Jot Posted November 30, 2016 Posted November 30, 2016 Am I objectively wrong? Or just subjectively wrong? you are subjectively right (joke)
D-Light Posted November 30, 2016 Posted November 30, 2016 Am I objectively wrong? Or just subjectively wrong? The declaration, "Morality is by definition objective" is objectively erroneous. Rhetoric is not making any arguments. You might wish to check your definition of the term: rhetoric. If you want to sustain that moving to a place with really bad conditions is the same thing as being held up by robbers present your argument. I see, so one can brave the privations of war lords be held up by other robbers, or one can escape into the wilderness in the hope of never being discovered and bothered attempt to elude the pursuit of other robbers or slavers, but somehow this is not akin to being held up by robbers or pursued by robbers or slavers. There comes a point where it's simply more prudent to deal with the initiation of violence with retaliatory violence.
NotDarkYet Posted November 30, 2016 Posted November 30, 2016 The declaration, "Morality is by definition objective" is objectively erroneous. Could you elaborate. For example, is the initiation of force, say, murder, objectively wrong?
D-Light Posted November 30, 2016 Posted November 30, 2016 Could you elaborate. Yes. For example, is the initiation of force, say, murder, objectively wrong? No. The near universality of sentiment against murder happening to them or someone they know or care about does not make it objectively wrong.
Jot Posted November 30, 2016 Posted November 30, 2016 Rhetoric is not making any arguments. You might wish to check your definition of the term: rhetoric. If you want to sustain that moving to a place with really bad conditions is the same thing as being held up by robbers present your argument. I see, so one can brave the privations of war lords be held up by other robbers, or one can escape into the wilderness in the hope of never being discovered and bothered attempt to elude the pursuit of other robbers or slavers, but somehow this is not akin to being held up by robbers or pursued by robbers or slavers. There comes a point where it's simply more prudent to deal with the initiation of violence with retaliatory violence. You might wish to check your definition of the term: rhetoric. In logical debate rhetoric are linguistic constructions which "attempt to persuade a person or audience that a particular statement is true or false, regardless of whether it actually is true or false". You did this here, what I am quoting now is a rhetorical construction: "...but somehow this is not akin to being held up by robbers or pursued by robbers or slavers." Here you are not putting forward premises that conduct to a conclusion. You are rhetorically saying "but somehow" as if you have already proven that my position is false. I see, so one can brave the privations of war lords be held up by other robbers, or one can escape into the wilderness in the hope of never being discovered and bothered attempt to elude the pursuit of other robbers or slavers, but somehow this is not akin to being held up by robbers or pursued by robbers or slavers. There comes a point where it's simply more prudent to deal with the initiation of violence with retaliatory violence. An argument is made up of premises that lead to a conclusion. Show me your premises and the conclusion in this fragment.
jpahmad Posted November 30, 2016 Posted November 30, 2016 Could you elaborate. Yes. For example, is the initiation of force, say, murder, objectively wrong? No. The near universality of sentiment against murder happening to them or someone they know or care about does not make it objectively wrong. Have you read UPB by Stefan Molyneux?
D-Light Posted November 30, 2016 Posted November 30, 2016 Have you read UPB by Stefan Molyneux? Yes, and I disagree with his contentions that morality is objective. He conflates the imperative (should/must) with the declarative conclusion (should/must as a consequence), thus violating his own ground rule of distinguishing between an "ought" and an "is".
jpahmad Posted November 30, 2016 Posted November 30, 2016 Yes, and I disagree with his contentions that morality is objective. He conflates the imperative (should/must) with the declarative conclusion (should/must as as a consequence), thus violating his own ground rule of distinguishing between an "ought" and an "is". He cleared that problem up right away in the very beginning of the book.
