False. Of course, you confuse, probably on purpose, morality with fashion and/or morality with the statist legal system.
Do you think, for instance, that slavery in the South was morally good because a bunch of corrupt oligarchs declared it to be morally good ?
Do you think that blowing up entire cities is morally good cause military murderers believe in ‘patriotism’ and similar trash ?
Your non-argument is the most used non-argument in the skeptics’ bag of tricks. You seem to believe that since some people fail to grasp truth, truth doesn’t exist. Lame.
No. Immoral means morally bad. It doesn’t mean “I don’t like it”. Or maybe it does, in your own ‘subjective’ version of newspeak…
What the dictionary shows, for starters, is that your take on the concept of morality is not consistent and that reducing morality to aesthetics is, get this, a philosophical position and a very lame one.
Except that the concept of ‘crime’ is only meaningful within an ethical system.
Sorry, math & logic only exist in your mind. Are they ‘subjective’ or not ?
And that isn’t the defiintion that I’m using. I’ve made it clear what I mean, and pointed you to the one definition that I’m using. “But I’m going to consult Princeton to help what I’m saying.” The fact that words can have multiple meanings is irrelevant.
Fetish? Again you make no sense. The entire debate rests on whether its subjective or objective. If your not hung-up on it do me a favour and stay out.
Once again you spew horse shit. I see you aren’t too hung-up on reading either.
False. There is a huge difference between natural rights and rights. Natural rights are supposed to stem from natural law. And natural law is supposed to be set by nature, that is, valid everywhere, regardless of culture. The history if this idea is well documented and the “natural law tradition” has been anything but traditional. Natural law has been used to describe extremely different things.
Well. You sure proved me wrong. Are you actually going to substantiate this claim or are you just pulling a “Juan?” I’ve read Rasmussen, Osterfeld, Rothbard, Aquinas, Spooner, Aristotle, Long, Hobbes, Van Dun, and a whole slew of other theorists from different periods. They differ - whos right? Have any of them gotten it right Juan? If not can you tell me who?
Nope. Morally bad. (Remember Juan, ethics are only opinions)
Nope. Morally bad. (Remember Juan, ethics are only opinions)
Good point. (Do you have a point?)
“Immoral means morally bad.” Well no shit. But wait what does morally bad mean exactly?
Please quote this dictionary. I need to see where it says ethics are objective and reducing it to subjectivity is lame. Or perhaps your just a bullshitter who has no interest in truth.
Well, lets just Ignore the entire concept of law (civil, contract, common, tort, property, etc). Objective ethics can solve it all. Now if someone would demonstrate them so we could get started.
Already answered. “Math not being tangible doesn’t mean its subjective.” Its a science, It doesn’t change from person to person. It can be verified. Objective. And as I’ve already stated, I’m not a materialist. I didn’t challenge objective ethics with the claim “where are they” I asked for proof of them. If someone would logically derive them I’ll kindly accept ethics as being objective.
Thanks for raising this important issue, and you’re correct: emotivism seems to claim that all ethical statements merely express “Yay!” or “Boo!” It’s elementary to see that this is not true, because we use the same word “ought” or “good” to convey different meanings all the time. Sometimes it is yay/booh, and sometimes it is intended to imply - as you say - that something is a social good (i.e., produces good consequences, or perhaps even good in a whole other way).
It’s in the nature of ethical language that it can convey any number of possible meanings, and that’s part of what makes it useful in everyday talk. Instead of having to say all of
(a) I don’t like X
(b) Don’t do X
(c) X is illegal
(d) God doesn’t like X
(e) X will produce bad consequences for you, me or someone else,
(f) “X is objectively wrong”
(g) Foreboding-sounding gibberish about X
(f) etc. etc.
or any combination of the above common-sense meanings, one can rather simply say, “You ought not X.” Or “X is bad.” This is useful, but for the same reason it is hard for ethicists to analyze.
When we hear these statements there is no way to know which combination of the above elements they are intended to mean, so we naturally cannot evaluate them, except conditionally based on suppositions about what the speaker meant:
If they meant “yay/boo,” then emotivism would be the correct interpretation (regarding that statement only; same below)
If they meant “all must do this” then universal prescriptivism would be correct
If they meant “it’s objectively morally true,” then error theory, incoherentism, or noncognitivism would be correct (until the speaker clarifies his meaning)
If they meant “I/we disapprove,” then individual subjectivism would be correct
If they meant “God disapproves,” then interpretation within that religion (Divine Command theory) would be called for, or a religious debate could be started
If they meant “It’s just wrong, OK” then non-cognitivist analysis is correct
Yet more likely, as mentioned above, it will take a combination of these interpretations, because most people use “ought” with multiple meanings as a matter of conversational convenience.
