Challenging the NAP

Economics Political Theory
101

words like ‘sex’ and ‘rape’ that are used to describe things have meaning by virtue of a degree of convention… are you hoping to abandon all reliance on convention?

Yes, but I should point out that there is a further difference - that even when these are used to describe qualitative differences - such as reasonably demonstrated consent - this in itself has no normative content. We talk about this as being important because it is important to most of us - and because the things involved are important to us. So it would make sense that arbitration would involve ideas of common interest and understanding. What is not rational is to take this as a demonstration or instantiation of a ‘moral necessity’, a ‘categorical imperative’ etc. - these are simply elements of human behaviour. To argue consequentially is one thing, to argue about ‘good’ and ‘evil’ is to reduce the argument to a discussion about feelings.

102

im wondering whether to pretend to not understand your post, as understanding your post would demand i lean heavily on convention.

regardless, talking about whether some act is just or unjust, is not a discussion of feelings but an intellectual exercise, an inquiry into what a theory of harmony between intelligent will endowed agents woud look like. as such an advanced robot with no feelings but access to a volition chip and a reason-brain-center would be capable of investigating moral systems much more effectively than a rabbit or a cockroach, that might have nothing more than its instincts and feelings to utilise( and so couldnt possible inquire into justice)

103

Well, harmony is not necessarily ensureable and is complexly empirical in content. In any case, Justice (as jurisprudence) has nothing to do with morality or ethics, it has no imperative or normative content. It’s used for judgement and classification, the way people deal with that information is another matter (enforcement) and whether or not it is considered ‘moral’ is entirely another thing.

104

well, if you get to pick what words mean,‘morality’ ‘jurisprudence’ or favour a particular set of conventions for the meaning of those words then you are right. otherwise you may be wrong. I think you are wrong.

105

Morality is essentially used in a sense of interpersonal valution or imperative. This is simply impossible - I figure an Austrian would be able to figure this out. Mises certainly did.

Justice is the practice of jurisprudence. Some of the more effective (at least, by some standards) methods of judgement include a high degree of ‘objectivity’, that is a theoretical commitment to ‘treat like cases, alike’ and ‘presumption of innocence’. Many people feel what sort of standards of jurisprudence are adopted affect the moral status of that ‘justice system’. Nonetheless, the moral evaluation of a justice system is different from the fact and theory of justice.

106

I see injustice. It’s immoral.

Since you like to avoid convention with us other earthlings, well maybe by your grace you won’t disrupt our trivial on-goings.

107

spoken like a utilitarian?

spoken like a believer in positive-rights?

Justice is the practice of law you say , yes, but what kind of law? not physical law… perhaps the law of the king?, the common law?, the law of the state? or perhaps the moral law?

108

spoken like a utilitarian?

Hardly, in fact I reject this aspect of the ‘moral meme’ f or the same reason any decent economist would - interpersonal comparisons of utility are impossible. It doesn’t even make sense to say people have the same ‘values’. Only that they may be motivated to obtain similar results.

spoken like a believer in positive-rights?

Well, I believe in ‘positive rights’ in the sense that some people actually do have legal priviledges which are enforced and respected, but that’s just a fact of reality. I don’t believe in ‘normative’ rights at all - in fact ‘rights’ is a really stupid concept to use in regards to morality. ‘Rights’ are the contrary of ‘duties’ which are, literally, established by contract. To talk about ‘natural rights’ is nonsensical. It’s just a bad way to talk about ethical imperatives.

The notion of ‘imperative’ is quite distinct from positive rights, however. When making moral arguments, people want to say, “You should not,” "You should, “You must,” “You have a duty,” “You ought to” etc. Or, relatedly, they want to establish the existence of an ‘inarguable’ value ‘good’, ‘evil’, ‘life’, ‘freedom’ etc. This might be called a ‘sacred value’. It is, of course, nonsensical - the only ‘a priori’ values are those actually possessed by an actor, and there is no necessary problem in desiring anything.

ustice is the practice of law you say , yes, but what kind of law? not physical law… perhaps the law of the king?, the common law?, the law of the state? or perhaps the moral law?

Standards of arbitration, usually over physical resources but also sometimes for social conventions. Whatever the common conventions actually enforced are, whatever norms of arbitration are actually accepted - that is ‘justice’.

109

well, what word would you coin, for a hypothetical set of simple laws, that if followed by all rational-will-endowed agents could hope (from a logical entailment perspective) to promote the avoidance of conflict between those agents.

i.e. imagine an intelligent robot, that requires to manipulate real objects to achieve some set of internally programmed arbitrary ends, that sits in a cave, and wonders about what code of conduct, if followed by it and its peers, would be the minimal set of restraints that would allow his robotkind to go about their ends without conflict.

please find a word for his intellectual project…

110

Constructivist sociology. And it would require a lot of empirical input.

111

It’s also called Common Law which is an off-shoot of Natural Law.

112

Or maybe just conformity

113

Or maybe just conformity

Conformity is one kind of behaviour that explains the formation of conventions. Sociology should take sociobiological, psychological, historical and anthropological evidence in general if it wants to be informed about specific behaviours and trends.

114

they could, or they could just leave people alone… what are the trends for?

I’m generally agreeing here on the study aspect, it’s how they go about it and why and then comes the change cause these scholars know better, etc, etc, …

115

these are robots so can we drop references to biology?(socio or otherwise?) also can we get rid of psychology (or it would at least have a different meaning)? if they were all created that day in a factory in a space and landed on the planet moments later would that brief history amount to anything of import? they are robots so we could de-anthropomorphise '‘anthropology’ but would that be worthwhile?

i wonder whether social constructivism makes sense given that he is engaged in his thought experiment alone, speculating about others relations, and not per say ‘asking them’ or testing out half-thoughts on them to see to what extent they agreed

116

Yeah most if not all sociologists and some anthropologists are known for this too. They go around without “asking them” or actually living with them to know who they are. I found participation-observation to be the best approach to study another culture. You don’t do anything they wouldn’t do. You live their life. Wake up in the morning and learn their routine. It’s funny cause a lot of the reports come out of these kinds of studies and the people they are studying call the anthropologists children and even the children are teaching them. They are cultural newborns so to speak and never truly understand the people they are living with fully. In some cultures events happen every ten years or more, and nobody would know unless they simply lived there their whole life and being them. But the anthropologist is still having to have to take the time to write the notes. Note taking is very time consuming to try to write it all down. And a person can’t write it all down. Basically these studies open people up to new cultures and ways of living, and that does help people wake up from their own little world. They realize people can live a different kind of life and these other ways of living are very healthy and sometimes offer a diversity of quality. But I wouldn’t rely on these constructs to make the ideal person. It’s not difficult to live a life unobstructed by the State. It’s dealing with people and coming to agreements and ways to live more peacefully. And humans have this capability to go and do these things without a State. The State is a waste of time, energy, and cooperation.

117

How about instead of the word biology you just use “construction” or “design” if you must get that technical. But say that comes out of this thought experimental void instead of Robots, out came vampires who had to kill humans to survive. Would you expect them to follow the same set of laws. No, they are designed to function differently.

118

vampires dont need to kill humans to survive, they need to drink human blood. this can be done voluntarily. or through trade. or solved through improvements in technology. and vampires arent subject to natural law?

119

  1. I am so glad you know how vampires function, it has been ages since I studied vampire anatomy in school.

  2. I think you missed the point.

120

maybe you could try making the point again? (use different words)