Non aggression principle

[Will Torbald]

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.

 

I found this funny when I read that I had fallen victim of his machinations. In a way I guess it's true, I did give up, but on another way it's those who did not give up who are victims as well. He's a parasite of your time, your mind, and most important of all- your attention. That's why I implied he had some form of neglect in his history. A person can't be this dense under healthy mental conditions. It's been explained ad nauseam and he will still mischaracterize, misquote, misrepresent, and regress to muh definitions. It's not a rational way of debating. I hope he isn't a victim himself of his own mental parasites making him think he is just asking a reasonable question, but then acting unreasonably. I have to judge his actions, not what he says. His actions simply scream pay attention to me.

[Lykourgos]

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.

 

I found this funny when I read that I had fallen victim of his machinations. In a way I guess it's true, I did give up, but on another way it's those who did not give up who are victims as well. He's a parasite of your time, your mind, and most important of all- your attention. That's why I implied he had some form of neglect in his history. A person can't be this dense under healthy mental conditions. It's been explained ad nauseam and he will still mischaracterize, misquote, misrepresent, and regress to muh definitions. It's not a rational way of debating. I hope he isn't a victim himself of his own mental parasites making him think he is just asking a reasonable question, but then acting unreasonably. I have to judge his actions, not what he says. His actions simply scream pay attention to me.

 

Well, you didn't give up so much as you never really tried. If you won't put any energy into examining your beliefs, then you'll never escape your current ignorance and misconceptions.

 

I hope Stef will follow up on the invitation I was given, but I'm not going to make a big deal of it. I sent an e-mail as requested, and wrote out two questions relating to that thread. It's been a fortnight now, though, so I've stopped thinking about that possibility.

 

 

 

 

 

Professional Teabagger: (not sure how to add a name to a quote box)

 

Seeing as it worked so well with Frosty, I'm going to cut out everything extraneous and petty. In terms of the discussion, I'll be very substantive and to the point. If you adopt a similar method, maybe this can be turned around and we can get on track like I am with Frosty.

 

If you think I cut out an important point, let me know.

 

 

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.

 

Yes, I have seen it. I sent an e-mail to that address, I posted in the thread, and I attempted to add the show on Skype. I haven't received a response to any of those three methods; as soon as I accepted the invitation, things went silent. However, I don't doubt that Stef and others are truly willing to discuss these issues with me, so it's probably just an issue of time and circumstances.

 

As for being a known troll or a member of a smear site, that's definitely not the case. I'm just someone who stumbled upon some youtube videos, read the UPB, and all this followed.

 

The way I see this ending is that I will work through this discussion with whoever participates, and then draft an article. I will have a final discussion on the merits of the article if people respond. The article won't be about individuals; I will just state the topic, list the various explanations, and then indicate why they are right or wrong. It shouldn't be too long, maybe 4 pages at most. Hopefully shorter.

 

 

 

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? ...

 

I am maintaining that "evil" is required because there is a judgement about violations of the NAP being morally wrong, rather than logically wrong.

 

I don't enjoy the way our thread of the discussion has progressed, either. I just want to understand how you draw this distinction:

 

logically wrong (invalid)

 

and

 

morally wrong (evil/bad/that which ought not to be).

 

When I understand that distinction, then I am closer to understanding the meaning and significance of Libertarians saying that, violations of the NAP are morally wrong. This is important because some Libertarians claim that, because violating the NAP is morally wrong, therefore Libertarianism is not susceptible to purely practical objections.

 

 

You did not do what I asked...

 

Do you wish to continue along this thread of the discussion? I do not believe it relates to the topic of the thread, but I will respond if you think it is important or otherwise want to discuss my invented morality.

 

What I hope to achieve in this thread is having Libertarians lay a foundation and explain their rule, rather than posit some account of morality that I don't personally believe in. Even though I continue to believe that I posited the rule successfully, and I have a response to your objections, the bottom line is that I don't believe the premises are sound and I don't think rape is morally good.

 

If it bothers you (and I'm sure it does) you can use theft

 

 

Well, theft is another can of worms, because we're going to get into a discussion of property laws. I think the best way to do it would be to discuss battery, because rape is just a particular type of battery.

 

Constantly typing out lines of text about rape is bothersome because it's not considered a pleasant or polite topic. Punching people isn't pleasant or polite, either, but it doesn't necessarily involve sexual violence and gender issues.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Unfortunately, nobody here will define the term "UPB", and the text gives multiple definitions. As for using rape in the test, I re-read that part of the UPB and found it to be riddled with errors. It was such a mess that I wrote a brief article to warn others.

[Guest Gee]

Unfortunately, nobody here will define the term "UPB", and the text gives multiple definitions. As for using rape in the test, I re-read that part of the UPB and found it to be riddled with errors. It was such a mess that I wrote a brief article to warn others.

 

Understandable but unavoidable. UPB has several meanings and such meanings are situational. I'm loathe to call it a problem but entropy is afflicted with the same characteristic of multiple meanings.

[Lykourgos]

Understandable but unavoidable. UPB has several meanings and such meanings are situational. I'm loathe to call it a problem but entropy is afflicted with the same characteristic of multiple meanings.

 

I can survive the use of multiple definitions as long as it's done in an open fashion. In part, I got fed up with the UPB because I noticed that terms would surreptitiously change meaning, which allowed the the author to reach false conclusions and pass by important objections. 

[Guest Gee]

I can survive the use of multiple definitions as long as it's done in an open fashion. In part, I got fed up with the UPB because I noticed that terms would surreptitiously change meaning, which allowed the the author to reach false conclusions and pass by important objections. 

 

Were the terms defined multiple times or were they surreptitiously changed or both or is this the same thing?

[Lykourgos]

Were the terms defined multiple times or were they surreptitiously changed or both or is this the same thing?

 

As I recall, some terms were explicitly defined in different ways, but for other terms it was only clear from context. The "surreptitiously changed" thing, though, is a different and more serious issue. When I say that, I'm talking about a term being used in two different ways in the same proof, with no explicit acknowledgement or warning. It's just a quiet use of multiple definitions, and the result is that a faulty conclusion has a veneer of validity.

 

I can deal with the first thing, even if I don't approve of it. The second thing, though, spoils the work.

 

There were other issues, like the use of opposites; I noted them in my article. I wrote in a couple of questions to the author, so perhaps I will get to discuss them at length one day.

[Guest Gee]

As I recall, some terms were explicitly defined in different ways, but for other terms it was only clear from context. The "surreptitiously changed" thing, though, is a different and more serious issue. When I say that, I'm talking about a term being used in two different ways in the same proof, with no explicit acknowledgement or warning. It's just a quiet use of multiple definitions, and the result is that a faulty conclusion has a veneer of validity.

 

I can deal with the first thing, even if I don't approve of it. The second thing, though, spoils the work.

 

There were other issues, like the use of opposites; I noted them in my article. I wrote in a couple of questions to the author, so perhaps I will get to discuss them at length one day.