Another way to think about it: Say someone makes a statement, “You ought not do X,” and let’s assume their intended meanings turn out to be
“I don’t like X.”
“No one else likes X, either.”
“Don’t do X.”
“It’s just wrong, OK.”
Then they are really making four statements at once (this is extremely common, if you think about it):
an individual subjectivist statement
a universal statement of other’s preferences
a universal prescriptivist statement
a non-cognitive statement
We can then assign truth values to each of these four statements:
True. (Provided they are being honest that they don’t like X.)
False. (Barring the unlikely event that it’s really true that everyone else dislikes X.)
N/A. (Commands aren’t subject to truth or falsehood.)
N/A. (Incoherent statements aren’t subject to truth or falsehood.)
Only by unpacking these specific intended meanings can we get to the bottom of what ethical statements mean.
As for “objective ethics,” I pronounce it generally noncognitivist for now, but await further clarification to classify it into one of the above categories, or another one entirely.
no, it’s true. NR are principles, axioms to be exact, and natural does mean such within the tradition that includes a particular identity with natural philosophy/science. But a sophist and an intellectual are natural contraries, so, you being the former and I the latter, it is natural that the dialogue evolve into you saying “false” and i saying “true”. Yet how a sophist tries to make a truth claim when we know well and good that the ‘damn burden of proof on the shoulders’ is something you intend to not display therefore how you mustered the strengthen with all that burden to attempt a demonstration of this either being true or false deserves an applause.
Natural rights doesn’t deal with just a singular person though. It is not dependent on them.
So why can we not use reason [ which you say is objective ] to discover truths about the human race?
What is best for man’s nature is an environment in which he can discover and mold their conscious preferences and goals. Such an environment is provided by liberty and when one violates the property of another, then one is retarding the ability of such an environment. They are purposely squelching the ability of human development. Since they have no right to this based on logic and reason, then why should they be allowed to?
I meant it in terms of efficiency. What if man wants socialism? The utter destruction of all things? You have no basis to combat that. You are lost in the world of nihilistic ambivalence. You have no radical nature towards the state if you practice what you preach. You just have this mentality of ‘well I don’t like what they do…but sigh’
You have yet to show you have the right to murder me.
Well I shall ask you what you told me. What if I want to murder you and you want to open a flower shop? Your system devolves into of ‘might makes right’ to which devolves into a mentality that whatever the state does or any other individuals do en mass is right simply because you could not sufficient ability to resist them.
Well I think you are denying the result of ‘You ought not do X’ particularly with the third response ‘Don’t do X.’ Why cannot the responder say ‘Why shouldn’t I do it?’ or ‘What is stopping me from doing it?’ And also how many rapists like to be rape? How many thieves like to be stolen from? Do they feel indignant if such an event happens to them? Do they welcome these affairs? Is it still considered rape if the rapist is happy and welcoming about the event against him/her? What about murders?
All I’m talking about is how to unpack what people mean when they use ethics-related words.
You are saying “ought” means X, and Angurse is saying “ought” means Y. But obviously people use it to mean both X and Y, so I don’t think arguing back and forth about that will get anywhere.
If it is universal then it has to. If they aren’t universal then it isn’t objective.
I’ve said multiple times that you can use reason.
Now you are merely asserting something, prove it.
If my goal is to rape women. That clearly isn’t best for me.
Sure we do. Economics. The impossibility of socialism has been shown repeatedly through logical vigor and empiricism. Natural rights just isn’t necessary nor sufficient. Its easy enough to demonstrate:
Person A: Everyone hand over all their money
Person B: Why?
Person A: Because not everyone can afford health care, and health care is a right.
Person B: But its my money
Person A: Everyone has a right to live, you’re violating peoples rights!
I never claimed that I do. But if it’ll satisfy my need for happiness, natural rights would have that I continue to remain unhappy. Which certainly wouldn’t be in man’s best nature to live unhappily. The natural rights idea simply cannot be objective.
The answer is “though shit wanna-be-murderer. We don’t care about your ‘rights.’”
