Back to find things have gone from anarchy and peace to Trump?

[ELD]

Surprised by outcome of election. I'll check back in from time to time and see if this place evolves into a right-wing political organization. Utterly disappointing to see the move away from anarchist thought.

 

I wonder if there will be a null hypothesis on the Trump phenomenon. Even if things continue to erode under him, the tone I gather from the board is it will be met with "Trump may not have been a savior, but Clinton would have been much worse."

[neeeel]

Surprised by outcome of election. I'll check back in from time to time and see if this place evolves into a right-wing political organization. Utterly disappointing to see the move away from anarchist thought.

 

I wonder if there will be a null hypothesis on the Trump phenomenon. Even if things continue to erode under him, the tone I gather from the board is it will be met with "Trump may not have been a savior, but Clinton would have been much worse."

 

So everyone, including stefan, saying "we now need to hold the right to account" or "we are going to hold trumps toes to the fire" doesnt count?

[dsayers]

So everyone, including stefan, saying "we now need to hold the right to account" or "we are going to hold trumps toes to the fire" doesnt count?

It's not real. This is the problem with belief in things like the Constitution and statism in general. You cannot tell somebody "you get to rule over me" AND how to do so. They are mutually exclusive behaviors. Ruling over people is open-ended. Every ruler (including in USA's history) has demonstrated this, with all perceived forms of restraint mystically unable to actually restrain them.

 

The only thing people who consented to him as a ruler can do in response to him not doing exactly what they want is to admit that they were wrong to turn to institutionalized violence to solve problems created by that same institution and pledge to live their values from that moment on instead of selling them off for the illusion of comfort in the moment.

[Tyler H]

It's not real. This is the problem with belief in things like the Constitution and statism in general. You cannot tell somebody "you get to rule over me" AND how to do so. They are mutually exclusive behaviors. Ruling over people is open-ended. Every ruler (including in USA's history) has demonstrated this, with all perceived forms of restraint mystically unable to actually restrain them.

 

The only thing people who consented to him as a ruler can do in response to him not doing exactly what they want is to admit that they were wrong to turn to institutionalized violence to solve problems created by that same institution and pledge to live their values from that moment on instead of selling them off for the illusion of comfort in the moment.

This reminds me of when Stef would hold the elder generations to account for the failed social security system - admit that you either had/have no control over government or argue that you did and accept the responsibility and associated consequences for those policies, then we can talk about not sending you off into the woods in February (metaphorically of course).

[neeeel]

It's not real. This is the problem with belief in things like the Constitution and statism in general. You cannot tell somebody "you get to rule over me" AND how to do so. They are mutually exclusive behaviors. Ruling over people is open-ended. Every ruler (including in USA's history) has demonstrated this, with all perceived forms of restraint mystically unable to actually restrain them.

 

The only thing people who consented to him as a ruler can do in response to him not doing exactly what they want is to admit that they were wrong to turn to institutionalized violence to solve problems created by that same institution and pledge to live their values from that moment on instead of selling them off for the illusion of comfort in the moment.

 

I am with you on the not real thing, and still, people can be held to account. 

[powder]

I am with you on the not real thing, and still, people can be held to account. 

nope.  how can Trump be held to account?

[dsayers]

I am with you on the not real thing, and still, people can be held to account. 

In reputation only though, eh? In what way would Trump supports be able to hold him accountable should he not live up to their expectations? One of my null hypotheses prior to the election is that there is no way of knowing what he will do and no apparatus in place to hold him to what he's said.

[Donnadogsoth]

In reputation only though, eh? In what way would Trump supports be able to hold him accountable should he not live up to their expectations? One of my null hypotheses prior to the election is that there is no way of knowing what he will do and no apparatus in place to hold him to what he's said.

 

Right now, Trump has half the Country against him.  If he doesn't do what he promised, he will have the whole Country against him.  That is not an encouraging position for any President to be in.

[dsayers]

Right now, Trump has half the Country against him.  If he doesn't do what he promised, he will have the whole Country against him.  That is not an encouraging position for any President to be in.

As with any election. This doesn't answer the question. I was curious as to what neeeel had in mind.