 

I think I understand. I can't wait to here the discussion (debate?) I'm sure it will be illuminating.

[Frosty]

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

Yes consent is important in morality because the same action done without consent (say sexual intercourse) is seen as immoral when consent isn't given (rape), and perfectly moral if not extremely desirable when consent is given.

 

This isn't consent being used in two different ways, consent means the same thing in either case, we're just asking different questions regarding consent. In question one we're asking "if any single individual consents to an action", in question two we're asking "do all parties consent". Question two relies on question one, logically whether all parties consent is a factor of whether they consent as individuals, the meaning isn't suddenly being changed.

 

I'm a bit confused as to whether or not you agree with this system, it sounds like you have issues with it, but I don't fully understand how that can be, surely you agree that something such as rape is bad, and that it's bad because consent isn't given and that obviously for it to be sex and not rape that both parties involved need to consent?  That's  just how our current laws work, but I'm not asking if you understand the laws, I'm asking if you think that's right by your own moral compass or however you reason your morality.

 

I don't understand what you mean by special rules. Evil is just defined commonly as profound immorality and immorality is synonymous to what is bad and bad is "not such as to be hoped for or desired; unpleasant or unwelcome." Aggression by definition of the word is unwelcomed and so we can directly link the initiation of aggression directly with what is evil or immoral. I've been through that several times already, I'm still not sure where you either don't understand or disagree?

 

Of course consent matters because consent is an indication of what is welcomed or not.

 

I'm back to not really being sure where we disagree overall, you claim it's still a subjective system of morality but I'm not really sure what your objection is. What part of this system relies on someones feelings or opinion? Which part fails to be universally or objectively true?

 

Whether an individual consents to a specific action is an objective fact.

Whether all parties involved in a specific action all consent is objective fact.

We can say objectively if an action taking/taken place is occurring consensually.

[Frosty]

I found this funny when I read that I had fallen victim of his machinations. In a way I guess it's true, I did give up, but on another way it's those who did not give up who are victims as well. He's a parasite of your time, your mind, and most important of all- your attention. That's why I implied he had some form of neglect in his history. A person can't be this dense under healthy mental conditions. It's been explained ad nauseam and he will still mischaracterize, misquote, misrepresent, and regress to muh definitions. It's not a rational way of debating. I hope he isn't a victim himself of his own mental parasites making him think he is just asking a reasonable question, but then acting unreasonably. I have to judge his actions, not what he says. His actions simply scream pay attention to me.

 

Yeah, I'm getting the same thing, accusations of not defining things which I explicitly have done and can provide quotes of having done so, and no following apology or retraction or even acknowledgement. There is a lot of behavior that appears to be clutching at straws and the more I debate with him the more I get the feeling that we're simply going to regress backwards into more fundamental discussions and I don't have the time nor patience to expand the scope of this discussion to be about everything including all our fundamental presuppositions etc.

 

I know the guy isn't stupid which is why it's frustrating when he brings up say the issue of consent with regards to peoples desires in our argument, this kind of side tracking under the guise of the argument not being complete unless we've taught him the entire English language is just frustrating to debate against and it fundamentally doesn't seem honest on his part. Especially when all the definitions I use are pulled straight from google, literally open google.com in a new tab and type define: <word> and I'm sticking to those common definitions and synonyms. 

 

He may just be a very dedicated troll and I'm now concerned that's the case so I'm wary about further engagement at this stage. The insistence of us being wrong unless we can describe this to him in a way he can understand and agree with is a standard we seem to have unwittingly accepted, obviously the validity of the NAP or UPB is not dependent on his understanding and agreement but he acts as if it is which I suggest is very telling about his motives. I think I'm done here.

[Lykourgos]

I think I understand. I can't wait to here the discussion (debate?) I'm sure it will be illuminating.

 

I just received an email from the show, so it seems it's going ahead early next month. The question is different than the one discussed in this thread, but it should still be interesting!

 

Yes consent is important in morality because the same action done without consent (say sexual intercourse) is seen as immoral when consent isn't given (rape), and perfectly moral if not extremely desirable when consent is given.

 

This isn't consent being used in two different ways, consent means the same thing in either case, we're just asking different questions regarding consent. In question one we're asking "if any single individual consents to an action", in question two we're asking "do all parties consent". Question two relies on question one, logically whether all parties consent is a factor of whether they consent as individuals, the meaning isn't suddenly being changed.

 

I'm a bit confused as to whether or not you agree with this system, it sounds like you have issues with it, but I don't fully understand how that can be, surely you agree that something such as rape is bad, and that it's bad because consent isn't given and that obviously for it to be sex and not rape that both parties involved need to consent?  That's  just how our current laws work, but I'm not asking if you understand the laws, I'm asking if you think that's right by your own moral compass or however you reason your morality.

 

Whatever the "different questions" are, you didn't put them in your steps. Here, again, let me show you the steps you gave me to work through:

 

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.

 

Oops, rape does have consent because one party wants it to happen, therefore it's not aggression. Step one is broken, so I can't continue. Here is your solution:

 

"...In question one we're asking "if any single individual consents to an action", in question two we're asking "do all parties consent". Question two relies on question one, logically whether all parties consent is a factor of whether they consent as individuals, the meaning isn't suddenly being changed..."

 

Let's see "if any single individual consents to an action". Hmm, yep, there's an individual consenting to the action. So there's consent. Step one is therefore still broken, so I can't continue.

 

If you want to show me some steps, then make those steps coherent. If you want to drop the steps and do something else, then fine.

 

As for my thoughts on the matter, I don't go in for subjective morality. Wants and unwants do not constitute the basis of my moral compass. I'm happy to keep examining your system, I just ask that you make it consistent.

 

 

 

 

I don't understand what you mean by special rules. Evil is just defined commonly as profound immorality and immorality is synonymous to what is bad and bad is "not such as to be hoped for or desired; unpleasant or unwelcome." Aggression by definition of the word is unwelcomed and so we can directly link the initiation of aggression directly with what is evil or immoral. I've been through that several times already, I'm still not sure where you either don't understand or disagree?

 

Of course consent matters because consent is an indication of what is welcomed or not.

 

Special rules refers to requirements or conditions that do not follow, or that even contradict, the terms you gave me.

 

If you tell me the basis of morality is the presence or absence of consent in human actors, then I can follow you with no problem. When you add a special rule like, "we only look at the non-moving party to see if there was consent when an action takes place", I have to ask where in the world that condition came from. In the terms you gave me, nobody said that a "moving party" was any less of a human actor. The presence or absence of consent in human actors, ALONE, is no longer the basis of morality.

 

Where is this special rule coming from? Given the explanation up to this point, you may as well say that we only consider the consent of people with pink slippers. I can understand the rule, but it's arbitrary and it breaks the underlying system.

 

 

 

 

I'm back to not really being sure where we disagree overall, you claim it's still a subjective system of morality but I'm not really sure what your objection is. What part of this system relies on someones feelings or opinion? Which part fails to be universally or objectively true?