D-Light Posted November 30, 2016 Posted November 30, 2016 He cleared that problem up right away in the very beginning of the book. No, he did not. He actually stated that the ground rules he was going to follow, and then violated them. (UPB p. 9, Ground Rules 1 and 8 in particular) He violates these Ground Rules (UPB p. 33-36)
jpahmad Posted November 30, 2016 Posted November 30, 2016 No, he did not. He actually stated that the ground rules he was going to follow, and then violated them. (UPB p. 9, Ground Rule 1 and 8 in particular) tell me the ground rule (which page) and then tell me the page on which he violated them
D-Light Posted November 30, 2016 Posted November 30, 2016 You might wish to check your definition of the term: rhetoric. In logical debate rhetoric are linguistic constructions which "attempt to persuade a person or audience that a particular statement is true or false, regardless of whether it actually is true or false". You did this here, what I am quoting now is a rhetorical construction: "...but somehow this is not akin to being held up by robbers or pursued by robbers or slavers." Here you are not putting forward premises that conduct to a conclusion. You are rhetorically saying "but somehow" as if you have already proven that my position is false. I see, so one can brave the privations of war lords be held up by other robbers, or one can escape into the wilderness in the hope of never being discovered and bothered attempt to elude the pursuit of other robbers or slavers, but somehow this is not akin to being held up by robbers or pursued by robbers or slavers. There comes a point where it's simply more prudent to deal with the initiation of violence with retaliatory violence. An argument is made up of premises that lead to a conclusion. Show me your premises and the conclusion in this fragment. rhetoric - noun - the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques. The compositional technique I used was comparative contrast. I see, so one can brave the privations of war lords be held up by other robbers, or one can escape into the wilderness in the hope of never being discovered and bothered attempt to elude the pursuit of other robbers or slavers, is compared or contrasted to but somehow this is not akin to being held up by robbers or pursued by robbers or slavers. However the comparison between robbers in a mugging and war lords on the one hand, or the state pursuing a tax evader to robbers at a mugging seemed to escape you, so I substituted the terms in the predicate in the first sentence into the second with the hope that one would see that war lords are the equivalent of robbers engaged in muggings, and the state pursing individuals into the desolate wilderness to escape robbers and slavers is the equivalent of fleeing the state with similar objectives of robbery and enslavement. Nevertheless, you object to this rhetorical device, so I shall present the argument in the manner you requested. If the same economic and moral principles apply to one group as apply to another group, the two groups are economically and morally equivalent. Robbers operate in specific geographic regions where they expect to encounter individuals who have sufficiently acquired wealth and present a nominal threat to their personal safety. Such robbers prey upon the populace which present opportunities for extortion with only a nominal probability of reciprocity. If the amounts are sufficiently small, or the amount of force threatened or employed sufficiently great, the robber is likely to meet little resistance. If the amounts demanded are too great, or the demands occur with too great a frequency, the robber runs the risk of driving way potential recurring or new victims. If the victims or potential victims are not in the middle of being victimized, they may be free to flee to another geographic location, but if they are in the middle of a robbery, their flight will almost certainly be prevented before the accomplishment of the robber's objectives. Agents of the state operate in specific geographic regions where they expect to encounter individuals who have sufficiently acquired wealth and present a nominal threat to their personal safety. Such agents which present opportunities for extortion with only a nominal probability of reciprocity. If the amounts are sufficiently small, or the amount of force threatened or employed sufficiently great, the robber is likely to meet little resistance. If the amounts demanded are too great, or the demands occur with too great a frequency, the state runs the risk of driving way potential recurring or new victims. If the victims or potential victims are not in the middle of being victimized, they may be free to flee to another geographic location, but if they are in the middle of a robbery, their flight will almost certainly be prevented before the accomplishment of the state's objectives. As we can see from the above comparisons, the same economic and moral principles apply to robbers as apply to revenue agents of the state. Therefore, robbers and agents of the state are economically and morally equivalent. I hope that satisfies your desire for a more formally presented argument.
