I have seen no obvious axioms presented thus far AJ. Can two axiom’s be contradictory? Spidey has stated several times that his position is self evident. If both our positions were built on axioms however this thread would not have gone on for 14 pages. I feel like some have abused the term ‘axiom’ to push an opinion or agenda. As such the word has become diluted. THan again maybe my understanding of axiom’s are wrong. I never considerd opinions as being axiomatic though.
What were the two axioms presented for the arguments on this thread?
No. And that is relevant how? Because he can theorize how the majority will rule in an anarchist society? He completely debunks the idea that markets provide to every person, not just the majority? Does he explain how the abortion debate is resolved?
you own 1% of the market price of the assets should the company be liquidated (after the creditors have been paid off), and 1% of any dividends. you don’t own 1% of every material thing related to the business.
That only shifts the problem to a different problem, which is how you define “the community”. Under ethics standards that would have to be all other humans in the world. Obviously many of these humans have different ideas of how children are “mismanaged”. The fabric of society would collapse into chaos.
Just the axioms, please, if there are any. If not, then my comment may be entirely inapplicable to those papers. My comment only applies to what it says it applies to - sets of absolute, universal axioms.
Killing isn’t always. The same rules apply, you could kill a child in self defense. Sex requires a 2 party consent to be moral.
They consent to eating when they are hungry, sleeping when they are tired, playing when they want to play. To go against their consent requires a moral argument.
Just most things, people have no idea how to define parenthood it would seem.
If no axioms are at play here, then my comment doesn’t apply. However, for example, I think a number of people take the NAP as an absolute, universal axiom (maybe not Spideynw), with a certain definition or definitions for “aggression.”
With regard to the NAP (for instance), what I’m basically saying is: To the extent we pin down the definition of aggression, we will arrive at absurd results that I suspect most people would find morally abhorrent, and to the extent that we don’t pin down the definition, any claim to absoluteness or universality seems hollow.
I get what you are saying. The NAP is useless without a clear definition of property. So I think the definition of property is what is disputed here. If the definition of property changes arbitrarily it changes the application of the NAP.
Killing a child is not always wrong? That is what I asked.
When has a baby ever assaulted someone? Self defense is not what is at issue here. What is at issue is whether you can kill your baby legally.
Do babies/children consent to being locked in a room? Or having their diapers changed? Or being bathed? Or being strapped into a car?
So consent is irrelevant? As long as I can “morally” justify it, then it is justified? I am sure I could morally justify killing brown people living in the Middle East. I guess they are shit out of luck right, since I can “morally” justify away their right to life?
So you will deny the fact that humans start out with no greater reasoning abilities than animals, and later on as we grow and develop, we gain reasoning abilities? Because that is what you are calling “arbitrary”.
Its not a non answer, its the only answer. How else could you know right or wrong without a moral argument. The only real choice a person has to their moral arguments is if they are going the subjective or objective route, and the consequences that follow.
Yea I think abortion is legal. At least in my state it is up to some time in the pregnancy. After its born its illegal for sure.
That was my second point, anything that is against their will such as these things require a moral argument to perform them.
Ok then lets hear it. On what grounds should you go kill brown people living in the middle east.
Do you know what a strawman is? Because waiting for an answer is not one of them.
What problems? Humans sleep. Big deal. Is stealing an apple as bad as stealing a car? Oh the arbitrariness! Stealing should always be stealing right? Regardless of what is stolen, otherwise it is arbitrary.
If a human sleeps for too long, does the human lose its rights? Of course, we all enter the eternal slumber of sleep called death, and I don’t think anyone here argues that is arbitrary. Wait, using your logic, it would be!
Exactly. From different vantage points, the definition that needs to be nailed down is variously “aggression,” “property,” “ownership,” or something else. If it’s not nailed down, there’s no purpose in treating the NAP and similar principles as absolute/universal statements of ethics. If it is nailed down, humans can reason from it using valid or invalid logic. If they use invalid logic, others can debate and correct them.
That is well and good, but the question is whether I am correct that valid logical reasoning from any such axioms will inevitably lead to absurd/abhorrent results. Some might say I’m “charging that such theories paint human interactions with an impossibly broad brush, bound to gloss over particulars…which in moral terms equates to condoning atrocities.”
In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.
(From Wikipedia).
Just so we are clear, the NAP is not an axiom. It is a principle. The fact that it is dependent on definitions is proof of that. Furthermore, it is a moral argument - there is an understood “Violating rights is immoral” underpinning every argument relying on the NAP.
Spidey’s axiom (if I got it right): Things that can think critically can own property.
My axiom: Things that are members of a species, in which the average biologically mature member can consider abstract ideas, can own property.
I have not read the entirety of Block’s paper. I thought it had been summarized already in this thread.
Lastly, is the property of a corporation is owned by the corporation itself, then who owns the corporation? It isn’t a person, or even a potential person, so it can’t own itself. Or if it does, what right do the employees have to act on its property?
With no way to obtain consent from children, we have no idea when their rights are being violated. If you define some absolute definitions of these rights, then men having sex would violate each others’ rights, and should be forcibly separated.