Actually the problem is that there are no sensible answers to stupid questions…
So basic desires such as life and liberty are not universal?
Well when I say reason asks for liberty to develop goals and fulfill desires, you suddenly go off on a subjective escapade.
Why? That doesn’t cause a flourishing. How are you developing by committing murder? It is in fact a devolution in man.
Why you act doesn’t matter? Now you are just being intellectually dishonest.
But you presuppose that people want calculation. There can be someone so devoted to irrational economics that they will not be convinced by your comments about how capitalism is an efficient system.
The right to life is just a phrase meant a life freedom from coercion in which they can act out their goals. You don’t have the right to be a parasite and the lives of others do not exist to sustain my own.
It favors rational and reason over irrational delusions. Irrationality is like a mutation found in nature. It is not an accurate representation of a whole species. You cannot apply rational theory to those incapable of understanding it.
So ‘might makes right’
Maybe, maybe not. But at the end of the day, if I am going to commit murder the only thing you can do about it is to persuade me that it’s not in my self interest. If I tell you that I’ve made my cost benefit calculation and I think that putting a slug in a guy to get his car is worth a bit of flourishing then you’ve got to step aside and admit that neither you nor anybody else has any “right” to stop me.
Like I said, you can appeal to my own self interest, but nobody has any right to complain when I say it’s in my self interest to cap the guy. Of course, you can pull out your piece and threaten me in the hope that adding the costs of getting the guy’s car will persuade me not to. However, now it seems we’re back in the realm of “might makes right” that you so ardently oppose.
I can tell the person you are after, and if I am so devout in my belief that what you are doing is wrong, then I can follow you around and wait to become the agent of the person you intent to hurt in order to help them combat you. This is obviously an extreme but it is possible.
Killing people is okay to you, so where is your coherent objection to being killed?
Of course you can. I never disputed what you can do, if you really want to can call the guy up and tell him that some crazy guy who clearly doesn’t care for his “flourishing” wants his ride. My point concerned what you have a right to do, and I don’t believe you have a right to stop me, which as I pointed out gets as back to “might makes right”, at least as far as interpersonal ethics goes.
It’s not OK to me in the slightest, it goes against my religious beliefs and I think anybody capable of murder in cold blood has something wrong with them. Now, to answer your question, my objection to being killed needn’t be any stronger than “I know a whole lot of people are going to miss me and I wouldn’t want to impose them on that”.
I cannot stopped you because you haven’t done anything wrong. You just said ‘Oh man I could really kill a person’, saying something like that isn’t a rights violation. However, if you said that and pointed a gun at someone, I could be within my right to stop you.
Persuade you? You miss the point, on purpose. The best thing may be to simply shoot you. Now, what matters is that shooting you is justified, whereas your criminal act is not.
Well I wouldn’t go that far because it opens the door to all sorts of preemptive violence and violates the NAP.
Well, if A (“I am going to commit murder”) is trying to kill B, it looks as if B is justified in killing A…
At any rate, I was pointing out that the issue at hand is not ‘persuasion’ - it is justice. And I don’t think that appealing to the self-interest of criminals is very principled. Criminals should refrain from doing X because X is bad for their victims, not for themselves.
Paging G-Isles
Well if A says I’m going to kill you and draws a gun then I think it is justified.
What are you rambling about? Who has correctly spoken about natural justice?
Is it now being called common sense morality?
Where? I asserted that their mistakes means truth doesn’t exist where? When I asked you who was right?
Oh, yes. A mere assertion without any sort of evidence. I guess I’ll call that a “Juan point.”
No. You quote the dictionary that says morality is objective.
Yeah because every conflict in the world can be solved by a vague idea that hasn’t ever been proven or agreed upon. Why don’t we just wait for god to help us.
“Juan answer” Not morals.
Thank you. You’ve admitted that there isn’t such a thing as objective ethics. Maybe there is “ethics that average people agree with” or "common sense ethics: but objective ethics no.
Okay, I’m not wasting more time with a bright guy like you. You named a bunch of philosophers (and clowns) such as hobbes, aquinas, spooner and you added that “they differ”. Right. So? Marx, hitler and the pope differ too. What of it ?
Nope, you quote the dictionary that says morality == aesthetics. Have you ever looked at a dictionary ? They usually provide lists of synonyms. Since, according to you, it’s a fact that aesthetics and morality are the same thing, it must be well documented by all dictionaries.
Hold up. You hate murder in cold blood but advocate the initiation of aggression as right and good {in some cases}, no?
I know a lot of people who would miss my fish tacos. What an oppressor you are to deprive people of my tacos JUST because I murdered someone or instituted a system of robbery.
awaiting your coherence,
E
I named several natural rights philosophers and asked you who was right? If anyone? You still haven’t answered. You still haven’t even said what they are.
Nope, you quote the dictionary that says morality == science.
I don’t see much of a reason for you to be here anymore, Giles. I had hoped our discussion in the chatroom a couple months ago would have born fruit. Alas, it didn’t.
You might want to start thinking really hard if this is the place for you.
Nope. Your whole non-argument rests on your unfounded assertion that morality == personal aesthetics. So, please, show where such basic ‘fact’ is documented. No, you believing that black == white doesn’t mean that black == white, it means you are wrong.
By the way, you can also show a dictionary definition of morality that states that morality is just ‘subjective preference’…