 

Whether an individual consents to a specific action is an objective fact.

Whether all parties involved in a specific action all consent is objective fact.

We can say objectively if an action taking/taken place is occurring consensually.

 

It is a subjective system because you are premising morality on the feelings of individuals. It's the literal definition of the term. The only objectivity in your system is whether it is true that something occurred in the past. You haven't even tied time into the picture yet, except as a special rule that the morality of an action is determined by consent at the moment it occurs. 

 

Consent is not objective, it is literally a person deciding how they feel about something at a given time. Forming consent, and continuing to feel consensual, is subjective. Whether the tap of consent is to be turned on or off is at the subjective whim of the actor. It's the ultimate subjective morality.

 

The truth of whether something occurred in the past, or currently exists, is objective because it is wholly beyond the power of man. Nobody can turn back time and change what has occurred, or stop it from entering the state that it is in at this instant. As I said, you cannot make any future predictions, because it's based on the subjective will of the actors.

 

Anyway, let's look at your examples:

 

1. It's only objective in the general sense that the occurrence of everything that occurs is an objective fact.

2. It's only objective in the general sense that the occurrence of everything that occurs is an objective fact.

3. We can't know whether an action taking place is consensual, simultaneous with the act; the moment an actor withdraws consent it is bad, but we need a little while to figure that out. However, again, that something is consensual is only an objective fact in the sense that the existence of anything is an objective fact.

 

Consent itself is not objective; how are you saying that something is independent of human feelings or opinions when it is literally a human thought or feeling. Forming consent, and continuing to feel consensual, is a subjective decision. It is also fundamental to your moral system, as it is this formation and maintaining of feeling that allows you to draw any moral judgment. That a feeling was held is objective, in the sense that everything that has ever occurred is objective, but that will never get you your morality.

 

Your moral judgments are solely derived from the subjective process of forming and maintaining feelings about consent.

 

 

Yeah, I'm getting the same thing, accusations of not defining things which I explicitly have done and can provide quotes of having done so, and no following apology or retraction or even acknowledgement. There is a lot of behavior that appears to be clutching at straws and the more I debate with him the more I get the feeling that we're simply going to regress backwards into more fundamental discussions and I don't have the time nor patience to expand the scope of this discussion to be about everything including all our fundamental presuppositions etc.

 

I know the guy isn't stupid which is why it's frustrating when he brings up say the issue of consent with regards to peoples desires in our argument, this kind of side tracking under the guise of the argument not being complete unless we've taught him the entire English language is just frustrating to debate against and it fundamentally doesn't seem honest on his part. Especially when all the definitions I use are pulled straight from google, literally open google.com in a new tab and type define: <word> and I'm sticking to those common definitions and synonyms. 

 

He may just be a very dedicated troll and I'm now concerned that's the case so I'm wary about further engagement at this stage. The insistence of us being wrong unless we can describe this to him in a way he can understand and agree with is a standard we seem to have unwittingly accepted, obviously the validity of the NAP or UPB is not dependent on his understanding and agreement but he acts as if it is which I suggest is very telling about his motives. I think I'm done here.

 

If you don't want to support your claims, that's fine, but have some dignity. This sort of thing isn't responsive or productive.

 

In my last post, I described my objections in a clear and concise manner. Your response failed to resolve the objections. I have now explained my original objections a second time. I hope you will tackle them, or at least depart respectfully.

 

If you want to support libertarian moral assertions, I would appreciate it. If you don't want to do that, or you can't, then say so. Just don't try to have your cake and eat it. It's not a pretty sight to watch someone storm off while claiming that they could have actually solved the issue. Obviously, I think the issue is unsolvable because you're fundamentally wrong and libertarianism is a power-play, but I'm still considering the arguments.

[Frosty]

If you don't want to support your claims, that's fine, but have some dignity. This sort of thing isn't responsive or productive.

 

In my last post, I described my objections in a clear and concise manner. Your response failed to resolve the objections. I have now explained my original objections a second time. I hope you will tackle them, or at least depart respectfully.

 

If you want to support libertarian moral assertions, I would appreciate it. If you don't want to do that, or you can't, then say so. Just don't try to have your cake and eat it. It's not a pretty sight to watch someone storm off while claiming that they could have actually solved the issue. Obviously, I think the issue is unsolvable because you're fundamentally wrong and libertarianism is a power-play, but I'm still considering the arguments.

 

Nope, I'm done. Your constant assertions that people aren't backing their claims is just false. What you mean is that you disagree with the logic or the reasoning and you aren't convinced the case has been made, and that's not the same as people having not backed their claims. I've addressed all of your objections and you simply act as if your own reasoning is completely infallible.

 

Your attempts to control the conversation through sophistry such as claiming that others are unwilling or unable to resolve objections because you deem that to be so isn't debating honestly, your manipulation of the conversation to paint me as someone who is "storming off" because of an inability or unwillingness to support my position is simply untrue, I've explicitly stated that I don't believe you're being honest in the conversation and so further interaction is pointless.

 

I could in theory behave the same way, and just reject everything you say and say I remain unconvinced and hence you've not supported your position, but that would get us no where. We've seen people like you come through these forums before and it's not surprising checking your account to see you have a negative rep.

 

If you want to drop the infallible logic spiel and stop pretending to be the ultimate arbiter, and argue honestly and actually give other people the benefit of the doubt that the position they're arguing is being done so honestly, then you might actually get a positive response. If you're just here to defend your position to the death and don't have an open mind then I have no interest in discussing this further.

 

It's just my subjective experience but you're one of the most annoying people to have a debate with on this forum and while these debates are voluntary the quality of the discussion matters. If you can be mature enough to admit that your reasoning could be wrong and that the validity of my position doesn't depend solely on your judgement any more than the validity of your position depends on my judgement, then we actually might have a path to continue the discussion and see if we can resolve where we disagree. I'm not going to continue a discussion where you've put yourself in the position of sole arbiter and by default I must be wrong if you don't agree with my reasoning, as far as I'm concerned that's nothing short of trolling.

[Lykourgos]

Nope, I'm done. Your constant assertions that people aren't backing their claims is just false. What you mean is that you disagree with the logic or the reasoning and you aren't convinced the case has been made, and that's not the same as people having not backed their claims. I've addressed all of your objections and you simply act as if your own reasoning is completely infallible.

 

Your attempts to control the conversation through sophistry such as claiming that others are unwilling or unable to resolve objections because you deem that to be so isn't debating honestly, your manipulation of the conversation to paint me as someone who is "storming off" because of an inability or unwillingness to support my position is simply untrue, I've explicitly stated that I don't believe you're being honest in the conversation and so further interaction is pointless.

 

I could in theory behave the same way, and just reject everything you say and say I remain unconvinced and hence you've not supported your position, but that would get us no where. We've seen people like you come through these forums before and it's not surprising checking your account to see you have a negative rep.

