mind that anyone would need this explained in a verbose way."

 

So does "Desire = good/want", or not? There's clearly more to it, but it's not in the definition.

 

I did acknowledge that it's summarized as Desire = good/want, that was your simplified analysis of what I had said, and yes you're missing some nuance which I believe I've addressed already. But what it boils down to is the action has to be desired by the person/people that are on the receiving end of that action.

 

For example, If A punches B it's obvious that the desires of some 3rd party involved in the interaction (person C) don't matter. And I'd hope it would be obvious to everyone that the desires of A alone aren't sufficient to judge the morality of this action, I'm not sure if you just don't understand that, or if you're deliberately being obtuse to try and nitpick holes in the argument and draw this out, or if you genuinely disagree and hold that morality is subjective and so as long as person A thinks its moral to punch person B that it's morally good? Could you maybe clarify your position here.

 

 

 

If there is a special rule that morality is only applicable to the unwanting party, then I am still waiting for you to define morality and the moral measure. The definition I had to draft for you does not include any basis for you to draw this new requirement. If you disagree with the definition, then draft a new one so that your conclusions follow from your proofs.

 

No, sorry I suspect you're merely here to try and claim some victory based on a technicality such as the explanation not being verbose enough, rather than attempting to genuinely understand other peoples positions. This kind of almost autistic "i understand but you've got to write it all down again formally including all prior assumptions before I'll concede it's correct" is just a waste of our time. It strains credulity that you now don't understand my position and so either you agree with the reasoning in which case great, or you disagree and think either there's errors in the logic or assumptions in which case let's just discuss the point where we disagree and see if we can resolve the issue.

 

Presumably you don't agree with this issue on consent? So for example you'd agree with the statement that it's OK to punch someone, as long as you consent to your own action, that what the victim desires is irrelevant?

[Will Torbald]

Imagine being this guy.

Yeah, that's a grim picture. Child neglect is the worst.

[Lykourgos]

Good, yes, we're at the fundamental point on which we disagree, or at least reason differently.

 

Ahh, so it is possible to break quotes into different boxes. I can do it on other forums, but this one was giving me trouble. I found the button, though, so here we go:

 

 

As I explained in my last post, whether an action is consensual or not is an objective fact of reality, and it requires that everyone involved/affected by that action consents to it taking place.

 

Logically it would be an AND statement, an action is consensual if person A AND person B both consent, it's not consensual if either of the parties withhold consent. If A punches B and B doesn't consent to being punched then it's irrelevant what A wants, the action isn't consensual, therefore it's aggression, therefore bad/wrong/immoral.

 

 

The explanation is contradictory and doesn't account for time. Simple explanation of my objection:

In your steps, "consent" is used in two different ways:

 

(A) A person's want or agreement in relation to an action. Desire.

(B) A property that is present when all the people involved in an action agree or want it to occur. Concord.

 

In step 1 you say that aggression is an act without consent, so I assume you are using definition B. In step two, however, you say that individuals can consent, so you must have changed to definition A. So I stopped the test.

 

Why is this important? Because you are integrating consent into the measure of morality.

 

 

I did acknowledge that it's summarized as Desire = good/want, that was your simplified analysis of what I had said, and yes you're missing some nuance which I believe I've addressed already. But what it boils down to is the action has to be desired by the person/people that are on the receiving end of that action.

 

For example, If A punches B it's obvious that the desires of some 3rd party involved in the interaction (person C) don't matter. And I'd hope it would be obvious to everyone that the desires of A alone aren't sufficient to judge the morality of this action, I'm not sure if you just don't understand that, or if you're deliberately being obtuse to try and nitpick holes in the argument and draw this out, or if you genuinely disagree and hold that morality is subjective and so as long as person A thinks its moral to punch person B that it's morally good? Could you maybe clarify your position here.

 

So am I right in understanding evil to be, "unwant of a passive actor"? I just want to know what evil means to you, rather than be told special rules that don't follow from the underlying account.