[Donnadogsoth]

As with any election. This doesn't answer the question. I was curious as to what neeeel had in mind.

 

Any commonality with other elections is superceded by the once-in-a-lifetime nature of the Trump phenomenon.

[neeeel]

In reputation only though, eh? In what way would Trump supports be able to hold him accountable should he not live up to their expectations? One of my null hypotheses prior to the election is that there is no way of knowing what he will do and no apparatus in place to hold him to what he's said.

 

for example, point out promises broken, lies told, bad policies, bad decisions. Ok, it doesnt stop those things happening, but it can be pointed out, and people can make their own minds up. I suppose it depends what you mean by "accountable". 

[dsayers]

I suppose it depends what you mean by "accountable". 

Well played! I respect that.

 

Imagine you entered into a cell phone contract and one stipulation of that contract was that you could not make use of any of their competitors for 4 years. Then you go to make a phone call and find you have no connectivity anywhere, ever. You can draw attention to any of this and you'd be right. Would that be holding them accountable? I suppose in the literal sense, but the market couldn't correct for it until 4 years later. They would thrive as if they're meeting customers' needs for 4 years. I don't think this qualifies for holding them accountable.

 

Holding them accountable would look like they provide a shitty (no) service, so they get replaced by somebody who could serve their customers needs better.

 

Side note: Ready for the punchline? NOBODY would enter into such a contract voluntarily. But when it comes to running a nation--something that lots of people here argued is so vital we have to turn to State violence to preserve--no cognitive dissonance. People who are smart enough to see this. People who were TRAINED to see exactly this RIGHT HERE. Boggles the mind really.

[BaylorPRSer]

Hi all,

 

I've been very busy over the last two years growing my business from four founders to over twenty employees, as well as being a father of three and husband. I haven't been keeping up with FDR or Molyneux much, but I did notice he seemed to be doing a lot more political videos. One of my coworkers, who I recommended Molyneux to regarding peaceful parenting, told that Stefan was a Trump supporter. I was skeptical to say the least, but it appears that the man who once proclaimed voting was immoral and politics was like trying to change the mission of the mafia has flipped (seems like a full jumping of the shark). Can someone bring me up to speed on this pivot? Was there any discussion on Gary Johnson or any other candidates that are more compatible with freedom? I'm rather baffled by this.

When did he say voting is immoral?  If I recall, he said in the Truth About Voting that he was making an emotional appeal.

[Tyler H]

When did he say voting is immoral?  If I recall, he said in the Truth About Voting that he was making an emotional appeal.

Podcast 953 about 40 min in.

[dsayers]

I've actually been thinking about that claim more. I was previously of the mind that voting was immoral. Then I was convinced it wasn't because the ruler could choose not to violate property rights. However, lately I've been reconsidering whether that is sufficient. By this I mean that a candidate vows to violate property rights and is grasping a tool by which such things are required and perceived as legitimate. So just as a reasonable person understands that unprotected sex will result in pregnancy, a reasonable person would also understand that giving somebody permission to violate property rights will lead to the violation of property rights.

 

I've been waiting for the hysteria to die down here in hopes of having a rational discussion on the topic.

[D-Light]

How can voting be immoral when the vast majority of people condone it? I can understand how one can consider it out of harmony with the NAP or unprincipled or unethical according to the libertarian standard of ethics or right and wrong, but immoral? Somebody help me out here.

[dsayers]

How can voting be immoral when the vast majority of people condone it?

Popularity isn't the measure of morality. Consent is.

[D-Light]

Popularity isn't the measure of morality. Consent is.

Says who? Does the criminal consent to the punishment he receives?  What about the baby receiving a circumcision? Both of these are considered moral by the majority of society, even though the individual participants do not agree.

 

The NAP may be the standard that you use for ethical behavior, it is the standard I use; but the majority of society do not. The majority of society do not consider morality to be defined by the NAP, but rather by the commonly agreed upon social norms of behavior... making things like taxation, incarceration for the possession or usage of plants or herbs without permission, and the murder of foreigners in their own lands who resist the interests of our fellow countrymen's corporations or their allies abroad. Such people being "liberated" from their homes and possessions certainly don't give consent, but most in America consider those aggressions to be moral, and the soldiers "just obeying orders" to be moral as well.

