universal a? but…
change of heart from page one to page three… hmmm
I did not say that you advocate child-torture. And I did not say NR objectivists across-the-board advocate child-torture. I said objectivist NR doctrines can lead to monstrous conclusions like the justification of child-torture. This is proven by the fact that Spidey, an NR objectivist, justified child-torture. Therefore, I was in no way being disingenuous, let alone lying.
When a transaction is done under the threat of coercion, each party still recieves a positive net sum of psychic profits. The threat of coercion enters into the transaction itself: I now value the watch, and my well-being more than my tie. Hence, it does not change the structure of voluntary transactions; rather, it just changes what is being traded during the trade.
I think that completely contradicts what every Austrian I have heard on the subject says. One you are stating that coercion during trade is not a bad thing but it provides postives to the trade and you are establishing that robbers, murders [ government most of all ] are privy to such devices.
When in a position of forced submission does the subjugator still offer the watch for the tie? The whole point of coercion is to place person B at the mercy of person A in order for person A to acquire all profits.
If a transaction is made, there is a net psychic profit; if there is none, then a transaction will simply not be made, even under the threat of violence.
The above assumes that the coercing party will still give the tie; though a more realistic formula would be: I now value my chances of receiving the watch, and my well-being more than my tie.
Coercion is just a tool to get something desired, its as simple as that.
An action can adhere to a principle, but it cannot be a principle.
How is it not? How am I over-analyzing?
How is it not? What do you mean by “object”? Do you mean is there such a concept as the NAP? Then, yes, it is obviously a concept, but objectively conceived, it is a fallacious one. Do you mean whether the NAP exists as an objective, universal law? Then, no. Do you mean as a principle which individual sometimes adhere to due to subjective moral valuations? Then yes.
What do you mean by, “agent-relative, free-will, blah, blah, blah”?
Yes. Among other principles, I believe in the objective matter-of-fact principle that individuals hold subjective moral principles.
You don’t know that it is a pyshic profit though. And a transaction under violence will be made regardless of the choice of person B. If it has come to the point of violence then person A shows no qualm about using the full extent of coercion in order to satisfy their want. Therefore person A’s watch will be taken dead or alive.
An invalid tool.
And who praytell would enter into such an agreement? Putting their well-being and property on the line for the mere chance of acquiring another piece of property?
The NAP objectively conceived is not real. Subjectively conceived, it is real in the conscience of the beholder.
See above.
The action is done, the individual in question prefers a scenario where he made the transaction to one where he did not; ergo, the individual has made a psychic profit.
No, the coerced individual can choose to die instead of making the transaction.
If individual A takes the watch from individual’s B’s dead body, the no transaction was made.
Will you defend yourself if you are under attack? If yes, then you believe that coercion can be a valid tool.
You assume that their well-being is better off not making the transaction, which may not be true.
By “most universal”, as with “most timeless”, I was speaking loosely. To speak more strictly, I might have said, “preponderant.”
Laughing Man, you’re hijacking a thread that was created from your almost hijacking another! [:P]
Well he is saying something that is completely irrational. I feel the subjective urge to delve deeper into this dileema, so don’t criticize my subjective preferences! Gosh! It’s almost like you are trying to establish what is objectivitly good and bad on these forums [:P]
Besides the fact that it is essentially Austrian economics 101: a man who gives in to coercion in a transaction prefers the state of affairs where the threat won’t be realized, assuming the honestly of the coercer, compared to a world where the thread, again assuming the honestly of the coercer, will, and hence makes a psychic profit in the transaction.
Bravo! Bravo!
You are assuming that A had the knowledge beforehand to foresee that aggression might impact A’s happiness. For instance, what about situations where we say to ourselves, “if I had known what I know now, then I would or wouldn’t have done such and such…”
In praxeology, when we start from the perspective of “person A”, we are employing the method of Praxeology: Methodological Individualism. Methodological Individualism is a “value-free” approach, and has proven itself to be a valid method for revealing necessary consequences to such things as price controls, minimum wage, and increasing the supply of money. The fact that the approach, Methodological Individualism, has historically been employed only in the analysis of economics problems, does not rule out the possibility that it is also a valid approach in the analysis of ethical problems.
Mises “On Happiness” (page 15, Human Action):
“Praxeology is indifferent to the ultimate goals of action. Its findings are valid for all kinds of action irrespective of the ends aimed at. It is a science of means, not of ends. It applies the term happiness in a purely formal sense. In the praxeological terminology the proposition: man’s unique aim is to attain happiness, is tautological. It does not imply any statement about the state of affairs from which man expects happiness.
Mises on the subjective theory of value (page 3, Human Action):
“For a long time men failed to realize that the transition from the classical theory of value to the subjective theory of value was much more than the substitution of a more satisfactory theory of market exchange for a less satisfactory one. The general theory of choice and preference goes far beyond the horizon which encompassed the scope of economic problems…It is much more than merely a theory of the “economic side” of human endeavors and of man’s striving for commodities and an improvement in his material well-being. It is the science of every kind of human action. Choosing determines all human decisions…Out of the political economy of the classical school emerges the general theory of human action, praxeology[1]. The economic or catallactic problems [2] are embedded in a more general science, and can no longer be severed from this connection. No treatment of economic problems proper can avoid starting from acts of choice; economics becomes a part, although the hitherto best elaborated part, of a more universal science, praxeology.”
This may be the case. However, what also might be the case is that there are unforeseen and unintended consequences to A’s actions that A is unaware of.
