But you have not proven anything is completely incoherent. All I have seen is that you have explain that since there is free will then natural law can be transgressed against. I don’t think that anyone denies that because there is the NAP, that means there is no murders. With free will, any amount of variation is possible. You can either be a natural rights theorist or some variation of ulitiarianism but even in utilitiarianism individuals act against the maximization of social pleasure, are we to deduce from that situation that utilitarianism is ‘incoherent?’ What is truly nonsense is to think that one can be amoral and yet engage in debate on the goodness/badness of other moral systems for engaging in such endeavors is establishing a certain moral system. Its a performative contradiction, and yes I know Anarcho-Mercantilist you reject the performative contradiction but really that is just your excuse to allow you to believe such things. And you Lilburne, don’t you have an article establishing libertarian morality through psuedo-Humeian format?
If we physically can transgress ‘natural law’, then can you specify the actions which does not transgress ‘natural law’?
You did not quality which actions constitute as “acting within one’s nature.” Conversely, I do not know what you mean by “acting against one’s ‘nature’.”
The term ‘amoralism’ is ambiguous.
That’s pretty much akin to saying that one can’t be an atheist and take part in discussions of religion, or that one can’t be an anarchist and partake in discussions relating to politics.
Actually not because an atheist does not announce that god is real through implied linguistics nor does being an anarchist mean an individual must become a political hermit.
non-violent voluntary interaction and exchange.
Only because you fail to define it. Amoralism is defined as lacking a distinction between right and wrong.
What the hell? When did any one imply that “an atheist [announces] that god is real thought implied linguistics”? And, what does that even mean?
And, the above quoted attemped counterargument is argumentatively empty.
So, if you are an amoralist, then you could not comment on the rightness or the wrongness of the proposition that 1 plus 1 equals 2?
concerning morality…A-moral…
By being amoral one cannot say ‘natural law is wrong’ for that would make a good/bad value judgement about morals which contradicts amoralism. By thinking that God doesn’t exist does not thereby imply that is actually is a deity.
You had defined ‘amoralism’ as “mathematical non-cognitivism,” which means that mathematical sentences do not express ‘propositions’. However, almost all mathematicians express their sentences as ‘propositions’. Therefore, we can logically label almost all mathematicians as ‘moralists’ in the sense of “mathematical cognitivism.”
Almost all ‘amoralists’ (as in ‘ethical non-cognitivists’) who practice mathematics express mathematical sentences as ‘propositions’. However, they leave out possibility of this for ‘ethical’ sentences. Why do they avoid setting truth values to ‘ethical’ sentences when they do not avoid setting truth values to mathematical sentences?
The answer is: The ‘ethical non-cognitivists’ do not define ‘true’ and ‘false’ as ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, respectively. That’s it.
‘Ethical non-cognitivism’ does not imply ‘amoralism’ (in AC’s sense of the term), nor does it imply ‘moral subjectivism’ (in Juan’s sense of the term). ‘Ethical non-cognitivism’ only deals with the definition of ‘truth’. Therefore, your usage of ‘amoralism’ has nothing to do with Lilburne’s and zefreak’s conceptions of ‘morality’, and has everything to do with ‘ethical non-cognitivism’.
How is that a value judgment?
How is saying if something is good or bad a value judgement?
I do not even have a usage of “amoralism”. I was merely responding to Anarchist Cain’s definition.
Not quite. An amoralist couldn’t say that natural law is morally wrong. He could still say natural law is wrong, as in incorrect.
And, 2+2=5 is also wrong . . . how is that a good/bad value judgment?
We are not talking about math, we are talking about ethical systems [ morality ]
No, you are still making a judgement on the correctness or incorrectness of a moral system thereby engaging in bring about a moral system. The only thing an amoralist can engage in without contradicting themselves is saying ‘I am an amoralist’ and then stop talking about morality beyond that.
You claimed that the proposition that “the natural law theory is wrong” is a value judgment. I claimed that the proposition that “2+2=5” is not a value judgment. If you want to continue to claim the first proposition, then you will need to explain what the difference is.
Natural Law - a moral system of goodness/badness
2+2= 5 - An unrealistic math problem.
Concerning Amoralism, it concerns morality, not math. If you cannot tell the difference between morality and math then discussing this topic further is a waste of my time.
They are both propositions. If you cannot explain the difference, then you lose.