[dsayers]

Says who?

Nature.

 

Does the criminal consent to the punishment he receives?

Well "punishment" is a statist (fantasy) question. If phrased accurately--"Does the criminal consent to the restitution they pay?"--the answer is yes! If I were to assault you, I would be voluntarily creating a debt to you. Restitution is the settling of that debt (which can include counter-force).

 

But this question does nothing to identify whether morality is arrived upon by popular vote or by way of a lack of consent. I answered it anyways because the answer serves to demonstrate the ways in which you can KNOW that you can discard any espoused version of morality that is subjective. As everybody who wields the terms means to prescribe what people OUGHT to do. In this context, any idea of morality which was subjective could not be universalized and would be mere opinion.

 

Meanwhile, as described above, a person engaging in theft, assault, rape, and murder is telling you by their very actions that their behavior is wrong. Because they're using their labor/body/life to deprive you of yours.

 

Taking it back to your original challenge of voting, those who understand objective morality understand that a credible threat is equivalent to what is being threatened in terms of identifying the behavior as coercive. A vote is a threat to inflict a specific policy/ruler onto others and the fact that there is a mechanism in place to realize that coercion, the threat is credible. Since those having it inflicted upon them did not consent, the act is immoral.

 

Thank you for following up here. The effort I put into explaining this helped me to reconcile my instinct with rationality in a way that allows me to communicate how political voting IS in fact immoral.

[taraelizabeth21]

You do not "save Western Civilization (undefined)" by pretending to be able to enslave hundreds of millions of people. Condoning institutionalized violence because we think it will give us what we want is what got us here in the first place. The very state you are begging to rule over me created the problem you think it can solve. Also, you use a LOT of verbiage that poisons the well. I asked you in another thread how you arrived at the conclusions you were putting forth, which went unanswered. It's very telling that the people who occupy this position refuse to shoot straight when "discussing" it.

 

I looked back at what you said. It still seems ambiguous in light of your clarification. It's still a bogus claim with the clarification. Because if all you can do with that forum is to accept human subjugation, how can you arrive at the conclusion that this is something that SHOULD continue? It's not happening now, which I already made the point of. Along with others you chose not to address. See above "shoot straight."

 

In regard to "poisoning the well," not really sure what you mean, but I make no apologies for expressing negativity toward courses of action that I think will allow for the degradation of Western values in the United States.

 

These include: respect for women, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of sexuality, right to bear arms. Allowing Clinton to take the White House would have also allowed more criminals to come unvetted into my country where I live, some of which who are actively part of terrorist organizations. All of this would have been occurring while her administration simultaneously aggravated foreign wars, mainly with Russia. Look at her policies, look up the vast amount of evidence there is to support that these are the things she wanted to do while in office. This is to say nothing of the FBI investigations, the information that came out in Wikileaks ("spirit cooking," wtf??).  

 

Then you add in the cultural decay with concepts like "privilege," etc. and the labeling of everyone as racist/sexist. Degrading marriage/family values by the left. All of these factors work to break up the cultural cohesion of the West and endanger its citizens. I mean, Europe is being destroyed by these very policies as we speak. So, to address your issue of not defining Western Civilzation: see above. 

 

You're talking about subjugation but you have no idea what true subjugation is. Taxation may be theft, but this isn't Saudi Arabia, or Qatar. But it could have been! Please at least try to consider the practical realities of what is occurring around you. That doesn't mean give up your morals, I certainly haven't, but don't look down on the rest of us for not wanting to see the US become Mexico and to fear the practical consequences of what that would mean. You're fighting an abstract war about whether or not the state is immoral and how immoral I am for participating and accusing me of subjugating you with my vote? To continue your shooting analogy, you're aiming at the wrong target, here. And yes, government is immoral. I'm sure no one here would argue otherwise. But this election meant the difference of living in a third world country rife with crime, financial ruin, and war--OR continuing to have this conversation and promote anarco-capitalist ideals in relative safety and security.

