Because you are you. If you don’t have the right to, then you must ask for permission. Meaning: you’re a slave. Meaning: it’s not universal. Meaning: there are problems.
I think we need to eliminate the idiotic bugaboo of “is/ought” once and for all. It ranks up there with dualism as patently stupid. Connect it with desired outcome and it’s bridged. Done.
When two people engage in propositional exchange they must both each have control over their own bodies. For A to persuade B of a proposition, he must allow B to control his own brain, and vice versa. For B to hear A’s proposition, he must allow A control over his vocal chords or whatever other part of his body he uses to communicate, and vice versa. And for either of these things to take place, both must allow the other to occupy some standing room, i.e. land. These are norms which must be accepted by both participants for them to both engage in an argument with each other.
Ownership is control. I think what you mean is that it doesn’t show that you ought to have ownership of it. But if you are controlling your body, than you demostrate that you think you ought to control it. Ultimately what one ought to do is a preference, and cannot be proven true or untrue. However, preferences are demonstrated by action. So whether one holds preferences or not is an aspect of reality and can be proven true or untrue.
What Hoppe does is a negative proof only. He does not try to prove what individuals ought to do. He only proves the limits of the range of norms which can be coherently defended in the course of interpersonal argumentation.
I don’t understand anything you just argued.
What about it don’t you grasp?
How this implies that others have an obligation to respect your property in your person.
How the Is/ought gap is nonsense.
What you are arguing here, and how it bridges the gap.
If they don’t, then why should I respect theirs? IOW: the universality I spoke of.
How does it make sense? Answer: it doesn’t. It’s more of Hume’s nonsense, just like his causality garbage. You can bridge it by noting that 1. A conclusion offers something new from the premises and 2. Ought comes from desire.
I can sorta get what you mean here. But going back to this…
How does this…
follow from this…
And, other than the fact that the universalizability criterion is used as part of the proof in AE, what does the above have to do with AE?
Well, I think what Hume was getting at was that you can’t attach truth to value judgement. If I say government is good, how can you prove that to be true or false? If I say blue is the best colour, it doesn’t make sense to say that I’m wrong. If I say humility is a virtue, once again, it can’t be proven or disproven. And whether or not one should or shouldn’t do something belongs to this category.
So you can’t proove an ethical system is one that ought to be followed.
And assumming that 2 is true, it doesn’t follow that all propositions are provable.
Everything, if you’ve actually read about it. Recall: having a class of people against whom it is ok to intiate force requires a reason for the distinction. Entities are multiplied without any corresponding demonstration for it.
It’s about what you believe. And whether or not you believe it is a matter of truth or falsity.
Further, you can find a course of action from what you want the end to be. Ought from an is. It’s simple.
Considering the above, this…
still doesn’t make any sense.
I have read about it. Only bits and pieces of what you are saying make sense. Most of it is scattered and disjoint.
This is a variation of the universalizability criterion. It doesn’t clarify what you mean here…
Nor does it or your previous response to Giles answer his point here…
’
Yeah, whether or not people believe something is a provable matter. And this is how Hoppe gets around the problem. But it doesn’t mean that there is no is/ought dichotomy.
Its not simple. And no, just because an actor aims at ends, it does not mean that they ought to aim at those ends.
]
But it does. And I can’t help you any further. What I wrote is clear.
No, it’s clear and all together.
It does. I can’t help you any further. I seriously suggest you brush up on your comprehension of English.
’
Sure it does.
And yet we can still have the is of self-ownership and derive oughts from that. I reject Hume’s nonsense just as I reject Plato’s nonsense of the forms.
I think that says more about you than it does about me. I’ve been trying to figure out what you mean for a while, and have an honest discussion, looking for clarifications, but you’re just all over the place. I just don’t see how you could convince anyone to adopt your position, with your sloppy, lazy, and at some points obnoxious, posts.
It’s because of stuff like this that I don’t even post that often.
Nope. I’ve been clear and on-message. Don’t blame me for your lack of ability; that’s what the statists do.
Enough time wasted.
How clear one has been is something determined by the listener, not ones self. In any exchange, we’re only successful in trade if the other party feels they have gained value.
In the exchange of ideas, dismissing people’s ability to understand, when they have clearly expressed desire to understand, means that there is something flawed in the business model of communicating that idea. Maybe it is the explanation, maybe it is the idea itself.
Either way, it’s hard to increase knowledge without effective communication. That might mean better ideas, or simpler explanations. The people who place importance on communication, will spread the most ideas, even the most fallacious and ridiculous ones (like the state promulgates).
It isn’t, but all it really shows is that, as a matter of deduction, if facts are not laden with values, then no value can be deduced from them. That’s it. Whether facts are so laden or not is an ontological question, not one proponents of the “ought-is” gap can assume without argument. So it’s valid in its weaker sense, absolutely question-begging in its stronger sense.
Is there some reason you have a problem with me? If so, just message me and we can figure it out, ok.
words are ethically neutral. only actions can be judged.
Arguing shows that you allow your interlocutor control over his body, otherwise he could not participate in the argument and your act would be pointless.
Also an “ought” argument implies an ability to make it so, or not. By asking ought I own my body implies first that someone else can control it at the same level as I do, and also that I am able to cede this control to another.