Like I said, I blend deonotological arguments with some recognition of the consequences. Therefore not only is the face punch greeting immoral [ something subjective ethicists can’t demonstrate ] but it also has negative consequences if not recognized as immoral.
i agree. I know it would be doubting/skeptical of one’s existence. Life is absolutely of human nature (which includes passions/desires, having a mind in which we think, etc.), thus, ones existence; and the right is an axiom of said life.
This response doesn’t get at the heart of Lilburne’s question, which was:
Why must a civilized man recognize any objectively valid norms?
try explaining how he is civilized?
Much like how I myself am civilized, although I do not recognize norms as objectively valid.
You would only care to discuss with people who already accept certain objective norms, rather than just inter-subjective norms?
Also note that - at best - what you wrote here renders the original quoted passage of yours a mere rephrasing of Hoppe’s argumentation ethics. Was that your intent?
By implication from Kinsella, a man is (“in essence”) civilized if he is not a criminal:
same question then, try explaining how he is not a criminal? without appealing to any objectively valid norms
I find civilized and criminal unwieldy terms in this context. Kinsella brought them in, so don’t ask me to explain what they mean. I am just trying to get Kinsella (or someone else) to explain what he means.
well, the answer is that civilised man is known to be civilized by the fact that he observes particular norms
Observes particular norms meaning merely “does not violate particular norms,” or meaning “recognizes particular norms as objectively valid”?
i think a civilized man acting civilized would flow from his thinking civilized (and not through random acts of good fortune). so i say both.
If a man avoids violating the norms but his reasons are subjective (for example, his own moral sense happens to agree with the norms), do you think Kinsella would classify him as a criminal or civilized? To re-quote Kinsella,
im gonna sit out, as this is turning more and more towards what someone else thinks.
Yeah, that’s why I asked Kinsella.
Wow. The semantic trolls just keep asking for the definition of the word “definition” and the meaning of the word “meaning” - Nothing new under the sun I guess.
Yeah, damn those semantic trolls. Why can’t they just accept what they are told to believe! [8-)]
Misrepresentation.
If you are an individual who is skeptical of rights, I’d really like to hear how you defend libertarianism which is based on property rights and the NAP. The NAP and property rights are binary meaning you really can’t have a functioning system without both powers working. What makes rights subjective? They fact that people can harm you is proof that you don’t own your body? Truly this has never really been explained except maybe by AJ…I vaguely recall him making some kind of point towards this but I can’t remember what.
From my Mini-Manifesto of Liberty
We don’t need to be taught to feel revulsion toward murder, plunder, and enslavement; it is stamped on our hearts. And implicit in our natural revulsion toward murder, plunder, and enslavement are property rights: imperatives from one’s own conscience that says, “this is mine, that is thine”. I would go so far as to say that anyone who says they don’t feel such proddings of the conscience are either impaired or lying. And the fact that a great many people every day override that revulsion and go ahead and murder, plunder, and enslave anyway is owing to two causes. First of all, frailty is just as much a part of human nature as morality is. Moral urges are one kind of urge among many, and sometimes they lose the tug of war over human action. The second cause is that institution that fosters and feeds upon human frailty: the state.
The Lifeboat Lie
As I said, I feel assault, plunder, and enslavement are wrong; I regard them as crimes. I don’t see any reason why an act that I would consider a crime if committed by any other man should not be considered a crime simply because it is committed by a man wearing a badge, dressed in fatigues, or bearing a license. In other words, I make no exceptions for the state.
If morality is natural, then why do others make this exception?
As I’ve contended thus far, there is a moral code written in our hearts. This inherent moral code is only shoved aside when we enter conditions of extremity (known as “lifeboat situations”), in which circumstances have forced the human community to devolve into a war of all against all. In those cases, the involuntary urge for survival overwhelms the involuntary urge for moral behavior, and we therefore cast aside our communal moral feelings for the sake of extreme short-term selfishness. In other words, we allow ourselves “necessary evils”.
The state has deceived the bulk of humanity into believing that society is inherently in constant extremity: a perpetual “lifeboat situation” in which a great many “necessary evils” must be committed by the state, else the “lifeboat” of society will keel over and everybody will drown. This is a lie. Society does not require for its survival, or even for its flowering, that certain men be above natural morality. The acts of murder, plunder, and enslavement committed by the state are not necessary evils. They’re just plain evils; just as much as if you or I committed them as private individuals.