Estoppel - Argumentation Ethics - Aggression

[Amanojack]

<Note: full quotes included for context where necessary>

@nskinsella

EXACTLY. Good. so this makes it clear that you are criticizing AE because you think it won’t be “persuasive” to some people. But persuasiveness is not the same as truth. So who cares if you argue, or even show, that AE is not “persuasive”?

No, that’s why I was “criticizing” estoppel (really just asking for clarification). You’ve yet to address my main critique of AE (which is a critique).

@nskinsella

@AJ

@nskinsella

And let me ask you: why kind of proof of rights would “apply” to those criminal-minded who are willing to commit or condone aggression against others? Do tell.

Who says there is such a proof? What if all we can do is persuade?

aha. so you do care only about persuasivness. That IS your standard of truth. I flushed you out; very good.

Non sequitur and avoids the issue: What other reason would you have for providing a “proof” if not to persuade or convince?

@nskinsella

But let me axe you: persuade of WHAT?

Obvious from the quote above: Persuade of natural rights (as opposed to proving them).

@nskinsella

@AJ

@nskinsella

@z1235

My point is that this is only relevant to “nice” agents, i.e. agents who already accept the a priori of niceness. Both theories “prove” niceness (objective ethics) ONLY if niceness is accepted a priori (hence, the circularity assertion). In some sense they are preaching to the converted, and have no logical or convincing power over the rest.

Re your last sentence: if so, so what? Imagine a world where there “are” “natural rights” (whatever it means for natural rights to “exist”), and that you have a Randian Natural Law Ultimate Proof of them. Or, one handed down by God: the ultimate proof of rights. Still, there will be two classes of people: those who choose (for whatever reason) to respect your rights, and those who choose to violate them. For the former, if you give them your Ultimate Proof, you are preaching to the converted. For the latter, they aer still free to say, “okay, nice proof,” and then proceed to bash you in the head.

So what is the difference betwwen this type of proof and AE? They are exactly the same in this respect.

You seem to be defending AE by saying that it’s no worse (has no less convincing power) than even an - imagined - Ultimate Proof of natural rights, or one handed down by God.

Not so. I am showing that this criticism is incoherent --that it makes no sense to single out AE as being faulty on the grounds that it might not persuade criminals, since this “problem” arises from the very nature of normativity: the fact that norms are NOT causal laws, and CAN be violated.

The goalposts seem to have shifted: Now you’re talking about criminals, not just those who don’t accept objective ethics?

Let’s recap:

z1235 wrote: “In some sense [the theories] are preaching to the converted, and have no logical or convincing power over the rest.” [distinguishes between those who accept objective ethics or natural law and those who don’t]

You wrote: “Still, there will be two classes of people: those who choose (for whatever reason) to respect your rights, and those who choose to violate them.” [distinguishes between those who choose to violate rights and those who don’t]

You then wrote: “…it makes no sense to single out AE as being faulty on the grounds that it might not persuade criminals…” [same distinction, strawman of z1235’s point]

Hence this doesn’t address z1235’s point. The question isn’t, “Will it persuade criminals?” but rather, “Will it persuade anyone who doesn’t accept objective ethics?”

@nskinsella

@AJ

I think this just makes z1235’s point even stronger, for it suggests that any attempt to “prove” natural law is completely fruitless.

AE is not an attempt to prove natural law. It is a way of showing why no non-libertarian norm can ever be argumentatively justified.

All right, but make the obvious substitutions and my point holds just as well for AE:

I think this just makes z1235’s point even stronger, for it suggests that any attempt to prove that “no non-libertarian norm can ever be argumentatively justified” is completely fruitless.

…

[Edit: KoB, point taken]