 

It has been difficult to say what is evil, because I have not been told what evil means. I just knew it was essentially "unwant", and later a special rule was added without the term "evil" being re-defined to justify the addition. I will say that under the old system, it is obvious that the desires of A alone aren't sufficient to judge the morality. Further, it is equally obvious that the desires of B alone are not sufficient to judge the morality. Personally speaking, I believe the moral system you are explaining is thoroughly subjective, but I'm still working through it with you.

 

Now I think we have the new definition, "unwant of a passive actor", please confirm if this is the case.

 

 

No, sorry I suspect you're merely here to try and claim some victory based on a technicality such as the explanation not being verbose enough, rather than attempting to genuinely understand other peoples positions. This kind of almost autistic "i understand but you've got to write it all down again formally including all prior assumptions before I'll concede it's correct" is just a waste of our time. It strains credulity that you now don't understand my position and so either you agree with the reasoning in which case great, or you disagree and think either there's errors in the logic or assumptions in which case let's just discuss the point where we disagree and see if we can resolve the issue.

 

Presumably you don't agree with this issue on consent? So for example you'd agree with the statement that it's OK to punch someone, as long as you consent to your own action, that what the victim desires is irrelevant?

 

 

I'm here because I think the NAP is a subjective rule, and that people who promote it are wrong. I believe that the attempts to defend it are riddled with a confusing mix of cross-definitions, baseless rules, and logical errors. Those conclusions are the result of genuinely trying to understand peoples' positions. The approach I have taken in this thread is to highlight a particular argument made by libertarians like Molyneux, and ask to be shown the basis. That necessarily involves libertarians explaining what they mean when they call something evil, or claim to have discovered an objective rule of morality.

 

Nobody gave me a consistent account of consent and how it is contained in evil. I know that evil is no longer unwant, but we're working on the next step. The special rule about consent/concord is enough for me to come up with a few new accounts of evil, but I want a libertarian to explain what they think it means. I can rattle off possibilities, but this thread would be longer and ultimately I believe they're all false.

 

Finally, no, I don't think it's OK to do whatever you want to do. I'm not trying to endorse libertarian morality, though. I'm here to see if someone can recover it from the scrapheap of subjective moral power-plays.

 

All I see is that you don't understand.

 

Imagine being this guy. 

 

Yeah, that's a grim picture. Child neglect is the worst.

 

Suck it up, guys.

[Will Torbald]

I'm here because I think the NAP is a subjective rule

 

I think the confusion you have with subjective and objective rules is that you want an objective rule that bans "actions" like "killing". But the NAP doesn't ban "actions". It bans "interactions" and that is much more nuanced an complicated than a rule that says "killing is bad" because it is not the "killing" that is bad, it's the "murder" that is bad. Before you keep complaining that people aren't explaining things to you when they have, you need to understand this difference.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

I'm here because I think the NAP is a subjective rule, and that people who promote it are wrong. 

 

All rules are subjective from a certain point of view. The rules around valid reasoning or science are subjective too but if you violate them within their respective realms you'll be wrong. 

 

  

I believe that the attempts to defend it are riddled with a confusing mix of cross-definitions, baseless rules, and logical errors.

 

I would say that's because you don't understand it but I believe it's because your initial position of someone who was just intellectually curious was bogus and you're here to throw cold water on and stir up confusion around the NAP in an attempt to relieve your anxiety about it. 

The NAP is simple. If you violate it you'll be unable to logically justify your behavior. The fact you couldn't even come up with a justification for rape that didn't involve invoking magic shows that. 

 

BTW what is a "cross-definition" and a "baseless rule"? 

 

Suck it up, guys.

 

Suck what up? 

 

I assume you're probably not going to respond to my previous rebuttal but could you link to your previous account and the requests you made to get on the call-in show?

[Guest Gee]

Subjective scrapheap is a bit rich, UPB doesn't deal with normative judgement but with positive propositions.