Here you are assuming that the same approach that has been effective in pointing out the unintended consequences of certain economic policies/actions will be ineffective in pointing out possible unintended consequences of certain ethical policies/actions.
That’s irrelevant. If A thinks that using aggression is what best suits his interests, he will use aggression. There is no reason for A to pay attention to a ‘subjective moralist’ who tells him that maybe (or maybe not) using aggression will not be what’s best for A (according to what criterion anyway ?).
By the way there are no necessary unintended consequences of using aggression. Except being caught - maybe. But that’s not something that must necessarily happen.
But it is not a valid approach. Methodological individualism only means that what people usually regard as ‘social phenomena’ are created by individual actors. Big deal.
Morality on the other hand always dealt with individual choice. Economics has nothing new to offer to moral philosophy.
So, if “happiness” has been redefined to something else, then we’re talking about different things. The quotation is irrelevant IMO.
Ah, big words, but ultimately they are empty words.
More self-promotion but devoid of real content.
That IS the case. Moral subjectivism is self-refuting - deal with it.
Sorry, economics has been pointing the unintended consequences of intervention WAY before Mises started to talk about praxeology. So called praxeology is really not needed for economics.
Again, confusing economics and morality is a gross error.
So, all this reduces to the unfounded claim that aggressors may not be aware of the consequences of what they do. But given that aggression is subjectively defined, the claim is doubly vague.
I agree that aggression may be understood in a multitude of various contexts by any one person, as any word may be. In fact, every word in our entire conversation is open to the possibility of being understood in a multitude of various contexts. It is almost a certainty that we are not on the same page. Whether it be in economics or ethics, it just shows how much work there is to do in developing Austrian ideas if we are going to come up with a consistent theoretical structure.
Again strawman - being very dishonest. Lying. Pathetic.
And ethical subjectivists can’t say if murder is wrong. Cause the murderer did it according to his or her subjective valuation.
So don’t throw the strawman and stick to a quality discussion without having to revert to the ugliness of human nature no matter what valuation and thought process any one person adheres to.
So that action adhering to the principle, NAP, can you point it out?
cause pointing out the action that adheres, as you well pointed out, to the NAP is the topic - stop shifting the goal posts.
No it’s not fallacious. Unless you are being dishonest. Cause you just said it’s a concept, but I’m still waiting on the reply if such a concept adheres to a particular action (object). I’ve asked you that plenty of times and still you haven’t answered that question.
And by object I’m talking about an action that adheres to the NAP. Look it up in wiki- or something. It’s common knowledge. The NAP is the definition, the concept of such an action (object). The NAP is an object itself, but an intellectual object. To be objective is to recognize objects in the world - no more, no less. Objects have definition. They have boundaries. Crossing the boundary of NAP into a not-NAP action is to step into an action where coercion takes place. Objects have boundaries. They have definition - thus how the intellect can define individual aspects of this world, those individual aspects are referred to as things, objects, something, being, etc… These objects can be internal or external of a human. Objects can be actions that occur once in a lifetime, sometimes, rarely, always when this happens, universally, particularly, or maybe never.
Aristotle talks about what is universal and what is not. You need to understand what universal means according to Aristotle if you’re going to understand the neo-Aristotle position. Aristotle in “On Interpretation” explains that “Man” is a universal name. It is universal that all men are men.
“Mammals (formally Mammalia) are a class of vertebrate animals whose females are characterized by the possession of mammary glands while both males and females are characterized by sweat glands, hair, three middle ear bones used in hearing, and a neocortex region in the brain.”
That is a universal statement. Cause all mammals can be defined in this way.
The NAP is objective cause it is defining an action scientifically. So the NAP is defining an object, something that exists that isn’t only in my mind. It can pointed too and exclaimed: That person is adhering to the NAP. It is a truth statement if such a person is adhering to the NAP. I think you’re confused the question: What is the Ultimate Reality? with What is universal? Those are two completely different questions though the first question is the genus of the second question. The second question though is simply a species of the first question therefore is not the first question. It is a species of it cause it is asking for a generality about something in particular.
So the way you are defining those terms “objective” and “universal law” is not the way neo-Aristotlian does nor does current science. So I would disagree with your use of the terms.
Yes. I’ve been saying that for a thousand long years! But that’s only because you’ve been dialoguing with me now. Cause now I understand how you are using the term “subjective”. I think it would be more accurate to say: agent-relative. Cause subjective does really mean “everything is subjective”. I’ll post a good article I found on this doing a search in the Mises. It was an interesting mention of these two terms and what they mean.
Agent-relative. I’ll post that article and mention this more in my next post. But briefly both of these terms mean the same thing, but agent-relative is a bit more defined/accurate. Each person relative to their own network of understanding and valuation can come to different conclusions and perform various diverse actions. A criminal using his or her free-will will evaluate the world in a way that describing the nature of a criminal [by nature it’s meant: giving this object, the real criminal in the world - a name, criminal, then further defining this name/term which can be found either in a dictionary, wiki- (thus a longer one), or a criminal psychological course (which will give even a longer description)]
Now that I understand what you mean by “subjective” - that’s true. The objectivists realize this as agent-relative. It’s a more accurate term, if you are ok with the definition. I’ll post that next.
It is objectively conceived unless you never see anybody actually perform the NAP, but it would still be an object of the mind, yet, more accurately called a fairy-tale if an NAP adhering action doesn’t happen in this world. But I know it does. I live it.