How do natural rights theories cross the is/ought divide?

[Juan]

Whenever you hear an “ought,” ask “For what purpose?” If none is forthcoming, the “ought” is not logic-based; it is purely persuasive.

AJ,

can you please define
Whenever
hear
purpose
forthcoming
logic-based
purely
persuasive

[Lilburne]

@Juan

edit : Have you asked the semantic trolls like AJ and AM if they are trying to be annoying ?

Without careful attention to semantics, formal propositions are meaningless. Without formal propositions, your purely rationalist theory of ethics is groundless.

[I_Ryan]

Juan,

What is your native language?

[Juan]

I. Ryan,

I think you are a statist who believes in killing people who don’t accept your system of government.

Do you mind providing a moral justification for your system ? Or any justification at all ?

Do you think your system is ‘right’ ?

[Lilburne]

@Juan

Do you mind defining :

Then
there
is
no
proof
but
you
do
concede
the
same
below

@Juan

AJ, would you be so kind as to define :

merely
ask
definition
other
ambiguous
theories
proponents
logical
therein

@Juan

AJ,

can you please define
Whenever
hear
purpose
forthcoming
logic-based
purely
persuasive

@Juan

Are you trying to be annoying?

No, I’m making a point.

If you were just making a point, and not trying to be annoying, would you have posted the same bit of inanity three different times?

[nirgrahamUK]

@AJ

Then there is no proof, but you do concede the same below.

the kind of proof you are asking for is impossible. but if you think thats a problem , wait until what happens when you discover that science is inexactly the same epistemological hot water…

@AJ

And this is pure consequentialism, which natural right proponents seem opposed to.

i see you bolded the least important parts of what i wrote, misunderstood their force, and completely skirted over my main arguments, which is to draw analogy with other fields of knowledge. i.e science. and about your criterion for knowledge.

@AJ

Logic is unforgiving: it’s a “pure airtight proof” or it’s nothing.

but all it gives you is ‘i think therefore i am’. your skepticism over all things not 100% sound, from pure deduction without any empricisim, without risk of epistimological error, traps you.

be fair, lower your criterion for truth. can you provide a logic airtight proof that you were woman born? no , you cant. so morality is not worse off than other fields of inquiry.

[nirgrahamUK]

@Lilburne

If you were just making a point, and not trying to be annoying, would you have posted the same bit of inanity three different times?

its no more inane than asking what right and wrong mean. you are libertarian ( i thought?)

when we are talking science, what does ‘energy’ mean? what does ‘mass’ mean ?

[Lilburne]

@nirgrahamUK

be fair, lower your criterion for truth. can you provide a logic airtight proof that you were woman born? no , you cant. so morality is not worse off than other fields of inquiry.

Natural rights theorists establish the criterion for truth when they begin to argue from deduction. If natural rights theories are based on deductive arguments, they must be either apodictically true or entirely false. There are no “degrees of certainy” with deduction as there are with induction.

[nirgrahamUK]

the fact that i am a human and not a brain in a vat is not provable from pure deduction, and who would claim so ?

[nirgrahamUK]

if they discuss mans nature then clearly they have an empirical eye on man. as disembodied cartesians know nothing of man, although perhaps they could hyopethesise various possible ‘men’ and ‘worlds’ and investigate the moral realm in this way. i dont think they do that.

[Lilburne]

@nirgrahamUK

its no more inane than asking what right and wrong mean. you are libertarian ( i thought?)

I don’t have to accept any particular ethical theory to be a libertarian. If natural rights theorists expect others to accept their theories, and their theories are based on deductive arguments, then they need to define their terms.

[Juan]

@Lilburne

Without careful attention to semantics, formal propositions are meaningless.

Proof for that ?

Without formal propositions, your purely rationalist theory of ethics is groundless.

I disagree. At any rate it’s better grounded than your empty emotionalism.

Now, some amount of honest misunderstanding and lack of clarity with respect to some definitions is to be expected. But that’s different from the semantic trolling that AM constantly engages in and that other people are now using as well.