 

I want to rape, rape is good for me, it would be valuable for me to rape someone is normative.

 

It is universally preferable behavior to rape is the positive proposition.

 

Bang it through the UPB framework and it produces out an answer, problem solved.

 

Best to think of UPB as a framework, or a functional if your mathematically minded.

[Lykourgos]

All rules are subjective from a certain point of view. The rules around valid reasoning or science are subjective too but if you violate them within their respective realms you'll be wrong. 

 

I would say that's because you don't understand it but I believe it's because your initial position of someone who was just intellectually curious was bogus and you're here to throw cold water on and stir up confusion around the NAP in an attempt to relieve your anxiety about it. 

The NAP is simple. If you violate it you'll be unable to logically justify your behavior. The fact you couldn't even come up with a justification for rape that didn't involve invoking magic shows that. 

 

BTW what is a "cross-definition" and a "baseless rule"?

 

Just because I don't believe in Libertarianism doesn't mean that I came here in bad faith. I invoked magic, so to speak, because I was answering an absurd challenge. I did so successfully, positing an objective and valid rule.

 

Baseless rules are those that are asserted without the supporting facts or definitions that they're being drawn from. Cross definitions is the way I describe how texts like the UPB quietly assign multiple definitions to certain words, and then quietly cross back and forth between them throughout the text or argument. This results in invalid conclusions, which are used in forming further invalid conclusions, and the whole system is an utter disaster.

 

If someone loves the UPB and thinks the text solves all the problems in this thread, then I welcome them to come and apply it to the issue we're discussing. If they don't want to use UPB, that's fine, too. What's not acceptable is acting like Torbald and just saying "UPB!" without any real effort or explanation.

 

 

Suck what up? 

 

I assume you're probably not going to respond to my previous rebuttal but could you link to your previous account and the requests you made to get on the call-in show?

 

I'm telling you to cut the childish attitude and not dump one-line insults. I'll respond to your post, I simply didn't see it. This forum has a weird post delay and I'm responding to multiple people.

 

I only have one account on this forum. Here is the thread where I was asked to call in to the show:

 

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/46079-a-brief-trip-around-the-word-with-stephen-molyneux/

 

I e-mailed a fortnight or so ago. I'm sure he's just busy, but in the meantime you guys are the only ones responding.

 

 

Anyway, I've seen your post now so I will respond:

 

 

I'm not sure about the phrase "moral logical rule". The NAP is a principle. Sure, it COULD be referred to as a rule or even a law, but strictly speaking it's a principle.  

But if you want to use the term "Moral logical rules" to describe the NAP then it's a moral logical rule (as opposed to an amoral logical rule") because it's in the realm of morality. If it was scientific principle then it you might describe it as a scientific logical rule. 

 

I did not say it was an objective moral "system". I'm not necessarily objecting to this description but please be careful when adding things like this. The NAP is a principle. A principle that says that aggression is morally wrong.

 

I'm looking for the justification for the claim that violations of the NAP are objectively evil, and therefore libertarianism ultimately survives any practical objection.  You're sure about it, you're not sure about it, at any rate the fundamental fact remains that someone needs to explain morality.

 

 

 

There's no "impenetrable mystery". I've made an strong effort to be as clear, plain spoken and UN-mysterious as I possibly can. What an insult it is to dismiss my arguments as "impenetrable mystery that is your notion of morality".

 

The moment you explain your notion of morality, it will no longer be an impenetrable mystery. Let's move on and see if that has been done:

 

 

 

Wrong refers to those moral theories / propositions / justifications / rules, etc that fail the test of logical consistency. By "moral" I assume you are referring to it in the sense of - "it is MORAL to give to charity, etc". That would be just a synonym for "good". 

 

You can keep maintaining that I've failed to define my terms but I will keep pointing out that you are demonstrably wrong. Either tell how my definitions are not valid or accept them. Do not tell me yet again that I've failed to provide you with definitions. 