 

Again, Stef cared about this election because it's outcome probably determined whether or not he could even continue to put out content. So before passing judgment I'd at least consider that you're utilizing a format that was jeopardized by the outcome of this election to even get your message across. 

[Tyler H]

How can voting be immoral when the vast majority of people condone it? I can understand how one can consider it out of harmony with the NAP or unprincipled or unethical according to the libertarian standard of ethics or right and wrong, but immoral? Somebody help me out here.

I guess to start we can say that the act of voting in itself is not immoral. A group of people who get together and decide to vote and adhere to the outcome of the vote voluntarily is not immoral. For example, a neighborhood where all the residents have agreed to certain standards and these standards are determined through a community vote would not be immoral. The immorality comes into play when what is being voted on is immoral. In this way voting is like shooting a gun, totally fine if you shoot it at a paper target, completely immoral if you shoot it at a person. If what is being voted on is the immoral use of force against a being capable of ethical behavior then the entire process is immoral.

 

In regards to the issue of the moral majority, we know that just because more people support something doesn't make it moral because no one would say "How can rape be immoral when the vast majority of people condone it?" or "How can slavery be immoral when the vast majority of people condone it?" If morality changed with the subjective opinions of the masses then there truly is no morality, only subjective preferences. If we define morality as the subjective preference of the masses then there is no difference between "murder is wrong" and "I like ice cream". However if we define morality as an objective universal rule, now we have something to work with, and now we don't need to depend on the majority for morality which has historically led to the sanction of slavery, witch burning, and rape.

 

UPB is a great introduction to objective morality.

[dsayers]

As a follow up to my last post, I've written a more formal "proof" here.

 

In regard to "poisoning the well," not really sure what you mean, but I make no apologies for expressing negativity toward courses of action that I think will allow for the degradation of Western values in the United States.

If you're not sure what I mean, why not look it up? Poisoning the well is a well (no pun intended) documented logical fallacy.

Worry not, as you've engaged in more of the same right here. Your use of the words "allow," "degredation," and "Western values" are poisoning the well. Here, "allow" holds people who are not responsible accountable by implying an unchosen positive obligation, which on the meta level, you are expressing pride for shaming the act of not fulfilling that obligation in others. "Degredation" is meant to invoke an unsavory emotional response as if something existing is somehow proof that it ought to exist and never evolve or be replaced. "Western civilization" is vague and meant to solicit an emotional response as if these words are automatically benevolent or righteous.

 

Yes, I realize that you went on to elucidate some of that vagueness. However, even there, you are poisoning the well by using words like respect and freedom. It is sophistry. A moment's rational consideration quickly reveals that participating in the continuation of the enslavement of human beings is neither respectful nor freedom.

 

The fact that your language is manipulative reveals that this is not a conversation AND they you understand that your position lacks merit. Otherwise, you would be precise and welcome challenges to those ideas because they would only serve to galvanize your ideas if they were accurate. That you have to initiate the use of force against others to further ideas shows that maybe the ideas aren't such hot shit after all.

 

*I* respect women by giving them responsibility, holding them accountable, and not trying to inflict my will upon them. Care to join me?

[taraelizabeth21]

As far as poisoning the well: none of what I said are ad hominem attacks against you or anyone else designed to elicit negative responses. Again, "respect" for property rights, and "freedom" of religion are definable values that are associated with "Western" societies. These are not attacks or praises. It describes an objective fact. If you're asking me to go as far as to define what "freedom" of religion is in order to avoid poisoning the well... then you're not really concerned with poisoning the well. Everyone knows what that means. If I can't use commonly accepted phrases which refer to specific/definable ideas that are well known, then I can't even speak at all. So, I don't think you're concerned about me poisoning the well, you're trying to keep me paralyzed and unable to respond.

 

The words I have chosen can be tied to phenomena which I have explained multiple times. I described to you Western values, I've shown that Leftist principles DO degrade/oppose those sets of values, and, if a majority of people in the US had followed your example, and prioritized adherence to a philosophical theory over practical matters, negative consequences WOULD have come to pass. And, from what I understand about Stef's particular issue with voting: it wasn't a moral issue, he saw voting in previous elections as a useless gesture which was designed to encourage further compliance from the populace. There was too much corruption in Washington for it to make any difference whatsoever; but he changed that stance based on Trump's candidacy.