D-Light Posted December 1, 2016 Posted December 1, 2016 tell me the ground rule (which page) and then tell me the page on which he violated them The proposition before us is thus: can some preferences be objective, i.e. universal? <-- violation of rule 8 conflating and redefining the terms objective and universal. When I say that some preferences may be objective, I do not mean that all people follow these preferences at all times. If I were to argue that breathing is an objective preference, I could be easily countered by the example of those who commit suicide by hanging themselves. If I were to argue that eating is an objective preference, my argument could be countered with examples of hunger strikes and anorexia. Thus when I talk about universal preferences, I am talking about what people should prefer, not what <-- rule 1 or 2 conflating ought and is by ambiguously using should they always do prefer. To use a scientific analogy, to truly understand the universe, people should use the or defining should as what is good for a particular objective (man's scientific method – this does not mean that they always do so, since clearly billions of people consult survival) or some other equally subjective goal. ancient fairy tales rather than modern science for “answers.” There is no way to achieve truth about the universe without science, but people are perfectly free to redefine “truth” as “error,” and content themselves with mystical nonsense. Likewise, if a man wants to cure an infection, he should take antibiotics rather than perform an Aztec rain dance. The preference for taking antibiotics rather than doing a rain dance is universal, since dancing cannot cure infections. Thus, although there is the occasional madman who will try to cure himself through dancing, it is still universally preferable that if a man wants to cure himself, he must take <-- Violation of rule 2 antibiotics. In other words, if you want to get to the top of a mountain, wishing for it will never work. If you want to know the origins of the universe, prayer will never provide an answer. People still wish, and pray, but that does not make wishing or praying any more effective. If you correct me on an error that I have made, you are implicitly accepting the fact that it would be better for me to correct my error. Your preference for me to correct my error is not subjective, but <-- Violation of rule 1 My preference means it is subjective. My preference is objective, and universal. indeed that you be corrected, but others may prefer that you labor under false beliefs to ease their exploitation of you.You don’t say to me: “You should change your opinion to mine because I would prefer it,” but rather: “You should correct your opinion because it is objectively incorrect.” My error does not arise from <-- Regardless of the rationale for my preference, it remains subjective. merely disagreeing with you, but as a result of my deviance from an objective standard of truth. Your argument that I should correct my false opinion rests on the objective value of truth – i.e. that truth is <-- No, my argument would rest upon my preference that you believe what universally preferable to error, and that truth is universally objective. is true (at least in this circumstance), the belief that I am believing what is the truth and you are not, and the presumption of shared sentiment or preference for believing truth over falsehood. In essence, then, debating requires an objective methodology, through meaningful language, in the pursuit of universal truth, which is objectively preferable to personal error. <-- violation of Rule 8 conflating and redefining the meaning of objective(ly) and universal This preference for universal truth is not a preference of degree, but of kind. A shortcut that reduces your driving time by half is twice as good as a longer route – but both are infinitely preferable to driving in the completely wrong direction. In the same way, the truth is not just “better” than error – it is infinitely preferable, or required. <-- violation of Rule 8 redefining "infinitely preferable" to mean "required" Stefan continues to redefine terms and present arguments in violation of his ground rules on subsequent pages, but these few examples should suffice for demonstrating to any unbiased observer what I was referring to above.
Jot Posted December 1, 2016 Posted December 1, 2016 rhetoric - noun - the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques. The compositional technique I used was comparative contrast. I see, so one can brave the privations of war lords be held up by other robbers, or one can escape into the wilderness in the hope of never being discovered and bothered attempt to elude the pursuit of other robbers or slavers, is compared or contrasted to but somehow this is not akin to being held up by robbers or pursued by robbers or slavers. However the comparison between robbers in a mugging and war lords on the one hand, or the state pursuing a tax evader to robbers at a mugging seemed to escape you, so I substituted the terms in the predicate in the first sentence into the second with the hope that one would see that war lords are the equivalent of robbers engaged in muggings, and the state pursing individuals into the desolate wilderness to escape robbers and slavers is the equivalent of fleeing the state with similar objectives of robbery and enslavement. Nevertheless, you object to this rhetorical device, so I shall present the argument in the manner you requested. If the same economic and moral principles apply to one group as apply to another group, the two groups are economically and morally equivalent. Robbers operate in specific geographic regions where they expect to encounter individuals who have sufficiently acquired wealth and present a nominal threat to their personal safety. Such robbers prey upon the populace which present opportunities for extortion with only a nominal probability of reciprocity. If the amounts are sufficiently small, or the amount of force threatened or employed sufficiently great, the robber is likely to meet little resistance. If the amounts demanded are too great, or the demands occur with too great a frequency, the robber runs the risk of driving way potential recurring or new victims. If the victims or potential victims are not in the middle of being victimized, they may be free to flee to another geographic location, but if they are in the middle of a robbery, their flight will almost certainly be prevented before the accomplishment of the robber's objectives. Agents of the state operate in specific geographic regions where they expect to encounter individuals who have sufficiently acquired wealth and present a nominal threat to their personal safety. Such agents which present opportunities for extortion with only a nominal probability of reciprocity. If the amounts are sufficiently small, or the amount of force threatened or employed sufficiently great, the robber is likely to meet little resistance. If the amounts demanded are too great, or the demands occur with too great a frequency, the state runs the risk of driving way potential recurring or new victims. If the victims or potential victims are not in the middle of being victimized, they may be free to flee to another geographic location, but if they are in the middle of a robbery, their flight will almost certainly be prevented before the accomplishment of the state's objectives. As we can see from the above comparisons, the same economic and moral principles apply to robbers as apply to revenue agents of the state. Therefore, robbers and agents of the state are economically and morally equivalent. I hope that satisfies your desire for a more formally presented argument. Yeah, it's alright.