 

Use "moral" in a sentence so as I can know what you're talking about. Also, please show a sentence were I used "moral" in that sense. Quote it.  I have to know what sense you are using the word "moral" in order to define it or even know if I need to define it.

 

"Moral" broadly refers to principles of right and wrong behavior, right? What is it YOU'RE talking about? 

I'm shaking my head here; it's for YOU to explain what moral means. You are telling me there is some sort of objective moral basis to libertarianism, after all. Yet, you still haven't done it, you just keep giving circular definitions. I've demonstrated it again and again using your own quotes. Look in this very post I am responding to:

 

"Wrong refers to those moral theories / propositions / justifications / rules, etc that fail the test of logical consistency."

 

Okay, great, wrong means internally invalid.

 

""Moral" broadly refers to principles of right and wrong behavior, right?"

 

What? Now wrong doesn't just mean internally invalid. It is a moral judgment passed on behaviour.

 

So what sort of judgment is it? Oh, a bad one. What does bad mean? oh bad is evil. What's evil? Oh it's wrong. But wrong's invalid. Or is it. The words go round and round without end.

 

Just cut it out and tell me the meaning behind your terms. What is this evil you are talking about, what is morality???

 

 

How am I using NEW definitions for "objective" and "valid"? Please demonstrate.

 

Maybe some arbitrary things CAN be valid but in the context on morality the things I mention can't. I've already explained why. I took your arbitrary declaration that rape is morally right (one ought to rape) and showed how such declarations are not valid. If you are putting forward a moral rule / justification, etc then it can't just be arbitrary because the the opposite could equally be asserted. The declarations of "one ought to rape because god said so" and "one ought NOT rape because god said so" cannot both be correct because they are contradictory. IOW the rules are not valid. They're just arbitrary subjective statements; no more valid than saying "rape is right because ofdfoikndgfngdf"

 

You are using new definitions because you drew these new requirements, and they are not rooted in the initial definitions.

 

You partially abandon one of your new requirements, but the rest of this is just repetitive. You clearly don't understand the idea of positing something that is objective and valid, as opposed to something that is objective, valid, and sound. I was asked to do the former, and I did it; the facts are assumed. You declaring the opposite of the rule is totally irrelevant; I don't care if god is real or not, but you screaming "god isn't real!" does not affect the logical validity or objectiveness of my invented morality.

 

Let me know if you need me to cut and paste the definitions of objective and valid.

 

 

No, I already refuted this. I want to sexual penetrate others who do not want to be penetrated all the time but that mental state is not anything to do with rape. 

As for punching someone in the back of the head, unless you have some consent, there's a reasonable expectation that the person does not want it. I guess you MIGHT get lucky and coincidentally punch someone who happened to really want it but that's irrelevant. 

Rape is forcing sex on someone. The victim by definition does not want it. If they wanted it it would not be rape. FFS.

 Rapist = Forces sex on someone. Rape victim = does not want the sex that is being forced on them. Get it? 

 

A rule that says it is right to rape is not valid because it can't be followed. It's like a rule that says "thou shalt steal". With every "stealing" there is necessarily a "stolen from". So in order to follow the rule one would have to want (BECAUSE THEY WANT TO FOLLOW THE RULE) to steal and want  to be stolen from. But it is not logically possible to want to be stolen from. It's an illogical rule when applied to reality. Therefore it's not a valid moral rule. It's the same with rape. 

You have not met my challenge or even given an answer I haven't heard many times before from most others. You need to provide a valid moral justification for rape. All you did was say "God says rape is good". That's utterly retarded.

 

Hahaha, "the mental state is not anything to do with rape", oh well if you say so, sir. Obviously I am being sarcastic; you're wrong and you aren't even making an argument.

 

You are wrong when you say "it's like a rule that says "thou shalt steal"." You are changing the words; "rape is good" is not "thou shalt rape". To be good in the first one, you would embody rape by adopting the two mental states. In the second one, you are being commanded to commit acts of rape.