 

To address immorality: you've attempted to argue that voting is immoral; you have not proven that. Again, being that I am not the one aggressing/using force against you, and the state is, I cannot be held morally accountable for any actions in this case. By extension, neither can you. The state is the moral agent and, in its violent monopoly, renders us all victims. How we individually respond to this issue (i.e. whether we vote or not) cannot be a moral judgement.

 

Now, we are in a particular situation here where one candidate would have accelerated the financial, social, and military decline of the United States. So, Stef took up the mantle to convince us all to vote Trump. Again, according to your own framework of immorality which establishes the state as the moral agent, the aggressor, you cannot hold me, the victim, morally accountable or accuse me of initiating force against you for voting. 

 

I don't accuse you of initiating force for not voting, nor do I think abstaining can be called immoral based on UPB. I do however think that the decision not to vote represents a concerted denial of the practical realities of the current situation. So, I spoke out against it in order to attempt to potentially dissuade any other well-meaning person reading this thread from following your example.

 

I can't emphasize enough that Clinton wanted sites like this shut down. She threated to drone strike Assange, to nuke Iran. I mean, the list is endless. And it would have come to pass. And then you would have found out what it's like to actually live in a country that subjugates its citizens. So again, before you start accusing people of immorality you might want to consider the medium through which you are communicating. Because it is a medium that, through your inaction, could have been lost to us all. Is this a moral issue? No, I can't make the argument that it is. But it's what would have happened regardless. 

[Spenc]

It's not real. This is the problem with belief in things like the Constitution and statism in general. You cannot tell somebody "you get to rule over me" AND how to do so. They are mutually exclusive behaviors. Ruling over people is open-ended. Every ruler (including in USA's history) has demonstrated this, with all perceived forms of restraint mystically unable to actually restrain them.

 

The only thing people who consented to him as a ruler can do in response to him not doing exactly what they want is to admit that they were wrong to turn to institutionalized violence to solve problems created by that same institution and pledge to live their values from that moment on instead of selling them off for the illusion of comfort in the moment.

I'm not sure that voting is the same as consent to be governed.  While I understand the sentiment of the statement, I'm not sure that one is a corollary of the other.

 

FOr example, the vote isn't a referendum on whether or not to scrap the government or whether to proceed onward with the system.  That would be more in line with "consent to government and consent for the government to impose its rule over those who did not consent".  When people go to the polls, they go with the conditions being: a) there will be a continuance of government, b) there is a set procedure for selecting the ruling class, and c) this vote is your only input on the process and selection of the rulers in the eyes of the state.

 

I'll go look for your other thread about this topic to see if you addressed these points there.

[dsayers]

I'm not sure that voting is the same as consent to be governed.

Only to the extent that it's also consenting for others to be governed, which obviously isn't rational. Saying "I choose you to be my master" IS requesting to be ruled over. Also, it IS a referendum as to whether or not to have government. Not that the government would disband itself if everybody wrote that in, but people are being prompted to vote. Inside their own heads, they choose to either dignify this claim of ownership, or to treat it as the make believe that it is. 

[D-Light]

There are two kinds of "right and wrong" in common usage. The first type is what might be termed logical, descriptive, or predictive existential truths. These are characterized by declarative statements such as "This is a cat." and predictive statements like, "If dropped, It should land on it's feet." The second type is what might be termed "moral" or "ethical" non-existential sentiments or judgements. These are characterized by declarative statements such as, "It is wrong to hurt cats." or imperative statements like, "One should not do that."
 
Existential truths are objective, that is to say, their qualities are not determined by the observer. Non-existential truths, on the other hand are rational truths which are abstractions of existential truths, mathematics, and logic. Non-existential truths describe the relationships between existential entities and non-existential concepts, such as the existential entity of an actual cat and the concept of "cat" including the terms used to reference it (such as cat, felis domesticus, pussy, kitty, etc.), its taxonomic classification, etc. Non-existential truths also describe the relationship between two or more non-existential concepts, such as "All domesticated cats are felines." or "2 + 2 = 4".
 