 

If you want to drop the infallible logic spiel and stop pretending to be the ultimate arbiter, and argue honestly and actually give other people the benefit of the doubt that the position they're arguing is being done so honestly, then you might actually get a positive response. If you're just here to defend your position to the death and don't have an open mind then I have no interest in discussing this further.

 

It's just my subjective experience but you're one of the most annoying people to have a debate with on this forum and while these debates are voluntary the quality of the discussion matters. If you can be mature enough to admit that your reasoning could be wrong and that the validity of my position doesn't depend solely on your judgement any more than the validity of your position depends on my judgement, then we actually might have a path to continue the discussion and see if we can resolve where we disagree. I'm not going to continue a discussion where you've put yourself in the position of sole arbiter and by default I must be wrong if you don't agree with my reasoning, as far as I'm concerned that's nothing short of trolling.

 

 

Wow, you sure can spit the dummy, can't you?

 

The bottom line is, you're totally unable or unwilling to resolve the contradiction that I've highlighted:

 

 

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.

 

Oops, rape does have consent because one party wants it to happen, therefore it's not aggression. Step one is broken, so I can't continue.

 

There's nothing more honest than that. Cry all you want, but rape involves the consent of the moving party, so step one is broken. Fix your account, or take a different approach; throwing a fit doesn't make your mistake valid.

 

All I've seen here so far is an inconsistent, subjective, and self-interested account of morality.

 

No wonder so many people reject it.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Professional Teabagger: (not sure how to add a name to a quote box)

Seeing as it worked so well with Frosty, I'm going to cut out everything extraneous and petty. In terms of the discussion, I'll be very substantive and to the point. If you adopt a similar method, maybe this can be turned around and we can get on track like I am with Frosty.

 

I am maintaining that "evil" is required because there is a judgement about violations of the NAP being morally wrong, rather than logically wrong.

 

 

What you wish to maintain is  irrelevant to my argument. Please demonstrate I used the term "evil" or concede I didn't.

 

I don't enjoy the way our thread of the discussion has progressed, either. I just want to understand how you draw this distinction:

 

logically wrong (invalid)

 

and

 

morally wrong (evil/bad/that which ought not to be).

 

When I understand that distinction, then I am closer to understanding the meaning and significance of Libertarians saying that, violations of the NAP are morally wrong. This is important because some Libertarians claim that, because violating the NAP is morally wrong, therefore Libertarianism is not susceptible to purely practical objections.

 

 

 

The theories and justifications that underlie certain behavior is wrong. Morality deals with enforceable behavior. That's what's meant by morally wrong. 

 

 

Do you wish to continue along this thread of the discussion? I do not believe it relates to the topic of the thread, but I will respond if you think it is important or otherwise want to discuss my invented morality.

 

What I hope to achieve in this thread is having Libertarians lay a foundation and explain their rule, rather than posit some account of morality that I don't personally believe in. Even though I continue to believe that I posited the rule successfully, and I have a response to your objections, the bottom line is that I don't believe the premises are sound and I don't think rape is morally good.

 

 

 

What's "morally good" mean? I didn't use that term. 

Well, theft is another can of worms, because we're going to get into a discussion of property laws. I think the best way to do it would be to discuss battery, because rape is just a particular type of battery.

 

Constantly typing out lines of text about rape is bothersome because it's not considered a pleasant or polite topic. Punching people isn't pleasant or polite, either, but it doesn't necessarily involve sexual violence and gender issues.

 

Theft is not another can of worms. It's just a moral violation like rape. They are both violation of the NAP.

 

Theft is not another can of worms. It's just a moral violation like rape. They are both violation of the NAP.

 

Unfortunately, nobody here will define the term "UPB", and the text gives multiple definitions. As for using rape in the test, I re-read that part of the UPB and found it to be riddled with errors. It was such a mess that I wrote a brief article to warn others.

 

 

It means "universally preferable behavior". The meaning is in the title. You are implicitly putting forward UPB when you debate here. 

 

Do you have a valid justification for rape or not? I have rebutted your other attempts so if you cannot show were my rebuttals are wrong then you have to accept rape cannot be morally justified. 

[Lykourgos]

What you wish to maintain is  irrelevant to my argument. Please demonstrate I used the term "evil" or concede I didn't.

 

The theories and justifications that underlie certain behavior is wrong. Morality deals with enforceable behavior. That's what's meant by morally wrong.

 

 

What's "morally good" mean? I didn't use that term.

 

You are maintaining the position that violations of the NAP are immoral, so how are you going to do that without judgements of good and evil? If you are refusing to do that, then I need to know how your morality is anything more than a set of logical statements. Right now "right" and "wrong" are being used as logical terms, synonymous with valid and invalid. I want to see how you get to morality; your distaste for the words "good" and "evil" is ultimately pointless, because you're positing something more than mere logically consistent statements.

 

Saying "morality deals with enforceable behaviour" doesn't answer that, but at least it's a step in the right direction. What do you mean by enforceable behaviour? Also, what is the subject of morality, people or physical motion?

 

 

Theft is not another can of worms. It's just a moral violation like rape. They are both violation of the NAP.

 

Theft is another can of worms because I know that libertarians have their own arguments for property rights. It's yet another issue that I think people here are wrong on.

 

It means "universally preferable behavior". The meaning is in the title. You are implicitly putting forward UPB when you debate here.

 

It's astounding that 3 pages in, not a single person is able or willing to define what they mean by "universally preferable behaviour". Even the text gives multiple definitions.

 

As for whether I am implicitly putting forward UPB, that's something you'd have to show. Simply saying it doesn't make it true, and even if it were true you would need to relate it back to the fundamental topic of this thread.

 

 

Do you have a valid justification for rape or not? I have rebutted your other attempts so if you cannot show were my rebuttals are wrong then you have to accept rape cannot be morally justified.

 

 

No, you did not rebut my valid justification for rape. You merely demonstrated that you did not appreciate the difference between something being valid, and something being sound. If you still don't understand, then let's revisit that topic. Do you understand that a statement can be valid, but unsound? That means that it is logical, but ultimately false. For example, I could posit:

 

All birds can fly

Ostriches are birds

Therefore ostriches can fly

 

It's valid but unsound. Similarly, I posited an example of morality that was valid. You have been arguing that it's unsound. Therefore, your objections relate to the separate issue of soundness, and are irrelevant.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

You are maintaining the position that violations of the NAP are immoral, so how are you going to do that without judgements of good and evil? If you are refusing to do that, then I need to know how your morality is anything more than a set of logical statements. Right now "right" and "wrong" are being used as logical terms, synonymous with valid and invalid. I want to see how you get to morality; your distaste for the words "good" and "evil" is ultimately pointless, because you're positing something more than mere logically consistent statements.

 

Saying "morality deals with enforceable behaviour" doesn't answer that, but at least it's a step in the right direction. What do you mean by enforceable behaviour? Also, what is the subject of morality, people or physical motion?

 

 

 

Theft is another can of worms because I know that libertarians have their own arguments for property rights. It's yet another issue that I think people here are wrong on.