 

You still haven't explained why morality requires that everyone be able to be perfectly good. At this point it is a baseless rule, and it will remain that way until you explain what you mean when you call something moral.

 

 

 

Follow it or don't follow it. If you violate it you will be wrong and as such unable to justify your actions. It's like asking "I want someone, anyone to explain how the scientific method is an objective rule of science we ought to follow". Follow it or don't follow it but if you don't you'll be wrong.

You ask why I think everyone should be able to follow the moral rule. That's because if you can't follow the rule then it's not a valid rule is it? If I make moral rule that says "everyone should have daily sex and be permanently celibate" then people can't possibly follow the rule. It's not a valid rule.

If as you claim you think your rules meet my standard (even though you claim not to understand my standard because I've apparently failed to define my terms) then you don't understand my standard.

 

You say you accepted his invitation with multiple posts on this forum. That's pretty strange because your profile says you've only been here since December. So I  assume this is a new account you've opened, right? Could you link me to your other account and your attempt to contact on the forum and I'll try to help?

Also did you go to the call-in show page? 

 

I don't care that you are flabbergasted that I would dare ask why you ask ME to define "good". I gave you a reason. Don't give me some nonsense about me asking you to define morality just because I ask why I have to define "good". That's a red herring. I kept the terms simple and did not use the words "good" or "evil". You brought them in and it was tiresome for me to have to define it when I didn't even know in what sense you were using it in. I politely asked you what you meant and also why I HAD to define it, given that it was YOU who kept using it. 

 

I didn't ask you to play any game and I defined my terms. How are you being "shit on"? I've been nothing but polite. How do I come up with "a new word" every time you "pounce"? "Pounce"? Really? WTF are you talking about? Why do you feel the need to "pounce"?

LOL. Really, we MUST? Is that a moral rule or something? It's often the case that the people who fight most strongly agianst UPB are also the most adamant when it comes to telling people what they OUGHT to do.

 

Sorry but I've defined my terms clearly AND argued from first principles. 

Moral rules/ justifications / theories that do not pass the test of logical consistency are not valid.  Violations of the nap do not pass such a test and so cannot be morally justified. Rape, murder, assault and theft cannot be morally justified. Until you come up with a valid justification for such violations then thatt's an objective fact.

 

 

 

"Everyone should have daily sex and be permanently celibate" is internally invalid, because it commands a person to have sex but never have sex. "rape is good", or even this "thou shalt rape" that you have just come up with, is not internally invalid because it does not command a person to rape but not rape. I hope you can understand how your compound command is not the same as the single command.

 

See above for the invitation to the call-in show.

 

I'm done defining terms for you guys. You have to define these terms, because you are taking the side that alleges there is this objective morality that protects libertarianism from being destroyed by purely practical objections.

 

At this point, I don't know who was the first person to ask me to make up a rule about rape. The whole exercise is pointless, rape is just a shock tactic, I did it, and it's detracting from the point of this thread.

 

 

 

Subjective scrapheap is a bit rich, UPB doesn't deal with normative judgement but with positive propositions.

 

I want to rape, rape is good for me, it would be valuable for me to rape someone is normative.

 

It is universally preferable behavior to rape is the positive proposition.

 

Bang it through the UPB framework and it produces out an answer, problem solved.

 

Best to think of UPB as a framework, or a functional if your mathematically minded.

 

Not sure where you're going with this. I'm asking people to support the idea that violating the NAP is objectively evil, and therefore libertarianism is protected from purely practical objections. The "rape is good" rule was a weird request from some people here, but if you want to use the "UPB" to attack my response, or prove the bit about the NAP, then please go ahead.

[Will Torbald]

I sincerely hope Stef doesn't waste his time with this person in a live show. This is ridiculous. Just watch any other debate on morality and UPB Stef has already done because he explains this already.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Your implication is that I believe you came here in bad faith because you don't believe in libertarianism. But that's not what I said.

