We can take a Kantian approach:
The Formulation Rule of Kantianism:
We should now focus on “alternative” natural rights that follow that rules.
what do i logically mean by ‘wrong’ ?
wait a sec, what do you logically mean by ‘logically false’
Something like, “Only act how you want everyone else to act.” These axioms seem appealing, but this is not what I ask for in the OP. In fact, that very appeal points toward the idea that natural rights are appropriately deemed a purely persuasive notion, rather than something to be logically proven or disproven. Again, I mean no offense to any concept by calling it “purely persuasive.”
they have important differences like libertarian socialism has important differences between marxist socialism, and fascism. i think you know how this one goes…
you are appealing to subjective decency, and not to any objective decency that youd think it possible for me to have received objective knowledge about.
the way morality is being gutted so as to loose its objectivity is to throw out the very thing that makes morality different from subjective preference.
sure, i can conceive of moral subjectivists and relativists hating the state, like they hate bad pop music, and being overcharged on bills, and so they are allies against the state. they can understand krugman is a peddler of economic fallacies, they can be aesthetically attuned and aware of societal consequences that they choose to act in ways that a moral die-hard would act, and so they can be beyond reproach on a moral level. well and good.
but they have abandoned the moral project. which is to discover the laws/facts of morality.
I’ll let this stand.
ok, this is cool and all, but the point to take home is not to ask people what they logically mean
Dear jdcoffey, using God as an argument will not help the cause, and you know why. Im atheist and Im sure many here are either atheist or agnostic.
What I find strange, nirgraham, is that I thought I recalled you defining “morally wrong” as “producing bad consequences,” where “bad” is still not fully clear but could at least be narrowed down to a few possible meanings. Nevermind what we both “logically” mean, all I am saying is that “false” is reasonably unambiguous, but “morally wrong” is not. Do you disagree?
The following is pure speculation, but I suspect - possibly - the reason you feel inclined to regard words like “ought” and “wrong” as atomic is because they are actually just expressions of approval or disapproval, or similar. If they stand for emotions, they cannot be reduced further, just as emotions cannot be. I am nearing a similar sort of “conclusion” (about others) myself, but then I can’t call it a conclusion because then I would be proven wrong by everyone who themselves defined “ought” and “wrong” differently. Definitions are the heart of the matter, if not the ONLY matter.
We just recognize the incoherence of that particular moral project. Plus I believe I have more faith in the inherent decency of the preponderance of humanity than your side does. Man does not need to be indoctrinated with an incoherent syllogistic theory to do what’s right; he need only be un-indoctrinated regarding the factual lies of the state.
To paraphrase what I’ve written before…
For most of us, liberal principles are written on our hearts. They are moral axioms that are present in the heart of most any man who isn’t mixed up by the sophistries of the state. A man doesn’t need to understand the politics of war to know that murder is wrong; neither need he understand how markets work to know that stealing is wrong. If it weren’t for state propaganda, there would be no need for libertarian intellectualism. Unfortunately the state, through its false economics and false political philosophy, has convinced mankind that the world is in a constant state of extremity, such that, without some men being given the power to murder, steal, and enslave with impunity (to commit “necessary evils”), the lifeboat of society will keel over and everybody will drown. False theory can only be fought effectively with true theory. The role of a libertarian intellectual therefore is not to weave intricate theories to justify justice itself (there is no need for that); rather it is to UNWEAVE the tangled fabric of state lies. That is why we need economics and political philosophy: to show exactly how the state’s purported necessary evils aren’t actually necessary, and thereby destroy the impediments to their natural liberalism.
no i dont. false, is a difficult concept to justify when you are talking of knowledge about the world. what is.
no i express disapproval of wrong actions. sometimes i hear about something on the news, and i don’t disapprove or approve of it. i think about it . i realise that its morally permissable or impermissable. then i will say that i approve or dissaprove of it. but thats a definite step that comes after i figure out wheether its wrong or right (to the best of my knowledge)
so. your allowed to say that murder is wrong. but i am not allowed to say it. because im a moral realist that believes in objective ethics.
what is going on …?
yes, but maybe they arent evil since evil is just relative to whoevers opinion of evil you are asking.
if you should ask the statist… how owuld he respond… ‘im not evil, im good!’ … ok then that was worthwhile and constructive. all the morality we need.
Well put!
I asked whether you think the meaning of “false” is reasonably unambiguous. I didn’t ask if it could be “justified.”
So, how do you go about figuring out whether it is wrong or right?