 

 

It's astounding that 3 pages in, not a single person is able or willing to define what they mean by "universally preferable behaviour". Even the text gives multiple definitions.

 

As for whether I am implicitly putting forward UPB, that's something you'd have to show. Simply saying it doesn't make it true, and even if it were true you would need to relate it back to the fundamental topic of this thread.

 

 

No, you did not rebut my valid justification for rape. You merely demonstrated that you did not appreciate the difference between something being valid, and something being sound. If you still don't understand, then let's revisit that topic. Do you understand that a statement can be valid, but unsound? That means that it is logical, but ultimately false. For example, I could posit:

 

All birds can fly

Ostriches are birds

Therefore ostriches can fly

 

It's valid but unsound. Similarly, I posited an example of morality that was valid. You have been arguing that it's unsound. Therefore, your objections relate to the separate issue of soundness, and are irrelevant.

For the millionth time, I didn't use "good" or "evil". One might use "evil" as a synonym for morally wrong or use "good" as a synonym for morally correct. If you want to talk about evil or good as well then that's fine but don't  shoehorn them into an argument where I did not use them. If I did use them then link to where I used them or stfu about it.

 

Enforceable behavior is behavior that that is claimed rightly or wrongly to be enforceable. That is if I say something is immoral then I'm saying it can legitimately be enforced through violence. 

 

Also, what is the subject of morality, people or physical motion?

 

 

Morality is universally preferable behavior. So the subject is human behavior.

 

It's astounding that 3 pages in, not a single person is able or willing to define what they mean by "universally preferable behaviour". Even the text gives multiple definitions.

 

 

Thank you for telling me what you find astounding. What a brilliant argument. 

What I find astounding is certain people's inability to comprehend something when the description of the thing is in the title. You know what preferable behavior is, right? It's preferable to eat food if you want to live, etc. Well UPB is preferable behavior that is universal. It applies to everyone at all times. 

 

As for whether I am implicitly putting forward UPB, that's something you'd have to show.

 

 

I have to show? Is it just preferable for me to show this in a debate or is it universally preferable behavior to show it? Is there someone at some time to whom the implicit rules you are putting forward do not apply? 

 

No, you did not rebut my valid justification for rape. You merely demonstrated that you did not appreciate the difference between something being valid, and something being sound. If you still don't understand, then let's revisit that topic. Do you understand that a statement can be valid, but unsound? That means that it is logical, but ultimately false. For example, I could posit:

 

All birds can fly

Ostriches are birds

Therefore ostriches can fly

 

It's valid but unsound. Similarly, I posited an example of morality that was valid. You have been arguing that it's unsound. Therefore, your objections relate to the separate issue of soundness, and are irrelevant.

 

 

Jesus Wept. Let's try again.

 

Person A: Can you morally justify rape?

Person B. God said it's morally right.

Person A: God said it's morally wrong. 

 

If person B's statement can be considered valid in any way then Person A's statement can be also be considered valid. But they cannot both be true. The problem lies in the form of the statement. It's an arbitrary declaration and can be dismissed as such. So your justification does not work. It is wrong.

 

There's also other ways to chuck out your attempted justification (ex: there's no god) but this suffices. You need to provide one valid justification for rape. You can't do it. 

 

BTW, valid means the justification is logically consistent, not just the statement. The justification has to work when applied. Do you understand? 

[Lykourgos]

For the millionth time, I didn't use "good" or "evil". One might use "evil" as a synonym for morally wrong or use "good" as a synonym for morally correct. If you want to talk about evil or good as well then that's fine but don't  shoehorn them into an argument where I did not use them. If I did use them then link to where I used them or stfu about it.

 

Enforceable behavior is behavior that that is claimed rightly or wrongly to be enforceable. That is if I say something is immoral then I'm saying it can legitimately be enforced through violence. 

 

For the millionth time, how is your system moral rather than logical? You're just piling on synonym after synonym, you're talking about good and evil but refusing to admit it or explain it! Now it's "legitimately" and, by extension, "illegitimately"!

 

How is your moral system moral, rather than strictly logical? What makes it legitimate, to borrow your new disguise, as opposed to valid?

 

 

Morality is universally preferable behavior. So the subject is human behavior.

...

Thank you for telling me what you find astounding. What a brilliant argument. 

What I find astounding is certain people's inability to comprehend something when the description of the thing is in the title. You know what preferable behavior is, right? It's preferable to eat food if you want to live, etc. Well UPB is preferable behavior that is universal. It applies to everyone at all times.

 

There are multiple definitions in the UPB text, so your idea that the term is self-explanatory is just flat-out wrong.

 

That's not really a clear account of "prefer", are you using it as a synonym of "might"? Like, "If you want to achieve this goal, you might do b"? As for universal, do you have an example of something? When are you going to relate the term back to the NAP and morality? 

 

I still haven't a clue what you mean by "morality" beyond something being logically valid or invalid.

 

As for "human behaviour", are you saying that actions and people are not subject to moral judgments? It's just conceptions of human behaviour, like "rape is wrong", but individual acts of rape and rapists are not subject to judgement?

 

 

I have to show? Is it just preferable for me to show this in a debate or is it universally preferable behavior to show it? Is there someone at some time to whom the implicit rules you are putting forward do not apply?

 

No idea what you are trying to achieve here. You have to give the justification if you want to establish something in the discussion, but telling you that doesn't prove your mysterious views on morality, the NAP, or UPB.

 

If you want to show there is UPB, just explain what the term even means. If you want to show that UPB is the basis of morality, or has some sort of relationship to that term, then take the next step and relate them.

 

Jesus Wept. Let's try again.

 

Person A: Can you morally justify rape?

Person B. God said it's morally right.

Person A: God said it's morally wrong. 

 

If person B's statement can be considered valid in any way then Person A's statement can be also be considered valid. But they cannot both be true. The problem lies in the form of the statement. It's an arbitrary declaration and can be dismissed as such. So your justification does not work. It is wrong.

 

There's also other ways to chuck out your attempted justification (ex: there's no god) but this suffices. You need to provide one valid justification for rape. You can't do it. 

 

BTW, valid means the justification is logically consistent, not just the statement. The justification has to work when applied. Do you understand? 

 

 

This is unbelievable, you still do not understand the difference between valid and sound!

 

The statements are valid if they are logical; the premises are assumed to be true.

The statements are sound if the premises are true.

 

You ADMIT that they are valid... and then say they're not justified! But when you say justified, it's just a synonym for sound... you're clinging to your argument about soundness, and disguising it with a new word. Your argument that "there is no god" is not an attack on validity at all.

 

You want to show that something is not valid? Show the logical inconsistency, not attack whether the premise is factually correct. You want to know how my system can be logically justified? Because God is real. The premise is assumed for purposes of logic. Do you have a logical argument that shows my claims to be invalid? Because if you don't, then we're done; I answered your challenge and gave a valid, but unsound, account of morality.

 

In fact, I did more than you did: I actually gave an account of morality rather than logic.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

 

For the millionth time, how is your system moral rather than logical? 