You see, the skeptical game is easy to play. What is funny is that the skeptics don’t seem to like their own medicine.

[Lilburne]

@nirgrahamUK

if they discuss mans nature then clearly they have an empirical eye on man. as disembodied cartesians know nothing of man, although perhaps they could hyopethesise various possible ‘men’ and ‘worlds’ and investigate the moral realm in this way. i dont think they do that.

The empirical approach only contributes to the premise of man having a certain nature. That is uncontroversial to me. I take issue with the deductive inferences they claim to draw from that premise. Those deductive inferences are either sound or they are not. Again, there is no middle ground for deductive inferences.

[Juan]

@Lilburne

If you were just making a point, and not trying to be annoying, would you have posted the same bit of inanity three different times?

I’m emphatically making a point. That’s why I made three similar posts. Is there any reason why I should justify my actions to you ?

[Juan]

@Lilburne

I don’t have to accept any particular ethical theory to be a libertarian.

Except that libertarianism is basically an ethical system. Maybe you can be a libertarian just because you ‘feel’ it is ‘right’. Although perhaps you should define what you mean by ‘feel’ and ‘right’.

[Lilburne]

@Juan

@Lilburne

Without careful attention to semantics, formal propositions are meaningless.

Proof for that ?

God is love. Love is blind. Therefore, God is blind.

@Juan

You see, the skeptical game is easy to play. What is funny is that the skeptics don’t seem to like their own medicine.

You are the most eristic person I’ve ever encountered.

[nirgrahamUK]

i think its fair to ask someone what their criterion of knowledge is if they are are begging for proof of some debated point. furthermore its worth contrasting that to the standards of ‘proof’ they accept when doing other inquiry.

[Lilburne]

@Juan

@Lilburne

If you were just making a point, and not trying to be annoying, would you have posted the same bit of inanity three different times?

I’m emphatically making a point. That’s why I made three similar posts. Is there any reason why I should justify my actions to you ?

Is there any reason I should justify my critical questions to you?

[Amanojack]

@nirgrahamUK

@AJ

Then there is no proof, but you do concede the same below.

the kind of proof you are asking for is impossible. but if you think thats a problem , wait until what happens when you discover that science is inexactly the same epistemological hot water…

I realize that science cannot be proven either, and just like natural rights proponents there are people who claim science can be “proven,” but neither claim has been justified. Science, however, has proven itself useful, and property rights have proven themselves useful as well. I have nothing against the notion of “natural rights” as long as it they are presented properly as a potentially useful concept and tool of persuasion rather than a logically proven theory.

@nirgrahamUK

@AJ

And this is pure consequentialism, which natural right proponents seem opposed to.

i see you bolded the least important parts of what i wrote, misunderstood their force, and completely skirted over my main arguments, which is to draw analogy with other fields of knowledge. i.e science. and about your criterion for knowledge.

Then go ahead and rephrase if you didn’t mean to imply pure consequentialism. As for the analogy to other fields, see above.

@nirgrahamUK

@AJ

Logic is unforgiving: it’s a “pure airtight proof” or it’s nothing.

but all it gives you is ‘i think therefore i am’. your skepticism over all things not 100% sound, from pure deduction without any empricisim, without risk of epistimological error, traps you.

be fair, lower your criterion for truth. can you provide a logic airtight proof that you were woman born? no , you cant. so morality is not worse off than other fields of inquiry.

I’m not the one who claims to have a logical proof. Again, I’m not against the spirit of natural rights, I only contest the notion that they can be logically proven, as some have indeed stated.

[Amanojack]

@nirgrahamUK

i think its fair to ask someone what their criterion of knowledge is if they are are begging for proof of some debated point. furthermore its worth contrasting that to the standards of ‘proof’ they accept when doing other inquiry.

The natural rights proponents (hashem, Rasmussen, krazy kaju) brought up the issue of “proof.” I only point out that the burden falls on them if they wish to continue claiming that natural rights have been proven in the formal logical sense.