labmath2 Posted December 1, 2016 Posted December 1, 2016 This is pretty disgusting to me. You're talking about getting stolen from as if that's a valid form of avoiding being stolen from. So the State isn't threatening you just because it takes longer for that threat to come to fruition? Then once it does, if you're not caged, you're more heavily stolen from, with a blight on your reputation that will follow you for life? Where they mostly don't have to come after folks because they've already assaulted the minds of defenseless children, so most will co-operate out of fear or self-preservation? This is somehow better than the mugger who has to victimize one at a time, netting only a wallet, while understood by all to be in the wrong? What is your null hypothesis? You seem to be going to great lengths to believe that people do not pay taxes under threat of violence. I have pointed this out before, but i think it needs repeating. I was born in Nigeria and lived there for 11 years. Until my parents filed for me to cone to the U.S. i had never interacted with a government official. The government is run by selling oil rights and a other ventures like government farms. There is no sales tax or property tax or income tax if you work for a private company in most states (the major states like Lagos or Abuja might have them) because there is no infrastructure to track and collect them. I never had a passport till we were about to travel. I imagine this is true of many third world countries. This might start to change as everwhere gets more industrialized and it becomes posdible to track and collect taxes. Even police officers were not very common where i grew up. You see the occasional one every now and then, but for the most part people just lived their lives as if they didn't exist. I grew up in Ilorin, Kwara state in Nigeria.
Tyler H Posted December 1, 2016 Posted December 1, 2016 Stefan continues to redefine terms and present arguments in violation of his ground rules on subsequent pages, but these few examples should suffice for demonstrating to any unbiased observer what I was referring to above.Where you point out that preferences are subjective, depending on how you interpret the sentence can either support or reject your claim. A preference is a subjective opinion, but the existence of that subjective opinion can be objectively identified. This is what I believe he meant and is quite an important cornerstone to the theory. The book lacks the necessary language to convey the theory accurately, supplementing the book with the many discussions Stef has had with critics can clear a good portion of it up. He has said a few times he plans to update it. You make some good points, I look forward to giving them some thought.
jpahmad Posted December 1, 2016 Posted December 1, 2016 Stefan continues to redefine terms and present arguments in violation of his ground rules on subsequent pages, but these few examples should suffice for demonstrating to any unbiased observer what I was referring to above. Where is the list of the rules? You refer to rules. Can I see them?
