Or maybe I post those links for your benefit, as discussions in this area typically require a basic understanding of background material that you clearly lack.
Shouldn’t you apply your trashy skepticism to the nonsense you constantly spout ? Oh wait, in order to do that you’d need a minimum amount intellectual honesty which you clearly lack.
But then, of course, a concept such as ‘honesty’ is not ‘truth-apt’…
Can you define obligation?
And consequence?
Thanks. Just want to make this clear.
Is anyone else tired of people trolling the term trolling? Nope? Carry on, I guess.
Obligation is similar to a responsibility, to not perform your responsibilities is bad, similarly what you are obligated to do.
Consequence is the result/effect of an action
This isn’t an effective example of a contradiction in conceivability, because “It is permissible to steal” implies “It is permissible to deprive someone of their property.” But property is generally held to mean “objects that it would not be permissible to deprive someone of.” Therefore:
“It is permissible to steal”
reduces to
“It is permissible to deprive someone of objects that are not permissible to deprive someone of.”
It’s clearly an internally contradictory statement all by itself, without even looking at conceivability (which it of course also fails, as all internally contradictory statements must). For Kant’s purposes, we would need a moral proposition that is not internally contractory but does result in a contradiction in conceivability.
so a thief performs a contradiction. so what?
This is a question for Hoppe and Van Dunn
Are you, like AJ, not going to be ever to give knowledge? Are you going to leave it up to other people always?
A contradiction can never be performed. What the thief does is not immoral OR any immorality is based on faulty premises.
thank you. it is only a assumption with various possibilites as to why when not based on a principle.
Sorry. I thought the point I was making would be understood.
OK:
The argumentation ethics puts forth “contradiction” or “performative contradiction” as the penalty one must suffer if they advance a nonlibertarian ethic during the course of argumentation. That is, the argumentation ethics says: If you argue for a nonlibertarian ethic, then you will contradict yourself. In other words, the inescapable consequence of arguing for a nonlibertarian ethic is contradiction or performative contradiction. Essentially this is consequentialism. And I would argue it is also utilitarianism and instrumentalism. One who adheres to the argumenation ethics is provided with information that one of the ways to avoid a contradiction is to avoid arguing for a nonlibertarian ethic. On the other hand, if one believes the argumentation ethic, and if one wanted to achieve a contradiction, one can argue for a nonlibertarian ethic, and one knows with certainty one will be performing a contradiction, because in the argumentation ethics, the inescapable consequence (the necessary accompaniment) of arguing for a nonlibertarian ethic is contradiction.
The argumentation ethics essentially links two phenomena: 1) arguing for a nonlibertarian ethic, and 2) contradiction. It says that if you do #1,then #2 will certainly also be present. Thus, the argumentation ethics, in a sense, puts forth a “law” of action, since it claims to link two phenomena of action (of consciousness) with absolute certainty.
But you made an important point. You wrote in essence: So what if someone contradicts themselves?
The implication is this: if we grant for the sake of argument that the argumentation ethics is valid (something far from self-evident), the argumentation ethics only has the intended effect to the extent one is trying to avoid a contradiction.
When you asked “so what?”, what this says in effect is: why or how is a “contradiction” painful or unpleasant, such that a thief (or a nonlibertarian) would want to try to avoid it?
If it can be shown that contradictions are harmful to the people who hold or maintain them, then perhaps people will try to avoid contradictions. In Hoppe’s theory, this would mean they tried to avoid arguing for nonlibertarian ethics, since Hoppe and Van Dunn believe they have demonstrated that doing so is contradictory. In other words, arguing for a nonlibertarian ethics and contradicting oneself are two aspects of the same thing. If you try to avoid contradicting yourself, you will, by virtue of this, try to avoid arguing for a nonlibertarian ethic (if you accept the teachings of the argumentation ethics).
What would aid the argumentation ethics (granting that the overall theory is valid), is a demonstration or explanation of how contradictions are harmful to those maintaining them.
You wrote: So a thief performs a contradiction. so what?
That is: so what? Why should a thief or anyone try to avoid contradicting themselves?
The argumentation ethics doesn’t say exactly, as far as I’m aware. I think this is an excellent question to ask Hoppe and Van Dunn.
You asked the same question that Walt Whitman asked, as it was quoted to me by a well-known professor:
“Do I contradict myself? Very well, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes.”
No. so what meant they commit an unjust act and I will not find anything worthwhile that will better justice by learning about injustice only.
You can’t talk to somebody that doesn’t want dialogue.
If they are already a thief, then how can they learn and undo what they have already done? Don’t answer “time-machine”.
Recognize his contradictory moral theory. You can’t undo the past.
Thanks for that. I’m not too sure I understand the question posed though. I inserted the definitions below to try make it clearer, but I guess I’m missing something.
"I’m wondering if deontology is rephrased consequentialism essentially. If you have certain things that are your obligation to perform or not perform an act regardless of the result/effect of an action, you must at some point have differentiated what is “an obligation to perform or not perform an act regardless of result/effect of an action.”
Without looking at result/effect of an action how do you differentiate what is an obligation to perform or not perform an act from what is not an obligation to perform or not perform an act, before the official standard of an obligation to perform or not perform an act exists?"
“If you have certain things that are your obligation to perform or not perform an act regardless of the result/effect of an action” - When would that be exactly? You mean contracts etc?
“Without looking at result/effect of an action how do you differentiate what is an obligation to perform or not perform an act from what is not” - Property rights, philosophy of self ownership I’d imagine.
“before the official standard of an obligation to perform or not perform an act exists?” - I’m not sure what this means.
I read the definitions substituted text and found it too long winded to follow haha, so I think I will try to re-clarify with the example above. So if it is ones duty to never kill, then as has been noted self defense and the saving of many by killing one can never occur. Because the act of not killing is accepted regardless of the consequences of dying or losing everyone on earth but one person. So the question I was posing was how does one determine the duty of “never kill” without examining the consequences of actions. If you have to look at the consequences of an action to determine duty, then deontology is just a redefinition of consequentialism.
Establish the correct epistemology, question the premises of the statement, use logic and base it on first principles.
Well “duty” - I take it as; “An act or a course of action that is required of one by position, social custom, law, or religion”
That law would be natural law.
You seem to be bent on consequences, so I will recommend this.
Radical Privatization and other Libertarian Conundrums by Walter Block
You would come with what is duty by an attempt at logic. But if you use logic, you’d quickly realize that deontology is pretty pointless and at best, arbitrary. If you discovered what your duty was, you’d simply have to do it. It doesn’t matter why you made the decision or what will happen. It just matters that it’s your duty.
That is my question essentially, how could you come to know what duty is without looking at consequences.
Does natural law differentiate actions by their consequences?
Yes because all my arguments seem to be consequentialism. So I am seeking other thought systems.
I doubt any deontologist would agree that their duties are arbitrary.