There's nothing absurd about asking someone to moral justify something. Isn't that part of what attorneys do in court? You invoked magic because you cannot provide a logically consistent justification for violations of the NAP.

 

I provided all the supporting facts and definitions that my rules are being drawn from so how are my rules baseless? 

 

I can't speak for Torbald but I'm sure he has fallen victim to your persistent claims that no one is providing you definitions, explanations or making any effort. From a reading of your rebuttal-less "article" on UPB your inability to understand it is down to you, not others failure to explain it to you.  

 

What childish attitude you're talking about? I assume it differs from your own attitude so please provide me with an example of this attitude that I can't also find you doing.

 

Again, have you gone to the call in show page?  https://freedomainradio.com/callinshow/ Assuming you are not involved in some smear site or a known troll then I find it strange they've not gotten back to you. 

 

I'm looking for the justification for the claim that violations of the NAP are objectively evil

 

 

 

Didn't I already tell you several times that I did not use the term evil? Didn't I already explain why I used the term "wrong"? Do you just persist in the hope your opponent will become so frustrated they give up? 

 

The moment you explain your notion of morality, it will no longer be an impenetrable mystery.

 

 

 

It's being fully explained to you. Even if I'm completely wrong you cannot claim I've given no explanation. 

 

 

Okay, great, wrong means internally invalid.

 

No and I already said several times that it's not just initial internal consistency. Many moral rules sound consistent until you unpack them. The real test is do they remain consistent in practice? Because it's in practice were we see what behavior the rule / justification actually involves.

 

 

What? Now wrong doesn't just mean internally invalid. It is a moral judgment passed on behaviour.

 

 

 

The comment your responding to was made in the context of asking you what YOU meant by moral. I simply put forward the general notion of what is broadly and commonly meant by moral. Here you are deliberately (or stupidly) quoting it out of context to make it look like I was putting it forward as my definitive definition. What utter sophistry. 

 

 

Just cut it out and tell me the meaning behind your terms. What is this evil you are talking about, what is morality???

 

 You've already been told.   Evil is when someone knows something is wrong but does it anyway. Morality is a subset of UPB that concerns enforceable behavior.

 

 

You partially abandon one of your new requirements, but the rest of this is just repetitive. You clearly don't understand the idea of positing something that is objective and valid, as opposed to something that is objective, valid, and sound. I was asked to do the former, and I did it; the facts are assumed. You declaring the opposite of the rule is totally irrelevant; I don't care if god is real or not, but you screaming "god isn't real!" does not affect the logical validity or objectiveness of my invented morality.

 

You did not do what I asked. You tried but you failed to understand and only gave a rule that was at best maybe internally consistent. But like I said several times, it has to be externally consistent. That's is it has to be a justification that does not collapse into logical contradiction when applied. Soundness just refers to the premises being true. 

 

Declaring the opposite of the rule (which you seem to think is "god isn't real") IS relevant and I explained why. Arbitrary declarations are not valid moral rules or justifications because they are arbitrary. Person A: Rape is justified because God says. Person B: Rape is not justified because god says. If arbitrary declarations are valid then both person A and B are both making valid moral rules. But as both are logically contradictory they cannot be valid. See? You moral justification fails. All moral justifications for NAP violations fail.

 

I suspect you will continue to double down on your silly "but my justification was internally consistent" rebuttal despite the fact I keep rebutting it but I'm just going to keep correcting you until you at least acknowledge my argument. 

 

 Hahaha, "the mental state is not anything to do with rape", oh well if you say so, sir. Obviously I am being sarcastic; you're wrong and you aren't even making an argument.

 

You are wrong when you say "it's like a rule that says "thou shalt steal"." You are changing the words; "rape is good" is not "thou shalt rape". To be good in the first one, you would embody rape by adopting the two mental states. In the second one, you are being commanded to commit acts of rape.

 

You still haven't explained why morality requires that everyone be able to be perfectly good. At this point it is a baseless rule, and it will remain that way until you explain what you mean when you call something moral.

