One doesn’t need to have a ethical premise to refrain from initiating force. Perhaps, my comments are a bit outside of “this” though.
Well, I think libertarianism is compatible with the amoralist/Stirnerite position (obviously not deontological libertarianism), nor have I made any use of AE.
It’s quite clear that you do. You can continue blathering on with your utter misconception of argumentation ethics, and I’ll continue to let you know of your misconception. And you’ll keep having to deal with the fact that argumentation requires certain prerequisites/preconditions. And you’ll keep denying it. Even though you’re using them. Which is stealing the concept.
You’re correct, but that isn’t what I’m talking about. I’m talking about people with the moral premise that initiating force is wrong appealing to the fact that the non-initiation of force is necessary to have a peaceful debate as some sort of case for their position, and I’m dismissing this as sophistry.
I think it’s ambiguous. It could be compatible with either anarchism or statism. But from I’ve gathered by reading the material of the amoralist Stirnerites, most of them basically hate libertarians and anarchists as a bunch of huffy-puffy “moralists”. They’re largely “post-libertarians”.
Those who remember “Vichy” should know what I’m talking about.
Only aggression has to be justified. Not doing anything needs no justification. That’s how REAL standards of debate actually works. Perhaps you should brush up on that concept.
That’s because you stupidly believe that there is a 3rd option. You must. If you deny it, then you must accept that there’s only aggression and non-aggression. Mutually exclusive and covers all options. And if initiating aggression is not philosophically justifiable, then we ONLY have non-aggression left, DON’T WE? And that, dear sophist, is the justification.
No, in the face of perpetual strawmanning and non-sequitors, I’m continually telling you that I don’t deny that argumentation has those preconditions. What I’m denying is the magical jump from the fact that argumentation has those preconditions to a case for the normative validity of those preconditions - that’s actually entirely circular. I need a knife to stab you, but it doesn’t follow from the fact that a knife is a precondition for stabbing you that wielding knives is “moral” or whatever.
From you, yes. And you can say that you don’t deny that argumentation has those preconditions, but then you go on and deny it! So please: pick a damned position, sophist. And no more of your strawman about a magical jump. I’m tired of that sophistry.
Whether or not there is a “3rd option” is an entirely different question than what I’m talking about. You’re the king of non-sequitors and strawmen. No, it isn’t a justification, it’s very bad and oversimplistic philosophy. You haven’t even begun to make a comprehensive philosophical case for the moral premise that initiating aggression is immoral or that there is a moral obligation to abstain from initiating aggression. Nor have you made anything remotely approaching a case for falsifying the premise that initiating aggression is justificable.
My comment wasn’t directed to you and I certainly haven’t engaged in the AE debate at all. Perhaps you’ll take back that eye roll.
Perhaps now, I know in the early days of this debate it wasn’t nearly as heated or insulting. Further, from what I’ve read many of these people who reject libertarianism in name still support it practice.
Anyone that actually comprehends the post I made will clearly see that I am not denying it. I have explained to you, ad nauseum, that the justification for the ethical validity of those preconditions do not follow from the fact that they are preconditions, because that is entirely circular logic. It might be a precondition of killing you that I choke you, but it doesn’t follow from this that choking you is moral. That is just as circular as what you are saying with respect to non-aggression.
Oh, you’ve said that you aren’t denying it. And then you go and deny it. You can keep saying that you don’t deny it, but your arguments deny it. I have explained to you, ad nauseum, that your strawman just won’t stand. It’s time to step back, sophist. You keep making claims that ONLY YOU AND NO ONE ELSE ARE MAKING. Enough.
It looks like Juan’s sophistry is spreading.
There is a third option you are leaving out.. NEITHER aggression nor non-aggression is “philosophically justifiable”, if by that you mean deducible from facts of observation.
side note:
Aggression is as justifiable as non-aggression (both require ought propositions) given a different set of propositions. It may not be as persuasive as the NAP, but the proposition
P1: Individual A should do whatever is pleasing to him
allows aggression to be a moral activity within that ethical system.
Ok, now let’s hear from someone who isn’t an abject idiot.
Allow me to rephrase that so as to eliminate the possibility of being misunderstood.
Both the principles of non-aggression and aggression as moral imperatives are not “philosophically justifiable”. Both rely on or are ought propositions that are not justified.
in other words you don’t know that non-aggression and aggression exists and therefore can’t intellectually apprehend what they are… without a foundational epistemology and metaphysics on this topic you’ll find yourself, zefreak, coming up with all kinds of vacuous claims.
False. Now let’s hear from someone who actually understands the issue.
Man acts. Also, A is A. Furthermore, existence exists. Hence man always does something.
And why, Sir, is initiating aggression not philosphically justifiable?
Are you trying to admit that you’re walking into this conversation without having the first faintest clue as to what’s going on?
Well, you can try to justify it, but if you don’t allow for anyone to do the same to you then you’re just special pleading. And I would suspect that, barring sociopaths, that would be the case.