 

I've already explained this. It's like asking me, "How is your system scientific rather than logical?". If the moral theory/ justification/ rule, etc is illogical then it must be wrong. For moral theories, justifications, rules (which we use all the time implicitly or explicitly) to be valid they have to meet certain criteria (logical consistency, universality). If they don't meet those criteria then they are wrong. Violations of the NAP do not meet these criteria. You can test it by trying to find a valid justification for rape, theft, etc. I have asked but you keep repeating the same bullshit over and over. How hard is it to understand that "God said it's good" is not a valid justification. I told you I can just say "God said it's not good" and we're back to square one. How long are you going to keep telling me that the statement "God said rape is good" can be a valid premise as if it refutes what I'm arguing? 

 

There are multiple definitions in the UPB text, so your idea that the term is self-explanatory is just flat-out wrong.

 

 

There being multiple definitions does not preclude the explanation being in the title. If you think otherwise then why did you ask for a definition in the first place? No matter what definition I gave you can just say it's wrong because there are multiple definitions in the book. I'm tired of your manipulations.

Many valid theories have multiple definitions that are valid in different contexts.

 

I still haven't a clue what you mean by "morality" beyond something being logically valid or invalid.

 

 

People use moral theories and make moral statements and use moral justifications all the time. To say you have NO CLUE what I mean by morality makes me think you are an idiot. 

 

That's not really a clear account of "prefer", are you using it as a synonym of "might"? Like, "If you want to achieve this goal, you might do b"? As for universal, do you have an example of something? When are you going to relate the term back to the NAP and morality?

 

Rape is wrong.

 

No idea what you are trying to achieve here. You have to give the justification if you want to establish something in the discussion, but telling you that doesn't prove your mysterious views on morality, the NAP, or UPB.

 

If you want to show there is UPB, just explain what the term even means. If you want to show that UPB is the basis of morality, or has some sort of relationship to that term, then take the next step and relate them.

 

There's nothing "mysterious" about my views. I've made every effort to make them as clear as possible. 

I've explained the term UPB. I have already related them. What I was trying to achieve was to ask you a question. Hence the question marks? You are just too bust trying to manipulate in order to even process that you were asked questions.

 

This is unbelievable, you still do not understand the difference between valid and sound!

 

The statements are valid if they are logical; the premises are assumed to be true.

The statements are sound if the premises are true.

 

 

I do understand the difference and I'm pretty sure you know I understand the difference. 

You are continuing to double down on this even after I repeatedly explain to you why it's wrong. You seem to be using validity to refer to a statement (rather than the form of the argument) but I'm not talking about a statement. I'm talking about the justification. The entire justification. The justification. Do you understand? The justification is more than just the statement. Do you see?

To avoid this nonsense I'm going to stop using the term "valid" or "validity" because you are exploiting it in order to obfuscate like some kind of lawyer. 

 

You want to show that something is not valid? Show the logical inconsistency, not attack whether the premise is factually correct. You want to know how my system can be logically justified? Because God is real. The premise is assumed for purposes of logic. Do you have a logical argument that shows my claims to be invalid? Because if you don't, then we're done; I answered your challenge and gave a valid, but unsound, account of morality.

 

 

I've explained the logical inconsistency in your justification. It was an arbitrary declaration. Arbitrary declarations cannot be correct justifications. I gave an example of how arbitrary declarations always lead to contradiction. Your justification fails. Obviously. You cannot provide a correct justification for NAP violations. Anything you provide will collapse into insurmountable contradiction 

 

"In fact, I did more than you did: I actually gave an account of morality rather than logic."

 

Why do I care about accounts of morality? This is not William Lane Craig time. I'm not interested in "accounting". I'm interested in truth. The truth is that some moral justifications are objectively wrong.

[Torero]

Really, guys, it's like a Japanese and a Chinese on unicycles throwing dictionaries at each other and the words are glued onto this forum.

 

To me it's pretty simple:

 

Universal(ly) - based on logic - consistent - the basis for good philosophy - see link below

Preferable - based on moral - "good" and "evil"/"right" and "wrong" - P1 & P2

Behavior - based on freedom of choice - individual action - P3

 

Thus there are 3 pillars to UPB:

P1 - Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) - never initiate the use of force

P2 - Property Rights (PR) - always respect property rights

P3 - Freedom of Choice (FoC) - everyone has freedom of choice

 

Morality:

P1 => evil/unpreferable = violating NAP - e.g. rape, violence, murder

P2 => evil/unpreferable = violating PR - e.g. theft (the others too as your body can be considered your property)

Behavior:

P3 => violating FoC - e.g. unwanted captivity, indoctrination

 

So:

rape = evil => always violates P1, P2 and P3

murder = evil => always violates P1, P2 and P3

theft = evil => always violates P1, P2 and P3

 

rough sex = not evil => doesn't violate P2 or P3

self-defensive manslaughter = not evil => doesn't violate P1

taking something that doesn't belong to anyone = not evil => doesn't violate P2

 

Juggling terms as "valid", "justified", "sound" and other vague descriptions only can serve as deliberate obfuscations of the truth.

 

In this podcast Stefan explains it all much better than me as an amateur could do it (@ 2:25:50; Stefan: "If it's not universal, it's not philosophy"): http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/2905/extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-evidence-saturday-call-in-show-february-7th-2015

 

The last caller about Nietzsche and Schopenhauer contains the explanation I refer to; from 2:17:00 onwards. Although the caller before on Rand and Branden is along the same lines and a very good listen-to as well.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Really, guys, it's like a Japanese and a Chinese on unicycles throwing dictionaries at each other and the words are glued onto this forum.

 

 

That's how you characterize my arguments? Do you know how fucking rude that is?

 

You think what YOU put forward was "simple"? Really? That incomprehensible string of unpacked premises is simple? 

[ThomasTheIdealist]

I think the NAP is a good guideline for legislation, but not so much for ethics. Though not terrible.

 

I mean, isn't parenting aggression? And isn't the initial acquisition of property (or the defense thereof) aggression? There seem to be so many caveats and built-in premises that the NAP is just rhetoric at this point.

 

And when it comes to the examples of theft, rape, and murder for UPB, they're fundamentally disingenuous at proving their point. All three of those words imply immorality/criminality, it's a part of the term. So to saying "murder is universally not preferable" is not terribly insightful since if killing people were considered useful, it wouldn't be called murder. If you reduce the terms down to merely the act, they would be (1) taking someone's property, (2) having sex without consent, and (3) killing someone. None of those are universal when stripped of the inherently immoral terminology.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

I think the NAP is a good guideline for legislation, but not so much for ethics. Though not terrible.

 

I mean, isn't parenting aggression? And isn't the initial acquisition of property (or the defense thereof) aggression? There seem to be so many caveats and built-in premises that the NAP is just rhetoric at this point.

 

Do you understand you have to make an argument, not just bald assertions?