D-Light Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 A preference is a subjective opinion, but the existence of that subjective opinion can be objectively identified. This is what I believe he meant and is quite an important cornerstone to the theory. Yes, facts, including the metaphysical or mental "existence" of even universally (or nearly so) held preferences, sentiments, or opinions are objective. There exists a nearly universally held aversion against assault, rape, murder, theft, and deception. This is an objective fact independent of the individual or group making the assertion. It may be and has been empirically established. Such sentiments may be expressed in the form of moral judgments or declarations, "assault, rape, murder, theft, and lying are wrong". Or they may be expressed in the form of moral prohibitions, proscriptions or imperatives, "You must not assault; or, Don't assault. You must not rape; or, Don't rape. You must not murder; or, Don't murder. You must not steal; or, Don't steal. You must not deceive; or, don't deceive." The key difference between that which is objective and that which is subjective is the dependency (or independency) of the claimant on the claim. In the case of declarations, the veracity or truth of the claim is either objective (independent of the claimant), or it is subjective (dependent upon the claimant). The independence of the claim can be verified empirically, that is to say, multiple individuals may separately verify through observation or other testing whether the declaration is true. This does not mean that its veracity is dependent upon independent testing; rather, it is merely empirically established or verified in this manner. The veracity of the objective declaration is independent of any claimant. An objective claim is factual or true whether or not anyone or everyone claims it to be true. On the other hand the subjective claim or assertion is dependent upon the individual making the declarative assertion or claim. The veracity or truth of the subjective claim or assertion is wholly dependent upon the individual or group making the claim or assertion. The declarative assertion or claim may be deemed "true" for the particular individual making the assertion; this is what is often referred to as a subjective or personal truth. However such "subjective claims, assertions, or 'truths'" may and often are contradicted by objective facts, assertions, or truths, or by another person's "subjective assertion, claim, or 'personal truth'". Subjective assertions, claims, or 'personal truths'" might more accurately be termed, opinions, perspectives, preferences, or sentiments. A subjective assertion, claim, preference, or sentiment is necessarily dependent upon the subject or claimant for its existence and supposed "veracity". Absent a claimant, the claim, assertion, preference, or sentiment would not exist. It is important to understand HOW a subjective claim or assertion is dependent upon the claimant in order to distinguish between subjective claims and objective claims. The following table indicates many of the important differences between Objective claims and Subjective claims. +----------------------------+------------------------------+ | Objective | Subjective | +----------------------------+------------------------------+ | Empirically verifiable | Not Empirically verifiable | +----------------------------+------------------------------+ | Independent of claimant | Dependent upon claimant | +----------------------------+------------------------------+ | Truth / Falsehood | Desirable / Undesirable | +----------------------------+------------------------------+ | Facts and Conclusions | Preferences and Judgments | +----------------------------+------------------------------+ | Rational / logical | Non-rational / Sentimental | +----------------------------+------------------------------+ | Laws, Reason, Methodology | Rules, Ethics, Ideals | +----------------------------+------------------------------+ | "Should" is Predictive | "Should" is Imperative | +----------------------------+------------------------------+ | "Must" means Unavoidable | "Must" means Obligatory | +----------------------------+------------------------------+ | "Right" means True/Correct | "Right" means Good/Preferred | +----------------------------+------------------------------+ | "Wrong" means False/Error | "Wrong" means Bad/Abhorred | +----------------------------+------------------------------+ | Descriptive Natural Laws | Imperative Man-made Rules | +----------------------------+------------------------------+ | What is - Real | What should be - Imagined | +----------------------------+------------------------------+ | Universally True by Nature | Agreement & Consensus | +----------------------------+------------------------------+ | Inherent / Definitive | Imputed / Chosen | +----------------------------+------------------------------+ | Natural Phenomena | Human caused | +----------------------------+------------------------------+ | Automatic | Volitional | +----------------------------+------------------------------+ The "trick" comes when a person either conflates or redefines the definitions or meanings of words to blur the lines between the subjective and the objective. It is necessary to keep in mind whether what is being set forth is an objective, predictive description, or a subjective, prescriptive directive or imperative. When the words being used are the same for two different meanings, it can seem like the circle has been squared when in fact, it's just sophistry leading one to believe that the subjective has become objective. It is critically important to keep in mind that all imperative declarations or directives are subjective, not objective. It's especially easy to forget that it is a subjective imperative when the what is being commanded is objectively almost (if not completely) universally desired. Thus, the subjective can be made to look objective by conflating the meaning of words and incorrectly using the terminology for the objective with the subjective by using the same words with ambiguous meanings. The subjective always advances a choice, behavior, ideal, or preference whereas the objective always only describes the choice, behavior, ideal, or preference, detailing and describing its particular properties, qualities, prevalence, etc.