 

 

 

 

You misquoted me. I did not say "THE mental state is not anything to do with rape". I said "  I want to sexual penetrate others who do not want to be penetrated all the time but that mental state is not anything to do with rape. 

 

"Rape is good" is another way of saying "Thou shalt rape". How can you have read UPB and not understood this?

How does one "embody" rape? Rape is when you force sex on someone. Being raped is when someone is forcing sex on you. Stop saying "embody rape". It's nonsense.

 

I said nothing about everyone being able to be "perfectly good". You criticize me for supposedly using new definitions but then constantly rephrase my words with new phrases and definitions like "perfectly good". I didn't even use the word "good" in my initial argument, never mind PERFECTLY GOOD. 

I've explained what I mean when I call something moral. If there's something I call moral in some context then you are free to ask me to explain it. Everyone reading this thread can see it's been explained to you. What you need to do is provide a valid justification for rape. If you can do that then you have dis-proven my case. 

 

"Everyone should have daily sex and be permanently celibate" is internally invalid, because it commands a person to have sex but never have sex. "rape is good", or even this "thou shalt rape" that you have just come up with, is not internally invalid because it does not command a person to rape but not rape. I hope you can understand how your compound command is not the same as the single command.

 

 

 

Yeah, some rules are more obviously contradictory then others. The celibate / always have sex rule is obviously contradictory from the get go. A divine rule like "never obey my commands" is less so. The rape is good / thou shalt rape rule/ justification is only revealed to be logically contradictory when unpacked. Because moral rules have to be universal the "rape is good" rule is internally inconsistent (as rape breaks with universality). A moral statement is a statement of universally preferable behavior. Rape cannot be universally preferable behavior (for pretty obvious reasons).  So saying rape is good is the same as saying "one must prefer and not prefer rape simultaneously". 

But it doesn't matter that much because as I keep telling you it's not only strict internal consistency that's necessary. If a rule appears internally consistent but falls into contradiction in theoretical (or actual) practice then it's not a valid rule either. 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by YOU being "done defining terms for you guys". I'm not "you guys" so i don't know about the others. But I don't think I've asked you to define many terms at all. what's actually happened is that YOU have asked for definitions and when provided them you repeatedly claim none where provided and sometimes saying they are wrong (that supposedly were not provided). Again you're just making stuff up and anyone can look at my responses to see me providing definitions over and over. 

If you like we'll test this and I will cut and paste the instances of me having to explain and/or define stuff. You can do the same and we'll compare.

 

As for the first person to ask you to make a rule about rape I think you're referring to me. What I actually asked was that you provide a valid justification for rape. You still haven't done it. I don't know what you mean by "rape is just a shock tactic". If it bothers you (and I'm sure it does) you can use theft. Can you provide a valid justification for theft (one that doesn't collapse into logical contradiction)? It can be anything - To feed the poor - I want it - Because it's funny - I need to pay for my dying child's operation, etc. 

The point of this thread is that you wanted objective morality proved to you. I've just shown you that you cannot provide any moral justifications for violations of the NAP. They are all wrong. If no logical justifications of the NAP are possible then that means violations of the NAP cannot possibly be morally justified. It's objective. 

For what it's worth we can also show it in practice. Pick any violation of the NAP that exists and I can show how it is not morally justified.

[Guest Gee]

Not sure where you're going with this. I'm asking people to support the idea that violating the NAP is objectively evil, and therefore libertarianism is protected from purely practical objections. The "rape is good" rule was a weird request from some people here, but if you want to use the "UPB" to attack my response, or prove the bit about the NAP, then please go ahead.

 

Unfortunately I can not.

I, as I think everyone else here does, use the UPB to define what evil is. In fact we use it to define what ethics is. So because you've rejected UPB I can't help you.

 

edit. Rape is just a good example, it can provide a more intuitive understanding of UPB and I think is easier to solve. Like convenient numbers or initial conditions in a math/physics problem.