 

And when it comes to the examples of theft, rape, and murder for UPB, they're fundamentally disingenuous at proving their point. All three of those words imply immorality/criminality, it's a part of the term. So to saying "murder is universally not preferable" is not terribly insightful since if killing people were considered useful, it wouldn't be called murder. If you reduce the terms down to merely the act, they would be (1) taking someone's property, (2) having sex without consent, and (3) killing someone. None of those are universal when stripped of the inherently immoral terminology.

 

 

Sure and if you reduce in down even further isn't it really just molecules interacting with other molecules? I don't see any morality in molecules, do you?

If you don't understand the difference between killing that is murder a killing that is not murder then this debate is too advanced for you. These are elementary things you need to know before you come here. Otherwise we all have to slow down just for you.

[ThomasTheIdealist]

Do you understand you have to make an argument, not just bald assertions?

Huh? Why must all statements be arguments? Some have to be assertions. Both parenting and initial acquisition of property are aggressions. That's pretty basic, been supported by people like David Friedman for decades.

 

Sure and if you reduce in down even further isn't it really just molecules interacting with other molecules? I don't see any morality in molecules, do you?

No more than I see in any other higher assembly of molecule/organisms.

 

If you don't understand the difference between killing that is murder a killing that is not murder then this debate is too advanced for you.

I know the difference. Murder is killing that people don't want. Not sure what gave you the impression that I didn't know.

 

But being that that's the definition of murder, it's completely pointless to say "murder is universally not preferred" it doesn't advance ethics in the least.

[jpahmad]

Huh? Why must all statements be arguments? Some have to be assertions. Both parenting and initial acquisition of property are aggressions. That's pretty basic, been supported by people like David Friedman for decades.

 

 

 I see where you're going with this.  Taking up space is aggression .  Using oxygen is aggression.  Batting an eyelash is aggression (the butterfly effect).  If every movement in the universe is aggression, then the word has no meaning, because it has no opposite.  

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Huh? Why must all statements be arguments? Some have to be assertions. Both parenting and initial acquisition of property are aggressions. That's pretty basic, been supported by people like David Friedman for decades.

Where did I say or argue that all statements had to be arguments? I'll rephrase. If you don't want to be an annoying twat who makes bald assertions like that then you should support your claims with arguments and/or evidence; especially given that you're on a fucking debate forum. 

Also, saying "it's pretty basic" and Friedman holds that position for decades is not an argument either. I could just as easily say the opposite is "pretty basic" and point to some equally qualified person who doesn't hold that view for decades. By your standard I would be just as right.

 

Smarten up.

 

 

No more than I see in any other higher assembly of molecule/organisms.

 

 

Right, it's like reason and science. I can't find those in any organism at the macro or micro level. They must not exist. 

 

I know the difference. Murder is killing that people don't want. Not sure what gave you the impression that I didn't know.

 

Obviously you don't because you can kill someone who doesn't want it but it's still not murder. Self defense for example. 

What gave me the impression was that you reduced murder to "killing someone". But killing someone is a necessary but not sufficient condition for murder. So you were wrong.

 

But being that that's the definition of murder, it's completely pointless to say "murder is universally not preferred" it doesn't advance ethics in the least.

 

 

That's not the argument. It's that murder (voluntarily killing someone through the initiation of force) cannot be universally preferable behavior. 

[ThomasTheIdealist]

Also, saying "it's pretty basic" and Friedman holds that position for decades is not an argument either.

Well sure, you could lie about a lot of things. But why should I have to spell out the basics of aggression for you? Didn't you just say this discussion was beyond me if I couldn't understand what murder was or wasn't? Yet you have no need to understand aggression, it's up to me to make arguments supporting it, you need not making any argument regarding murder...

 

I can spell it out if you need the elaboration:

 

Aggression is the initiation of violence. This include compelling someone to do something against their will. Parents force their children to do stuff against their will on a regular basis, and is indeed a central purpose of parenting, therefore parenting is aggression.

 

Aggression also includes the threat of violence against people. When you stake a claim on some land by whatever means (initial acquisition of property), you are threatening anyone who would choose to use that land (e.g. trespass, theft, etc.), therefore you're aggressing by claiming that land. 

 

Right, it's like reason and science. I can't find those in any organism at the macro or micro level. They must not exist.

True, but you're moving the goalpost in the comparison. I'm not talking about the metaphysical reality (or lack thereof) of abstract concepts. I'm talking about inherent moral attributes I fail to see figuratively, not relating to the literal physical sense of sight.

 

Obviously you don't because you can kill someone who doesn't want it but it's still not murder. Self defense for example.

So you must be switching to a legal definition instead of the moral one, because it's certainly considered murder to someone (namely someone who doesn't like it). When people are asked if a killing is justified or if it's murder, they assert their preference, whether they like or dislike the killing for any reason. It morally becomes murder if they don't like it. Legally speaking, the definition of murder is some sort of conglomerate of this preference found in society.

 

That's not the argument. It's that murder (voluntarily killing someone through the initiation of force) cannot be universally preferable behavior.

Almost the same. Changing the work "is" to "cannot be" makes it equally pointless. Murder by definition isn't preferred. So you're merely arguing that something which isn't preferred cannot be universally preferred. There is no conclusion to be drawn from it. It's just a tautology that something not preferable is not preferable, universally or otherwise.

 

I see where you're going with this.  Taking up space is aggression .  Using oxygen is aggression.  Batting an eyelash is aggression (the butterfly effect).  If every movement in the universe is aggression, then the word has no meaning, because it has no opposite.

Yeah, though I wasn't quite going there, not yet anyways lol.

 

This explains is fairly well I think: http://individualistwill.com/everything-is-aggression/

[jpahmad]

 

Yeah, though I wasn't quite going there, not yet anyways lol.

 

This explains is fairly well I think: http://individualistwill.com/everything-is-aggression/

 

You do realize that if every behavior is aggression, then "aggression" has no meaning.  You would have to admit that there is no such thing as aggression at all.  An, if there is no such thing as aggression at all, then how can there be the opposite of aggression, which is, "cooperation" or "consent"?  It seems that in your world, language has no meaning. 

The article is absurd.  Illogical, and self-detonating.  

[ThomasTheIdealist]

You do realize that if every behavior is aggression, then "aggression" has no meaning.  You would have to admit that there is no such thing as aggression at all.  An, if there is no such thing as aggression at all, then how can there be the opposite of aggression, which is, "cooperation" or "consent"?  It seems that in your world, language has no meaning. 

 

The article is absurd.  Illogical, and self-detonating.

The point is nihilistic, but it's not implying that language has no meaning, but rather that it has no objective meaning and is therefore not useful to invoke as if it were a natural fact or as some indisputable logical axiom. As said near the end:

 

I propose that we instead focus more on what should be considered acceptable methods to influence others. Saying something is “voluntary” is insufficient and ultimately not very true.

So it's a matter of accepting the subjectivity and asserting your preference as opposed to indirectly asserting your logical infallibility (because the axiom involved is fallible) with the NAP / Voluntaryism.