There are also non-existential non-truths which nevertheless describe the relationships between existential entities and the individual observer or claimant, or describe the relationships between non-existential concepts and the individual observer or claimant. These relationships are called sentiments, preferences, and judgments. Because these relationships with existential entities or non-existential entities are dependent upon the observer or claimant, they are subjective.

 

The positive, neutral, or negative quality of a particular sentiment or preference is an expression of the relationship between the subject, observer, or claimant and the existential entity, abstraction, action, or behavior. An example of a preference being expressed is, "I like cats" or "I hate swimming."  We clearly observe the relationship between the subject or claimant "I" the existential entity or action "cats" or "swimming" and the expression of sentiment "like" or "hate". An example of a sentiment being expressed is, "Sunsets are beautiful." In the expression of a sentiment, the subject or claimant is implied--the one expressing the sentiment is the subject or claimant in the relationship.
 
Moral and Ethical sentiments are NO DIFFERENT than aesthetic sentiments such as an expression of beauty or utility, or desirability. There exists an implied relationship between the observer/claimant who is making the sentimental assertion or judgement, and the existential entity or action. A less ambiguous expression of sentiment is, "I believe sunsets are beautiful".  A less ambiguous expression of moral sentiment would be "I believe noone should murder." If you wish to persist with the notion that moral sentiments are somehow uniquely different from all other expressions of sentiment, you will be abandoning reason and logic and engaging in the logical fallacy of special pleading.
 
Morality is subjective. There is no getting around it, and yet, DSayers, you have tried by appealing to nature and asserting that morality is defined by consent. I believe that FOR YOU, and many others, morality is in fact defined by consent, or more precisely, you define immorality by the absence of consent. What you have done is simply expressed your sentiment for consent. You have essentially said, "To act without consent is wrong." To express the statement by explicitly stating the implied relationship, it would read, "It is my sentiment that, 'To act without consent is wrong.'"

 

If morality changed with the subjective opinions of the masses then there truly is no morality, only subjective preferences. If we define morality as the subjective preference of the masses then there is no difference between "murder is wrong" and "I like ice cream". However if we define morality as an objective universal rule, now we have something to work with, and now we don't need to depend on the majority for morality which has historically led to the sanction of slavery, witch burning, and rape.

 

There are no objective, universal ethical or moral absolutes; there are only subjective, sentimental ethical or moral preferences. You suggest that if there were an objective, universal rule, then we would not need to depend upon the popularity of a moral sentiment. You have suggested that subjective morality has let to the sanction of what today is considered heinous atrocities. What you have not demonstrated, however, is how things would actually be any different if morality were popularly regarded as an objective, universal rule as you suggest. Such a belief has not succeeded in preventing any of these horrible atrocities of the past. In fact, precisely the opposite is true, the belief in an objective, universal rule proclaimed by the God of the Christian Bible is precisely what allowed rape, the sanction of slavery, and the killing of people accused of witchcraft.

 

The problem which began apart from reason cannot be solved by reason alone. There must be an appeal to the sentiment of the masses. The public sentiment for such atrocities as rape, assault, and murder, and theft must change. The problem is not a lack of objective, rational ethics; the problem is an individual lack of sentiment which motivates action toward those ideals. The solution is not educating the reason of mankind, the solution is educating elevating the sentiment of mankind from vice to virtue... from destructive selfishness to cooperative self-interest, from violence to persuasion, from frustration to perseverance, from fear and anxiety to curiosity and confidence, from despair to hope.

[Tyler H]

 

Have you read UPB?

[D-Light]

Have you read UPB?

Yes.  Multiple times, and listened to the audio book multiple times. I am currently working on a comprehensive critique of his book, including what I consider to be the missteps in his reasoning.

[Tyler H]

Yes.  Multiple times, and listened to the audio book multiple times. I am currently working on a comprehensive critique of his book, including what I consider to be the missteps in his reasoning.

I think you've made some good points in your other post, are you planning on calling in? I think it would be a fantastically interesting debate.

[D-Light]

... you can KNOW that you can discard any espoused version of morality that is subjective. As everybody who wields the term [morality] means to prescribe what people OUGHT to do. In this context, any idea of morality which was subjective could not be universalized and would be mere opinion.