Wilderness, do you intentionally pack your posts with non-answers, horse shit, insults, rambling and non-sequitars?
Lets see these damn axioms that prove NR. I’ve only asked for this… what this entire thread now? And you’re the “intellectual” here it shouldn’t be so damned difficult.
You are saying that if it is to be universal, then it must be dependent on the individual interpretations of a singular individual? That makes no sense, you are saying that for it to be universal, it must be subjective.
Ok but why can’t we use reason to discover objective truths about humanity?
Under liberty one has the ability to choose the lifestyle and goal preferences that allow for an individual to flourish.
Well why do you feel it is in your nature to rape?
A positive science with no normative statements. You can say to people prosperity is achieved under capitalism but not that people should want prosperity.
The impossibility of rational economic calculation. Yet you assume that people want economic calculation, under your theory, you have no grounds to say such a thing because that would show there is an objective ethic towards humanity [ prosperity is a good thing ]
That clearly contradicts natural rights. It is not a system of positive liberties such as healthcare, shelter and food for they contradict the very premise of self-ownership and private property.
So you are mad that people are not allowed to have their destructive fantasies because a system of rights which disallowed coercion?
So by what institution do you claim to be defending yourself? Self-ownership?
Angurse, it would ‘burden your shoulders’ too much. I’m moving on to more constructive and creative activities. In the Aristotelian sense, find your own premises dialectician.
No. I’m saying if its really objective then it must be universal (like math, logic, etc..). But that simply cannot be due the desires of men varying so wildly.
I didn’t say you couldn’t. In fact, all I’ve done is ask for proof of objective ethics, (which is obviously supposed to be an objective truth)
Then I can murder you.
Doesn’t matter. Oh, say, Its the only thing that makes me happy, its the only way I can flourish.
It doesn’t matter if you want economic calculation. The error exists. We know it exists. You can’t want it away.
So people don’t have the right to life then, as they (food, shelter) are all needed to live.
Mad? Not at all. The system of rights just favours one group over another. Which makes it at odds with objectivity.
Angurse, you know you’re not going to get a straight answer because there isn’t one. All of the involved parties are too entrenched to admit that they cannot prove their objective position.
I think you’ve given them ample opportunity to do so.
you assume too much of me as you respond to Ang’s response to me. as i’ve stated throughout this thread and in the past repeatedly, i’m not into these little class conflicts of subjectivists v. objectivists. i think the tendency to get caught up in these semantic games, at times, has one forget the forest for the trees or the trees for the forest - either way. so you can continue to label what you assume of others, notably “objective position”, or become more accurate than assumptive. ultimately you are at liberty to do as you choose obviously.
I could have responded to any of his posts. Your response (or lack thereof) to him wasn’t necessary to make the comment I made. He’s asked you, Juan and LM to prove your position.
As lilburne noted, more fruitful discussion has occurred between these two “factions” elsewhere with Zavoi and AJ being able to actually engage one another without histrionics or increasing divergence.
Regardless of the label, if you’re really concerned with progress you’ll either withdraw or prove your position, whatever it is, whatever you call it.
What’s the connection between totalitarians like aristotle, hobbes and aquinas with libertarianism ? Again, you think that by invoking the mistakes of people who pretend to speak in terms of natural justice, you prove that natural justice doesn’t exist ?
If you can’t tell the difference between aquinas and hobbes in one hand, and spooner in the other, that’s your problem. But your mental limitations are not a proof against common sense morality.
Oh wait. You just asserted, again, that people making mistakes means truth doesn’t exist. Won’t you tire of repeating the old same fallacy ?
Remember Angurse, you are just a broken-positivist-record.
Remember Angurse, you are just a broken-positivist-record.
Yes sonny and I already made it - the point is : your childish skepticism will get you nowhere.
Sorry, what do you mean by ‘mean’ ?
No, you quote the dictionary that says that morality and aesthetics are synonyms. Or else admit that your conflation of the two concepts is nonsense.
Huh? You mean, let’s pretend that justice == legal positivism ?
What is a science ?
How do you know ?
How ?
Right. You are a logical positivist.
Why don’t you prove that crime is not crime. That coercion is not coercion. Or that A is justified in ruling over B ?
Well, if A has no ‘natural’ authority over B, maybe that’s because libertarianism is ‘objectively’ true and justified after all…