Tyler H Posted December 3, 2016 Posted December 3, 2016 Yes, facts, including the metaphysical or mental "existence" of even universally (or nearly so) held preferences, sentiments, or opinions are objective. There exists a nearly universally held aversion against assault, rape, murder, theft, and deception. This is an objective fact independent of the individual or group making the assertion. It may be and has been empirically established. Such sentiments may be expressed in the form of moral judgments or declarations, "assault, rape, murder, theft, and lying are wrong". Or they may be expressed in the form of moral prohibitions, proscriptions or imperatives, "You must not assault; or, Don't assault. You must not rape; or, Don't rape. You must not murder; or, Don't murder. You must not steal; or, Don't steal. You must not deceive; or, don't deceive." I quite enjoyed the propaedeutic, you certainly have a skill for communicating. I'm going to bookmark this post for future reference. I've read UPB a few times and will probably need to read it a few more to fully grasp the concept, so any correction is welcomed, but from what I understand the book redefines morality in a way that removes it from the realm of the subjective (the preferences and sentiments of people who claim they know how others should act) and places it into the realm of the objective (using logic to determine if what someone claims is their moral rule can be universally applied). Morality is now defined as what can be universally preferable behavior. The claim of objectivity is not directed at the preference itself, but at its universal applicability. So for example, you can say that it is objectively illogical to say murder is good when murder by definition is an unwanted imposition and what is good (moral) is held to the standard of universality. In a lot of the podcast discussions confusion was expressed in regards to the title. It's not that the preferences are or are not universally preferred, but universally preferable, i.e. whether or not it's logically possible that the preference be applied universally. I stress this point because the part of your post I quoted led me to infer this misunderstanding may apply to you, I apologize if this is incorrect.
labmath2 Posted December 3, 2016 Posted December 3, 2016 I quite enjoyed the propaedeutic, you certainly have a skill for communicating. I'm going to bookmark this post for future reference. I've read UPB a few times and will probably need to read it a few more to fully grasp the concept, so any correction is welcomed, but from what I understand the book redefines morality in a way that removes it from the realm of the subjective (the preferences and sentiments of people who claim they know how others should act) and places it into the realm of the objective (using logic to determine if what someone claims is their moral rule can be universally applied). Morality is now defined as what can be universally preferable behavior. The claim of objectivity is not directed at the preference itself, but at its universal applicability. So for example, you can say that it is objectively illogical to say murder is good when murder by definition is an unwanted imposition and what is good (moral) is held to the standard of universality. In a lot of the podcast discussions confusion was expressed in regards to the title. It's not that the preferences are or are not universally preferred, but universally preferable[/], i.e. whether or not it's logically possible that the preference be applied universally. I stress this point because the part of your post I quoted led me to infer this misunderstanding may apply to you, I apologize if this is incorrect. That is simply not true. I called in and challenged him on precisely the imprecise use of language and he simply did not address it. He defined UPB in page 30-33 (if memory serves) and the definition is objective only because it states UPB is behavior that is necessary or required for achieving a particular goal. Over the course of the book, this definition becomes substituted with the subjective what behavior every can or should prefer. 1 1
NotDarkYet Posted December 3, 2016 Posted December 3, 2016 Are you saying that I OUGHT not believe something that's false? If you say "Yes", then you're contradicting yourself. If you say, "No", then you're contradicting yourself.
Tyler H Posted December 3, 2016 Posted December 3, 2016 That is simply not true. I called in and chllenged him on precisely the imprecise use of language and he simply did not address it. He defined UPB in page 30-33 (if memory serves) and the definition is objective only because it states UPB is behavior that is necessary or required for achieving a particular goal. Over the course of the book, this definition becomes sustituted with the subjective what behavior every can or should prefer. Would you mind telling me which show it was so I could have a listen? Also, I think there was a typo in your last sentence, could you reiterate?
labmath2 Posted December 4, 2016 Posted December 4, 2016 Would you mind telling me which show it was so I could have a listen? Also, I think there was a typo in your last sentence, could you reiterate? first caller in the show titled "self harming monks who listen to bad music" from November 18 2015.
Recommended Posts