 

This begs the question, as it has not been established that morality must be universalized, nor that everyone using the term means for it to be applied in an egalitarian manner, so it cannot be used as proof that morality is objective and universal (and by this I assume you mean egalitarian or applicable to all equally). Many examples of non-universalized moral systems exist throughout history as well as today; it may even be the dominant form of moral systems where one moral standard exists for the ruler or noble class, and a different moral standard exists for the common class, or in other societies and systems, one moral standard exists for the free or citizenry and another for the chattel and slaves. Unless you can demonstrate an objective, rational reason why morality is or must be universalized, it may be regarded as nothing more than your personal sentiment or preference.

 

[dsayers]

 

This begs the question, as it has not been established that morality must be universalized

Maybe not here, but I did in my most recent article. If "what people ought to do" is subjective, then it's just people inflicting their wills onto others, which leads to competing claims... Who's right? It's of no use to anybody what people with the capacity for error think they should be doing without even knowing them.

[D-Light]

If "what people ought to do" is subjective, then it's just people inflicting their wills onto others, which leads to competing claims... Who's right? It's of no use to anybody what people with the capacity for error think they should be doing without even knowing them.

There is no logical "right" and "wrong" when it comes to competing sentiments and preferences. That's the problem with the very notion of objective morality. Objective morality is as inherently self-contradictory as subjective facts.  Asking "Who's right?" to the question of competing moralities is like asking "Who's right?" to the question of competing sentiments over flavors of ice cream.

 

As to the utility of morality, if you're a people farmer, it works great for controlling the masses and getting them to do what you want them to do without using force or the threat of force. Morality reduces the overall cost of ownership tremendously. If you have egalitarian sentiments, morality serves as instruction in behavior that promotes a society founded upon the specific moral standards the moral system is based upon. Morality can serve to unify the people, reducing or minimizing any conflict born of competing self-interest that is out of harmony with the goals of those who control society, whether those people are the community as a whole, a group of oligarchs, a monarch or dictator, or any other form of government. To paraphrase myself, Morality is Government.

[dsayers]

Asking "Who's right?" to the question of competing moralities is like asking "Who's right?" to the question of competing sentiments over flavors of ice cream.

Still begging the question.

 

If we both claim to own the same bike, this is a competing claim that has a right and wrong answer.

 

As to the utility of morality, if you're a people farmer, it works great for controlling the masses and getting them to do what you want them to do without using force or the threat of force.

Especially if you repaint it as subjective and throw in the things you want them to do and rename the things nobody should do to make them seem different and somehow permissible. You're making my point for me

[D-Light]

Still begging the question.

 

If we both claim to own the same bike, this is a competing claim that has a right and wrong answer.

 

Claims about ownership, while certainly non-existential, at least have a logical basis. Claims of sentiment do not. Therefore, comparing a claim of ownership to a sentimental preference of one ethical or moral system over another is not a valid or useful comparison in this instance.

 

Especially if you repaint it as subjective and throw in the things you want them to do and rename the things nobody should do to make them seem different and somehow permissible. You're making my point for me

 

Except that I never repainted anything as subjective, it started out subjective and will ever remain subjective, that is is the nature of ethics and morality. And as for how I'm making your point for you, the only point I'm making is that all moral systems are subjective. If that's making your point for you, you're welcome.

[dsayers]

 

Claims about ownership, while certainly non-existential, at least have a logical basis. Claims of sentiment do not. Therefore, comparing a claim of ownership to a sentimental preference of one ethical or moral system over another is not a valid or useful comparison in this instance.

You're the one who introduced the idea of "sentiment." It's not something I'm discussing (assuming this is a discussion). If you take my bike and then I take it back, we have mechanically engaged in the exact same behavior.

 

If you own yourself, then objective morality follows because it would mean everybody owns themselves and that theft, assault, rape, and murder are internally inconsistent. Everything else you're claiming is morality is in fact opinions. You're just calling them morality to assert that morality is subjective. Even though I've pointed out the ways in which such a thing would be of no use to anybody and you yourself have explicated why people do such a thing.