“First, you have to define what moral is.”
<= How do you define it? The relationship between political philosophy, moral philosophy, ethics and philosophy of law isn’t clear cut. One could argue that ‘moral actions’ are actions people ought to do. And you can distinguish those actions between actions that can be enforceable by law and ones that cannot be. Immoral actions are actions that people ought not to do. Some ‘ought nots’ can be enforced by law - one ought not rape someone else, this is immoral - and some shouldn’t be enforceable by law - ‘one ought not not help someone in dying need, if it’s at a low cost to him self’.
I’ve got a problem with the fact my toilet doesn’t work. I have certain feelings about it. These feelings, in every day lingo, isn’t usually called ‘moral’ in any specific way. I also got a problem with how some people treat other people, certain acts of abortion, certain acts of parenting, etc. These feelings are often called ‘moral’, because people talk about those things in ways of ‘ought’ and ‘ought not’. Of course, these are different ‘ought’ and ‘ought nots’ as the ones claimed by libertarian philosophy, that just limits what actions can be enforced by the use of force. Somethings can be considered ‘oughts’ without anyone can use force to enforce it. Take, for example, ‘helping someone in dying need’ - an accident, someone drowning when you are a life guard of duty, calling the cops when you see someone getting robbed. People call that a moral obligation to help those people, but it’s not enforceable by law (and that’s how it should be.)
“Second, you have to ask how, if I have free will, I am able to be immoral with myself. And you have to answer the questions Scott can’t answer intelligently (no one can) how you can claim I am doing something wrong with my life, my property, my body.”
<= I don’t think one can be immoral against oneself. But you deny that something can be called immoral if it’s ‘with your life, property and body’. This seems to depend on your definition of morality. I’ve given mine, so please show me yours. Or do you just define ‘voluntary = moral’? Which makes this a semantic discussion. Anyway, if we consider that some moral oughts can exist whilst at the same time not enforceable by law, than yes, voluntary (inter) actions can be called immoral. Take, for example, the wife that stays with her husband even though he (psychologically) mistreats her. Do you call this voluntary? If so, than yes, this would be an example of a voluntary relationship between 2 people, where there are immoral acts. Just because the wife - given her options - voluntarily chooses to accept the life she has, doesn’t mean the man isn’t abusive or immoral. Another example is, again, not helping someone in dying need, even though you can very easily. This would be an immoral act.
Note that ‘moral’ and ‘immoral’ here aren’t as logically necessary as I consider the (libertarian) natural law position, which is undeniably true. But just as history and thymology are sciences, however sciences that aren’t true a priori and require empiricism, so are some moral questions not necessarily true a priori and depend on more contingent evaluations. One standard use for moral philosophy is to consider ‘oughts’ what helps social life in general and what ought hampers it - even though it cannot be enforced per se. A rule-utilitarian moral philosophy, sort of speak. And the rule ‘helping people in dying need at low cost to your self’ seems like a good moral rule, even though it’s not necessarily true a priori.
I’m not sure if these examples match your sentence of ‘how can you claim I’m doing something wrong with my own body’, because the sentence was a bit cryptic. Maybe try and give some examples yourself? What kind of actions do you think some people might find immoral, but you do not.
“I maintain, anything voluntary is moral. No one has refuted this yet. No one will without making up logical fallacies.”
<= So, again, how do you define ‘moral’ and why does it follow that ‘anything voluntary is moral’? Not helping someone in dying need is voluntary. Would you call this a moral act? How about the wife knowing that her husbands beats their children, but remains silent. Is she acting moral, because she’s voluntarily not telling anyone? These are 2 examples of something I would call immoral, but are voluntary actions on part of the relevant actor, given my definition of morality. Could you explain in depth your vision on this?
Could you give some other examples of things that are voluntary, but some people ‘might’ consider immoral?
“You’re welcome to sit around with your friends who care to listen, and judge other people’s lives, but the fact that you have something to say, doesn’t mean you have the authority to be listened to.”
<= That is true. (Moral) authority doesn’t come from ‘I have something to say’. Who’s claiming otherwise?
I don’t get the hostility in your posts, really. Nobody is saying ‘we should force people to do whatever the fuck we like and we should force them not to do shit we don’t like!!!’ You do realize that, right?
“Subjective opinions have truth value and relevance to the people who hold those subjective opinions, but subjective opinions (oughts) shouldn’t be confused with objective truth (is).”
<= Well, preaching to the choir, right there.
"It’s flawed reasoning for you to assume that just because people don’t have your social values, they lack any at all. "
<= That’s actually a misrepresentation of my view. I do not think people here don’t have social values. I only think that libertarians should talk social philosophy - as I defined it there - as well as political philosophy. I gave a whole explanation why I think libertarianism would profit from it in the relevant thread. I’m not saying ‘we don’t have social values’. I’m saying ‘let’s talk social values, because I know everyone here has them’.