 

Like moral values, language has widely accepted definitions, which is how we're communicating effectively now. But if you or I disagree on some word's specific definition, neither of can assert that the other is objectively wrong.

[jpahmad]

Here we go again with this "there is no objective truth" jargon.  I'm sorry.  I can't have a relationship of any kind with someone who makes a claim like that.

[Lykourgos]

 

I've already explained this. It's like asking me, "How is your system scientific rather than logical?". If the moral theory/ justification/ rule, etc is illogical then it must be wrong. For moral theories, justifications, rules (which we use all the time implicitly or explicitly) to be valid they have to meet certain criteria (logical consistency, universality). If they don't meet those criteria then they are wrong. Violations of the NAP do not meet these criteria. You can test it by trying to find a valid justification for rape, theft, etc. I have asked but you keep repeating the same bullshit over and over. How hard is it to understand that "God said it's good" is not a valid justification. I told you I can just say "God said it's not good" and we're back to square one. How long are you going to keep telling me that the statement "God said rape is good" can be a valid premise as if it refutes what I'm arguing? 

 

 

I don't think you understand the distinction between a moral system and a logical system. Anybody can posit a logically valid system that deals with moral actors and their behaviour, but it is another thing to take the next step and explain why the system should be obeyed above all others. The true system of morality will of course be valid, but so will many false systems of morality.

 

On a personal note, you continue to fumble with the idea of "valid" and "sound". "God said it's good" can be a perfectly valid statement. Whether it's factually correct is a matter of soundness. If you have a logical reason why "God said it's good" is necessarily invalid, please present it. If all you have is, "well, another person can deny that it is true that god said that!" then weep, for you are irredeemably ignorant.

 

 

There being multiple definitions does not preclude the explanation being in the title. If you think otherwise then why did you ask for a definition in the first place? No matter what definition I gave you can just say it's wrong because there are multiple definitions in the book. I'm tired of your manipulations.

Many valid theories have multiple definitions that are valid in different contexts.

 

 

I ask because I want to know how you are using the term; I am having this discussion with you, not the book. Even if you made up a brand new definition for the term, it wouldn't matter; I would go along with it. I just need to know what you mean, and the UPB is no help because it is an incoherent mess.

 

 

 

You are continuing to double down on this even after I repeatedly explain to you why it's wrong. You seem to be using validity to refer to a statement (rather than the form of the argument) but I'm not talking about a statement. I'm talking about the justification. The entire justification. The justification. Do you understand? The justification is more than just the statement. Do you see?

To avoid this nonsense I'm going to stop using the term "valid" or "validity" because you are exploiting it in order to obfuscate like some kind of lawyer. 

 

I've explained the logical inconsistency in your justification. It was an arbitrary declaration. Arbitrary declarations cannot be correct justifications. I gave an example of how arbitrary declarations always lead to contradiction. Your justification fails. Obviously. You cannot provide a correct justification for NAP violations. Anything you provide will collapse into insurmountable contradiction

 

I understand what justification means, and we've gone over this a thousand times. You argue that because one person can say God isn't real, therefore God's rules are somehow logically invalid. It's absurd, because the existence of God and the rules is a factual dispute.

 

In terms of what is arbitrary, that doesn't necessitate that there is contradiction in the logic. In fact, divine pronouncements are not necessarily arbitrary. The rules may follow from the inherent nature of God or reality; that is no more arbitrary than existence itself is arbitrary.

 

 

 

 

Why do I care about accounts of morality? This is not William Lane Craig time. I'm not interested in "accounting". I'm interested in truth. The truth is that some moral justifications are objectively wrong.

 

I was asked for a valid account, and I provided it. You lot claim to have the true account, but you've been doing an awfully good job of disguising it.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

I don't think you understand the distinction between a moral system and a logical system. Anybody can posit a logically valid system that deals with moral actors and their behaviour, but it is another thing to take the next step and explain why the system should be obeyed above all others. The true system of morality will of course be valid, but so will many false systems of morality.

 

On a personal note, you continue to fumble with the idea of "valid" and "sound". "God said it's good" can be a perfectly valid statement. Whether it's factually correct is a matter of soundness. If you have a logical reason why "God said it's good" is necessarily invalid, please present it. If all you have is, "well, another person can deny that it is true that god said that!" then weep, for you are irredeemably ignorant.

 

 

I don't know what "obeyed above all others" means. Who said anything about "obeyed" or "obeying". It is simply correct. If you violate the NAP then your moral justification will rationally fail. You will be wrong.

In the moral realm (the justifications, theories, rules, etc) UPB is the correct methodology. Just as in the scientific realm the scientific method is the correct methodology. 

 

I have not fumbled with validity and soundness. I'm sure "God said it;s good" CAN be a valid statement but as I've already stated several times it's the justification that has to be correct. A justification is not just the statement. 

 

I gave you a valid reason why "God said it's moral" fails and your rebuttal is to insult me by calling me "irredeemably ignorant". 

A justification that leads to contradiction is not rational. Arbitrary declarations lead to contradiction. "God said it's good" is an arbitrary declaration and so not rational. 

 

I ask because I want to know how you are using the term; I am having this discussion with you, not the book. Even if you made up a brand new definition for the term, it wouldn't matter; I would go along with it. I just need to know what you mean, and the UPB is no help because it is an incoherent mess.

 

 

Your arguments are an incoherent mess. 

See how arbitrary statements fail? 

Make sure to tell Stef what you think of his book when you have you call-in. Don't be one of those cowards who talk shit on the boards but then suddenly develop manners on the call.

 

 

I understand what justification means, and we've gone over this a thousand times. You argue that because one person can say God isn't real, therefore God's rules are somehow logically invalid. It's absurd, because the existence of God and the rules is a factual dispute.

 

 

 That's not the argument at all? I didn't argue that they are "somehow" invalid. So if we have gone over this a thousand times and you still don't know my arguments then you must be a retard. Show me where I argued that "god isn't real, therefore God's rules are logically invalid" or take it back. 

 

In terms of what is arbitrary, that doesn't necessitate that there is contradiction in the logic. In fact, divine pronouncements are not necessarily arbitrary. The rules may follow from the inherent nature of God or reality; that is no more arbitrary than existence itself is arbitrary.

 

 I said arbitrary declarations lead to contradiction. The GOD part doesn't matter. It could be "Clint Eastwood said so" or "sahoaidhsas ijoi ojoijioj joijoij".

 

 

I was asked for a valid account, and I provided it. You lot claim to have the true account, but you've been doing an awfully good job of disguising it.

 

 

 

You weren't asked for a "valid account". You just like to make up parts of the debate and argue agianst them as if your opponent said them. I asked for a justification. Again, can you provide a rational justification for rape? ANYTHING that works? It just has to make sense. "God said so" doesn't make sense because anyone can legitimately say the opposite (even if you know god said so). 

You have to provide a justification that when we play it out in reality it doesn't collapse into contradiction. See?

 

We don't claim to have and "account". We have a theory called UPB. You keep holding us to UPB every time you post here.