Nick900 Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 Hi, I've written this post to share some of my current thoughts on morality, I can feel myself slipping into moral nihilism, so if you can spot any errors, let me know so I can avoid this. Stealing, raping and murdering are just words used to describe the unwanted negation of trade, sex and life. Why is the unwanted waving, talking, looking at someone not morally bad? We say that stealing, rape and murder is morally wrong however this is just subjective preference: I don't want you to steal my stuff, I don't want you to rape me and I don't want you to murder me. Even if we all hold these values, it doesn't mean that everyone should, is-ought thing. The standard seems to be "unwanted = morally bad", "wanted = morally good/ok". Given that wanted or unwanted actions is just a matter of subjective personal preference, why should anyone care or respect that? If you want to not be murdered and I want to murder you, how do we settle this morally? You can't say something is universally desired by all people because there will always be a contrarian who doesn't hold the preference. If you're just going to enforce a group preference onto a minority using force, how's it any different from the state? Saying "nobody should ever do x" seems pointless as the only way to achieve this is to force people or only associate with those that agree with you. In which case morality is being side stepped, you're bypassing the problem of what others should do in favour of banding together with people that agree with you and sticking your fingers in your ears to anyone else. The only use for morality is to spot people who disagree with my own subjective preferences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 This would also apply to your reasoning as well, right? Truth would be no more objectively preferable than falsehood so cant we just reject your argument if we prefer to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 Why is the unwanted waving, talking, looking at someone not morally bad? Because these behaviors are not binding upon other moral actors. Therefore, there is no moral component. We say that stealing, rape and murder is morally wrong however this is just subjective preference No, it is objectively self-contradictory. Theft, assault, rape, and murder are all the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights. Something cannot be both valid and invalid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick900 Posted March 30, 2016 Author Share Posted March 30, 2016 No, it is objectively self-contradictory. Theft, assault, rape, and murder are all the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights. Something cannot be both valid and invalid. Hmm I never connected property rights with morality like that, good point. I get how it rejects property rights, but how does it accept it too? (I speak of assault, rape, not the theft one which I understand) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 I get how it rejects property rights, but how does it accept it too? (I speak of assault, rape, not the theft one which I understand) Property rights begin with self. When you steal, assault, rape, or murder you are using your property (body, time, effort) to deprive others of their property. They are internally inconsistent propositions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vahleeb Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Hmm I never connected property rights with morality like that, good point. I get how it rejects property rights, but how does it accept it too? (I speak of assault, rape, not the theft one which I understand) Hey, Nick900! Let's take theft as it is the simplest to connect to property rights. The thief doesn't believe in the property rights of their intended victim which is why the thief believes it can take stuff from the victim. However the thief believes in property rights for himself/herself otherwise he wouldn't take the object but just destroy it. Stefan usually puts this as: if the thief were to not believe in property rights at all (meaning not for himself), then he wouldn't steal because as soon as he did steal, someone would steal it from him/her and they would never get any satisfaction from the theft. The problem with your reasoning from your original post is that you fall into a false dichotomy here: The standard seems to be "unwanted = morally bad", "wanted = morally good/ok". There is also the third option: indifferent. Besides most, if not all (haven't really thought it through, appreciate if someone could provide a counter-example), immorality comes from the initiation of force. The correct dichotomy is: "initiation of force - immoral" / "non-initiation of force - moral". There is an open question as to the point where the excessive use of retaliatory force becomes immoral (thusly a new initiation of force), but that's debatable only after you come to understand the above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick900 Posted March 31, 2016 Author Share Posted March 31, 2016 Let's take theft as it is the simplest to connect to property rights. The thief doesn't believe in the property rights of their intended victim which is why the thief believes it can take stuff from the victim. However the thief believes in property rights for himself/herself otherwise he wouldn't take the object but just destroy it. Stefan usually puts this as: if the thief were to not believe in property rights at all (meaning not for himself), then he wouldn't steal because as soon as he did steal, someone would steal it from him/her and they would never get any satisfaction from the theft. The problem with your reasoning from your original post is that you fall into a false dichotomy here: What if the thief doesn't believe in property rights, just the person that controls the good has control over it, after all in reality there exists only people and people currently controlling objects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Mister Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 What if the thief doesn't believe in property rights, just the person that controls the good has control over it, after all in reality there exists only people and people currently controlling objects. Does the thief protect his stolen property? Or is he totally fine with being stolen from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Does the thief protect his stolen property? Or is he totally fine with being stolen from? If he's totally fine with it then it's not stealing. steal. verb. "take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick900 Posted March 31, 2016 Author Share Posted March 31, 2016 Does the thief protect his stolen property? Or is he totally fine with being stolen from?Let's say he's fine with it, he accepts you only own what you control, he has a subjective preference to keep his loot, but if it's taken from him, it's all just part of the game. Why should the thief limit his options by refusing to steal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Mister Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Let's say he's fine with it, he accepts you only own what you control, he has a subjective preference to keep his loot, but if it's taken from him, it's all just part of the game. Sure, but I'm not talking hypotheticals. Whether or not they accept property rights in the abstract, do thieves in real life, attempt to protect their stolen property from theft by others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick900 Posted March 31, 2016 Author Share Posted March 31, 2016 Sure, but I'm not talking hypotheticals. Whether or not they accept property rights in the abstract, do thieves in real life, attempt to protect their stolen property from theft by others? Yep - they intend to keep their loot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vahleeb Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 What if the thief doesn't believe in property rights, just the person that controls the good has control over it, after all in reality there exists only people and people currently controlling objects. This is literally like saying what if the thief believes in property rights but decides to call it something mystical like "control". We use words to mean what they mean or we don't use them at all. You have above a definition of stealing. If you wanna set up a universe without property rights, that's fine, but then there is no more stealing and as a result no more thiefs. Just one guy who ends up controling everything by killing everyone else. Eventually he'll die out and evolution will repopulate the planet with people who believe in property rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick900 Posted March 31, 2016 Author Share Posted March 31, 2016 This is literally like saying what if the thief believes in property rights but decides to call it something mystical like "control". We use words to mean what they mean or we don't use them at all. You have above a definition of stealing. If you wanna set up a universe without property rights, that's fine, but then there is no more stealing and as a result no more thiefs. Just one guy who ends up controling everything by killing everyone else. Eventually he'll die out and evolution will repopulate the planet with people who believe in property rights. The thief doesn't believe in property rights, he believes that if you have physical control over something you physically control it. He has a preference to keep on controlling it, but nothing more. He doesn't always have to steal, he just has the option to, my question is ... Why limit yourself by refusing to steal on a moral ground? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Mister Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 The thief doesn't believe in property rights, he believes that if you have physical control over something you physically control it. He has a preference to keep on controlling it, but nothing more. He doesn't always have to steal, he just has the option to, my question is ... Why limit yourself by refusing to steal on a moral ground? Why limit yourself to be persuaded only by reason and evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick900 Posted March 31, 2016 Author Share Posted March 31, 2016 Why limit yourself to be persuaded only by reason and evidence? I'm not sure that I am, I think I just have an emotional preference for reason and evidence over chaos. It makes me feel smart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts