Who’s post is that addressing? It would be better to address by use of quote-to-quote for clarity.
Well what is the natural state of rational men? Whether consequential or deonotological: non-violence is the answer. That is what all libertarians propose. If you are not a libertarian…ok that is fine and it explains a good deal.
Well what is the legitimacy of ethical subjectivism in exchanges and discourse? Perhaps I like punching all strangers in the face as a greeting. Let us theorize that you don’t like to be punched in the face. What is stopping me from punching you in the face to greet you?
that’s good point.
HA HA! Well done me matey! There is hope for us yet!
Libertarians - 3
Ethical Subjectivists - Those who have made themselves known.
I think there’s 4 libertarians in this thread.
Zomg, we’re growing in numbers. Next the white house!
Oh? At best it is an argumentum ad consequentiam.
It would be more precise to say that I cannot prove that a murderer is right or wrong, but since when do you care about precision?
Why? From what do you justify the premise that because value is subjective I must respect other people’s values, even when they run contrary to my own? Can you explain why I am obligated to allow the murder to happen?
This does not make any sense.
Am I seeing the same result from different paths?
You ought to be non-violent, because it is in your best interest.
You ought to be non-violent, because it is in your best interest.
More oughtism.
Judge - prove, to prove something, to actually justify something - takes a form of judgement.
As you said - you can’t prove it’s wrong or not. So you would only be taking a chance. That could really be an innocent person walking down the street saying hi! But you can’t objectively say if he’s saying hi or not. You might be thinking he’s murderering somebody. Who knows since you can’t prove or judge it either way. So throw out all the science (cause science is objective - not subjective) while your at it.
I don’t know if you’ve just proved that it doesn’t make sense or you’re merely toying with me.
That’s honestly what i get from:
Jack,
they deny “oughts”. So no, they ought to do nothing of the sorts. It’s the dilemma they’ve slide into.
Quick! Somebody pull them from the wreckage!
Edit: That’s why it’s called oughtism (a comedic play on autism). They think that they are only working with what “is”, so, therefore a murder happens and is, so, they ought to do nothing about it.
That is a strawman of the thin position. Please stop being so sloppy with your argumentation.
I’m going to bow out of this thread. I’ve been misreading it. In my analysis, you are on the “is” side, while Lilburne, for example, is on the “ought” side. Shows what I know [:P]
Thank you.
The only position of the thin position is the NAP and property rights. You made that very clear.
From the article I posted earlier in this thread:
"I suspect that the subjective theory is motivated in part by the seemingly reasonable assumption that if what’s right for someone to do is entirely subjective, others cannot know what that right thing is and therefore cannot pretend to be competent to force them to do that right thing. Subjectivism thus appears to be a bulwark against authoritarianism and tyranny.
Alas, if no one can judge what is right, no one can judge what is wrong, either! No one can say that it is wrong to push other people around without any justification! From a subjectivist stance nothing whatever can be said against it. All a person could say is, Well, I subjectively find your brutalizing of that innocent person to be appalling, but of course, on your own subjective values it may be perfectly acceptable. It’s the subject’s call, so to speak."
It honestly makes me think of the “useful idiots” that the KGB agent was talking about in the video posted in this forum. I’ll try to find it, maybe others here remember it. The KGB explicitly pointed out that’s why they liked the India guru’s of the 60’s and 70’s and the whole hedonism of that period. Cause everything became subjective. A trance state in which nobody could really say if somebody else is being wrong or not. It’s was a “chill” and “live and let live” approach. Easily subverted. The KGB agent in that video said it way better with an inside information on how they preyed upon such people.
There is professor quoted from a book I have on this time period called “Lila” (it’s a philosophical inquiry book) in which the India professor was asked, “Was the atom bomb wrong?” “Is it wrong to drop the bomb?” One can justify about hypothetical events and when it might be ok to drop the bomb, but the India professor answered, “How can we ever know if it’s every wrong to do such things?” So innocents killed meant to him, “It’s only a blimp in time in this vast universe so how can we know?”
It’s an effort to see it from God’s perspective. But I don’t know about others, but I’m not God and I don’t know about the vast universe and it’s whole ultimate perspective, but when an innocent person is killed. I think it’s wrong!
But that would mean their is such an objective fact called property. And people have a right to such person and property. So that’s clearly not the ethical subjectivist position.
L.S. You keep saying “It’s a strawman.” When clearly it’s not, so, maybe find another way to make your point.
-
That is not your original sloppy argumentation.
-
That is a strawman. The only objective positions for a thin libertarian are the NAP and property rights. Thin libertarians hold a variety of subjective positions on every topic conceivable.
So how would you not apply the NAP? In what case isn’t it applicable?