Atheism and Ancap

[apehead]

@Angurse

I don’t know what you are asking, use more prepositions.

Such a smarty-pants…

“It seems untenable that Liberalism could be considered an ideology by definition (see definition in last post), without asserting the objective truth of liberty as important.”

@Angurse

Thats should be pretty obvious, especially for an egoist, the majority has might in their numbers.

That doesn’t mean the majority determines true and false or right and wrong. I like the pot-shot to egoism though.

@Angurse

Its always present.

What do you mean by that? A truth?

@Angurse

Everyone believe in some form of justice though.

Explain.

Just to clear the air on semantics:

“Justice is the concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, fairness, or equity.” - Wiki

[Angurse]

@Jackson LaRose

“It seems untenable that Liberalism could be considered an ideology by definition (see definition in last post), without asserting the objective truth of liberty as important.”

Taking the Wiki as being correct, sure, I don’t see why they wouldn’t assert that liberty is important is true. I wasn’t really contending such a thing.

@Jackson LaRose

That doesn’t mean the majority determines true and false or right and wrong. I like the pot-shot to egoism though.

Nope. However, even the explanation given by Wiki doesn’t say truth itself is dependent upon majority. Haven’t you heard the saying “common sense is not so common.”

@Jackson LaRose

What do you mean by that? A truth?

Sure. The two are inseperable.

@Jackson LaRose

Explain

“Why did I burn down your house? Because it was blocking my view plus I had matches and gasoline” The actions are justified purely on my wants along with the fact that I he had the means to do so.

[zefreak]

Angurse, your use of the word ‘justification’ is not the accepted usage. I fear such a usage would simply cause confusion and allow for equivocation. I would rather state that ‘The actions are determined purely by my wants along with the fact that I he had the means to do so.’. Justification implies justice, a normative concept that action is not predicated on. An action need not be justified, although it is of course determined.

[Bert_B]

I shouldn’t be surprised that such an irrelevant topic post has as many replies as this. I’ve lost all track of this “conversation”.

[Angelus]

@Bert

I shouldn’t be surprised that such an irrelevant topic post has as many replies as this. I’ve lost all track of this “conversation”.

Damn straight! I go away for a day & a half, and look what happens!!

I got a big reply from someone to something I wrote before, but I’m just gonna concede defeat becoz I couldn’t be bothered going over it all, and the subject has moved on since, anyway.

I really appreciate Jackson’s points, what I can understand of them! If you’re going to have consistency, surely you have to go all out: every man his own God, determining for himself what constitutes good & evil (aka Gen. 3:5 - the term ‘knowing’ in that passage means ‘determining for yourself’, in case anyone doesn’t understand, and so misses the importance of that term.) Or what Sartre said: “Man is a being whose passion it is to be God”, and that therefore, “For me, my neighbour is the devil!”

Mises’ (or Forrest Gump’s) ethical standards cannot compete with that. Heath Ledger’s portrayal of The Joker, which many people believe sent him over the edge til he topped himself, was a far more consistent humanist. The only alternative is some kind of subjectivism & relativism, something we shouldn’t expect to find on a website whose motto (Tu Ne Cede Malis - do not give in to evil, but fight against it) suggests some kind of absolute, objective, universal standard, that means we can call evil what it is without fear of contradiction.The great shame is that it seems that most Libertarians on this site pay no more than lip service to that motto - everything, except apparently economic policy, is relative. I would simply ask, therefore, why do you stop at economics?

Question: (and you can see this coming!) By What Standard?

Justice, along with law, is either universal or it is non-existent. Our own empirical experience alone would tell us that, in spite of our philosophical meanderings to the contrary.

Just quickly, what significance do we give to the fact that it was Samuel Rutherford (a Presbyterian Theologian) who wrote “LEX REX”, using his Bible as his justification (something apparently denied to Christians these days), and not some humanist crank? Any? Or none? Could just anybody have written it, and again, by what standard would they do so? And would it have been taken seriously at the time, like Rutherford’s book was?

[I_Ryan]

@Craig

I got a big reply from someone to something I wrote before, but I’m just gonna concede defeat becoz I couldn’t be bothered going over it all, and the subject has moved on since, anyway.

I am not surprised at all.

[Angurse]

zefreak, justice is a concept of moral rightness. In this case, ethical egoism or hedonism more or less, action is justified because it is being done in one’s self interest.. As burning the house down was to increase satisfaction.

[Bert_B]

@Craig

Damn straight! I go away for a day & a half, and look what happens!!

I’ve used that time for some personal reflection. I’ve been listening to Venom and reading the Satanic Bible. I hope others were as productive as I.

[zefreak]

@Angurse

zefreak, justice is a concept of moral rightness. In this case, ethical egoism or hedonism more or less, action is justified because it is being done in one’s self interest.. As burning the house down was to increase satisfaction.

Correct, but Stirner (and Jackson I assume) are not ethical egoists. There is no moral principle that man ought to act in his own interest, although Stirner does strongly suggest that it would be desirable.

[Angurse]

@zefreak

Correct, but Stirner (and Jackson I assume) are not ethical egoists. There is no moral principle that man ought to act in his own interest, although Stirner does strongly suggest that it would be desirable.

But all action is done in ones self interest, which I believe Stirner said himself.

[Dondoolee]

He uses the terminology “voluntary” and “involuntary” egoist to distinguish them.

[Angurse]

@Dondoolee

He uses the terminology “voluntary” and “involuntary” egoist to distinguish them.

Thank you.

[apehead]

Hey ho! Been doing some thinking, and like a bad case of jock itch, I’m back!!