Well let us deduce what violence is in terms of behavior. Violence involves conquest, anger, suppression, coercion while non violence involves pacificsm, harmony, peace, in some cases apathy. Now you suggest that in order to become civil, the nonviolent aspect of man’s mind must become the very thing that is its polar opposite. So what you suggest is that in order to become civil we must become uncivil to harness our uncivil side. I hope you see the ridiculousness of this outlook.
it can have varied subtle different meanings under different contexts, but im well practiced enough in using ‘false’ and talking to people that use it similarly that i am confident in my use of it, and this makes unambigious a fine word to use to describe my relationship with it.
so too, morally wrong. i am well practiced. i engage with people that use the term, to refine my knowledge of the use of the term. perhaps you are merely suffering from a lack of practice. a question of familiarity.?
i have my store of moral facts and principles which i have accumulated, and use that to look for key features in the story, which i then evaluate. you will be familiar with many of these. raw terms and the principles that string them together. aggression, initation, property, innocent. moral agent. etc.
i dont think i can reasonably be expected to give you a full mind-dump by typing on a forum…
If you subjectively deem murder is wrong, as do most people, then you are eagerly invited to say it. But it makes no sense to try to establish it as an objective fact.
I wouldn’t ask a statist such a useless question, or try to prove him wrong by trying to derive “ought” from “is”.
I might, however, ask him whether he feels stealing, assault, and enslavement are wrong. If he answers affirmitavely, I would then prove him incoherent by deriving “ought” from “ought” and showing him that he is actually promoting stealing, assault, and enslavement.
If he then objects that state stealing, state assault, and state enslavement are necessary evils, I would introduce him to Austrian economics to show him that they are not in fact necessary.
Please explain/elaborate, as I found nothing.
No. Action requires a purpose and guided bodily movements. Going fishing is an action, getting sick isn’t. People in a coma exist, they do not act though.
Ok…so? By your bizarre position, you now believe that there is a world devoid of logic, reason, or reality because you are speaking of it.
Look up the word “proof” - you won’t find it in my question, (which you still haven’t directly answered.)
Therefore? Therefore? How did you get therefore? I asked you to prove how speculating about something implicitly establishes the existence of something and I’ve gotten nothing. This assertion you are making is simply unfounded.
I believe that you are mistaken.
In this work, “an implicit recognition” is not interchangeable with “a degree of non-violation.” “An implicit recognition” is actually a specific case of “a degree of non-violation.” If you substitute the other in the sentence loses some of its meaning although it is still true.
Now why does argumentation imply an implicit recognition of a right to one’s body and not just non-violation?
First, the difference between action and behaviour must be recognized. If I am walking to the local convenience store to buy some juice, this is an action. I may also be moving north, swinging my arms, staying to the right side of the sidewalk, and so on. These are all examples of behaviour. They are not something cognitively reflected upon. Also, not killing anyone along the way is behaviour. The thought simply doesn’t cross my mind and can’t be considered a part of the action.
What does it mean to implicitly recognize?
If I am writing a simple mathematical equation such as “2+2=4”, I explicitly recognize that “2” “+” “2” “=” “4”. I implicitly recognize the rules of logic, such as the law of non-contradiction, the principle of counting, my ability to judge propositions as being true or false and so on. This is because all of these must be presupposed for “2+2=4” to be true. So my writing the mathematical equation implies them. If I were to reflect on these facts as I write the equation, they would be explicitly recognized. If I do not, they are only implicitly recognized. This is only true however, if the equation is a representation of meaningful concepts and not mere scribbles on a page.
For any proposition of be meaningful, its proponent must have full control over their means of expression (body) . The proponent must be just as free to suggest any other proposition. Otherwise, it cannot be considered a genuine expression of their thoughts. So an opponent in the argument, must not only not interfere with the proponent’s body to have a meaningful argument. He must recognize his opponent as not being interfered with, for his propositions to be meaningful. There is an underlying norm (right) which is presupposed when one recognizes his opponent’s propositions as being meaningful. And this recognition is part of an action. It is not mere behaviour.
So, I think Hoppe has been careful with his words. You changed the argument and took it out of context. Then you attacked your new argument. I think Hoppe’s original argument is fine, as far as it goes.
Interesting. I will think on that.
Right, just wanted a summary. I believe I do this, too, in a way. I have identified a moral sense in myself, which I would tentatively define as my (emotional) sense of empathy + sense of justice, and logical reasonings based on assuming those feelings are valid (for myself only!).
You seem to be saying that by discussing with other people you are refining your sense of what “right” and “wrong” mean. In that sense, can I conclude that your conception of right and wrong is based on the norms and mores of the people you habitually associate? I suppose my personal sense of what is acceptable or not are influenced highly by my friends and family as well. However, I wouldn’t purport my moral sense to be universal (hence not “ethics” as I understand them - aren’t “ethics” for others?), other than that perhaps biological senses of empathy and justice may be built in to a degree - but I haven’t read such research so do not know.
I think I have made my point about semantics, so I’ll lay off the prying for now[A]
Sorry, there’s no such thing as stealing when the gov’t does it because the government decides what is legal and what is not. You don’t own what you call your property - so the government is not stealing. Only people with limited mental abilities would claim that taxation is theft.