exactly, good point. I think they may still retain they can find violence for themselves something felt wrong, but they can’t point at a murderer and say, “That’s wrong.” Cause the murderer is merely carrying out their own individual ethical subjectivism. But I think it’s quite possible to be challenging to retain this even for themselves. This is carry out their theory a little beyond the actual terminology “ethical subjectivism”, but in my old line of work, most all the criminals always said, “They were doing nothing wrong.” And many would go back out and recommit the crimes. An ethical subjectivists can’t argue against them and say they are wrong nor can they say they are criminals cause these “criminals” are only enacting their ethical subjectivism.
It differs from might makes right in that the outcome of the conflict isn’t “right” nor “wrong” in a moral sense. Might makes right means that the man with the gun has legitimacy.
If you would rather believe in a fiction that gives you a comfortable foundation for living your life, nobody is going to stop you. It’s a choice you make for yourself.
That’s why I said it’s a particular metaphysical fact. It’s something that particularly happens, but not sure about universally. Cause their are aggressive people. Now if I would say, “All just people adhere to the NAP.” That seems to be a universal statement. It doesn’t say the “just people” only adhere to the NAP cause quite possibly they could be adhering to something else too. But that doesn’t take away from that universal affirmative statement.
yeah, I think the gap between biological science and cultural knowledge is a bit of a stretch for me to comment upon too.
I hope not - to the second question.
I’ve tried to point this out for decades in this thread but I think L.S. and you, until now, keep glossing this over. I think Lilburne and I had actually made productive progress in our last responses to each other. I think him and I have moved on to a particular understanding, but I regret he is not here to finish out the positive progress I think we struck.
Once again you are merely pointing out the consequences of ethical subjectivism, without offering an actual critique of the position.
yes…that’s why I called it pseudo. I postulate that ethical subjectivism, since it cannot use objective good/bad, rests its legitimacy on who has the power.
Why is the NAP fiction?
But since you can’t say it’s right nor wrong, then the man with the gun can do whatever he wants. It’s his ethical subjectivism and if you adhere to this philosophy then such a person would need to honor his ethical subjectivism and let him do what he wants - cause who are you to judge the man with the gun that’s against ethical subjectivism.
That is the actual critique. You can’t judge if a murderer is right nor wrong. You have to let the murder happen. I’m using science, if you stuck with mental images without scientific actualization of said mental images, then therefore your not professing science. I don’t need to argue against fairy-tales cause their pretend.
Excellent point
This is quickly becoming ‘follow the leader off the cliff’
First you start off with the concept that libertarianism has some implied social sentiments.
Oh no no no libertarianism is only about the Non-Aggression Principle. That’s it. Anything besides that is just personal ideals.
Well ok, I agree tha the NAP is a great tenet of libertarianism, so I guess we can say that it’s at least good we have that. Hey have you heard Walter Block’s new lecture on…
What? The NAP is a fictious subjective claim. Anyone who follows that doesn’t realize the truth of society but hey if you are comforted by such ‘lies’ then that is your choice. I’d much rather be privy to the idea that there is no good/bad in the world beyond the sphere of subjectivism.
…So when do we get to the nihilism [ the cliff ]?
it’s makes me heart sad
It makes me confused. Only a week ago there seemed to be so many proponents of ‘thin’ libertarianism who were saying the NAP is all that matters.
lol. im still here. waves
This is false. That I do not believe in objective, binding moral obligations does not mean that I am morally obliged to a murderer to murder.
And now the NAP doesn’t even matter anymore to many of those too. I don’t know either. Why even desire science, Austrian economics, and libertarianism anymore? It’s not like those take facts to accomplish. It takes an understanding of the world to even make any one of those happen or even to acknowledge them. I don’t even know why they are in this forum honestly. Cause whatever they are saying is either taken from the facts of liberty or are dishonest lies about liberty so we might as well all close this forum down and pack up and go home cause there really isn’t such a real thing as liberty. It was all a huge fraud!
I say that with a tinge of humor, a dash of realism, and an ounce of “what’s going on?”
The view that the NAP can be derived from nature and is hence binding on all rational people is a fiction. The rest of your post is just strawman.
Well neither NAP or natural rights make such an obligation either [ to murder a murderer ]. By the way, I would consider respect for rights to be a moral obligation. You say you don’t believe in binding moral obligations…so you don’t respect others rights? Or you only do it when it suits your cause?
Then you don’t understand the term of ethical subjectivism. It’s in black in white. I even quoted an article that discusses this definition, but you can find more of it elsewhere. I’m not defining “ethical subjectivism” in a radical, odd way. It’s what it means. You’re ethics are subjective. You can’t say if he/she is doing something right or wrong. You can’t even address your feelings about it cause it’s not for you to decide - that would not be, being subjective.
Now if you think you can judge what another person is doing, then I forward you to “agent-relative” as the more accurate term to do. It retains individual pursuits, but is also able to stop a murderer. It’s a black and white understanding of the concepts in use.
Haha. Might-makes-right doesn’t mean that the man with the gun has legitimacy. It means the opposite, it means he only has might, not right. The sort of ‘right’ created by might is a false ‘right’ - i.e. a wrong.
But of course, as an ethical nihilist troll, all you can do is say that “right” and “wrong” are arbitrary concepts.
Because the NAP can’t be ‘observed’ eh ? Unlike a truck or a cow, which can be observed ?