@Angurse

Taking the Wiki as being correct, sure, I don’t see why they wouldn’t assert that liberty is important is true. I wasn’t really contending such a thing.

True in the objective sense as in an absolute truth?

If this is the case, can we agree that an appropriate ideological statement of liberalism (in the broadest possible sense) would be:

"Man should be free’‘’

Is that fair?

@Angurse

Nope. However, even the explanation given by Wiki doesn’t say truth itself is dependent upon majority. Haven’t you heard the saying “common sense is not so common.”

How do you (personally) come to understand objective truth. I think you said you use “if-thens”, is that right?

@Angurse

Sure. The two are inseperable.

I was going by the definition zefreak gave, justification as pertaining to justice. By that definition, do you still hold the position that action and justification (as relating to justice) are inseparable?

[Angurse]

@Jackson LaRose

True in the objective sense as in an absolute truth?

If this is the case, can we agree that an appropriate ideological statement of liberalism (in the broadest possible sense) would be:

"Man should be free’‘’

Is that fair?

There isn’t such a thing as an absolute truth, we’ve been over that.

@Jackson LaRose

How do you (personally) come to understand objective truth. I think you said you use “if-thens”, is that right?

You don’t use if-thens to come to a truth (as in discovery), if-then statements are derived from them, a relationship. How they are discovered differs by field of study.

@Jackson LaRose

I was going by the definition zefreak gave, justification as pertaining to justice. By that definition, do you still hold the position that action and justification (as relating to justice) are inseparable?

From the POV of an egoist, absolutely.

[apehead]

@Angurse

There isn’t such a thing as an absolute truth, we’ve been over that.

How do you define truth?

@Angurse

can we agree that an appropriate ideological statement of liberalism (in the broadest possible sense) would be:

"Man should be free’‘’

Well?

@Angurse

f-then statements are derived from them, a relationship. How they are discovered differs by field of study.

How do you (personally) discover truth?

@Angurse

From the POV of an egoist, absolutely.

"Justice is the concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, fairness, or equity.^{" - Wiki}

Why do you assert that action is inextricably linked to justice? What if the actor is amoral? How do you deduce a concept of justice?

[Angurse]

@Jackson LaRose

How do you define truth?

Truth, verified facts.

@Jackson LaRose

Well?

I’m not sure what an ideological statement is, if you mean definition I think it works fairly well with a little reformatting.

@Jackson LaRose

How do you (personally) discover truth?

Learning of others discoveries mainly.

@Jackson LaRose

Why do you assert that action is inextricably linked to justice? What if the actor is amoral? How do you deduce a concept of justice?

Because nobody is immoral. They just have different morals.

[apehead]

@Angurse

Truth, verified facts

Verified by who/what?

@Angurse

'm not sure what an ideological statement is, if you mean definition I think it works fairly well with a little reformatting.

I essentially meant it as a “statement of beliefs” for those espousing that ideology. How would you reformat it?

@Angurse

Because nobody is immoral. They just have different morals.

How do you determine morals? Also, I typed “amoral”, not immoral.

[apehead]

Angurse hasn’t wet responded, and I can’t wait any longer. I present my reasoning of considering Liberalism a religion.

An Ideology is a set beliefs that propose laws of action that are based upon moral judgements. There are many ways to determine these laws of action- ways which are dependent on the ideology (God, Logic, reason, science, etc.). The only option other than invoking the deity, is deifying Man, or humanity, to determine truth.
All the reasons for determining truth, are merely tools, or means implimented by the individual. My contention is that without the prior experience, observation, and accrued knowledge of the individual, these tools would not be effective methods of calculation.
As an example, if one had no knowledge of geography after Eratosthenes, one could look out on the horizon, and logically conclude that the Earth is flat. It is only through increasing knowledge via empirical observation that the range of reasonable possibility can be narrowed enough to effectively calculate a judgement. If you hadn’t observed anything, any sort of logical conclusion you would attempt to come to would be completely arbitrary. Given this, it can be said that determining truth indirectly depends upon empirical observation of reality (external or internal). This implies that an individual cannot determine a truth without omniscience, for the following reason.
Using the analogy of the wave-particle duality in quantum physics, truth can be thought of as a “probability cloud,” with truth existing as a set of “possible truths”. With no knowledge, this cloud is infinite, as there is nothing from which to base a judgement either true or false upon, so as far as individual can reckon, anything is feasable. As knowledge and understanding via observation increases, the field decreases in size. This field can be narrowed only so far without the individual being omniscient, since without the capability to have perfect understanding/consideration of all variables at the instant of judgment, the individual cannot make a perfect judgement. There are still unknowns that have not been considered in the judgement.
Thus, it is a matter of faith that the judge is capable of determining a truth. In this regard, Liberalism has replaced the belief of Deists in God’s perfection in judgement, with the belief of Man’s perfection in judgement.

[Angurse]

@Jackson LaRose

Verified by who/what?

Different approaches for different fields, we’ve had this discussion.

@Jackson LaRose

I essentially meant it as a “statement of beliefs” for those espousing that ideology. How would you reformat it?

For those espousing liberalism, it would be far more nuanced, at least explaining their “why.”

@Jackson LaRose

How do you determine morals? Also, I typed “amoral”, not immoral.

By ones actions.

amorality - Lack or absence of morality

Nobody is amoral.

[zefreak]

@Angurse

By ones actions.

amorality - Lack or absence of morality

Nobody is amoral.

That certainly depends on your definition of morality. What do you mean when you say nobody is amoral? Do you think a non-moral realist position is possible? If so, wouldn’t that make someone ‘amoral’? (as opposed to immoral, which a non-realist would argue is meaningless)