Well, there’s ethics, which is the branch of praxeology (science) dealing with morals.
I thought you were done?
The same place where it says humour == personal aesthetics. History and common sense.
How about you show where it states that morality is objective. (How about you answer a single question?)
You’re all missing my point in the exact same way, so let me try spelling it out again (by the way, my criticism is solely aimed against the natural law, virtue ethicists).
If I’m adamant that I’m going to shoot somebody for my gang initiation and I tell you this, your attempts to persuade me must be in the form “killing will be immoral because it goes against your nature or flourishing or whatever”, what you cannot do is say “you can’t kill because he has rights that no man may violate”.
In response the former I can say “I’m a G, what use do I have for that shit? I don’t want to flourish that shit sounds gay” and you’re done, in response to the latter I just have to bite the bullet and admit I’m violating his rights if I want to do it.
I suppose my point is that if virtue ethics are correct, and I don’t think they are, the ethicist essentially becomes just another person to fit in your weekly routine with your personal trainer and psychologist; the virtue ethicist is just somebody you can ask for advice with respect to a given end.
It deals with ethics but…
Its yet to be shown how far praxeology can extend.
Haha! Good one Juan. The questions you can’t answer are stupid. Priceless.
I don’t need to provide my capital of premises to you. Find your own. I understand no matter what I say you will act in a dialectical manner trying to deduce what I say. You will use my deduction as your premise of negation or affirmation. Meanwhile I’ve not even professed I’m being objective, but you assume I am. I haven’t even stated if I’m being subjective, but you assume I’m not. Yet I have explicitly pointed out my position isn’t stuck in this class conflict, but Ang and you pull it back to something (s v. o) I am not apart of.
And I am proud of them for going about it that way. It’s worth a mention, but it’s not anything that considers special pleading. Lot’s of conversations in this forum are informative and constructive. I only want to know what fruits are emerging out of this relational conflict. Not a conflict that opposes the NAP, of course not, but a relational conflict that intellectually I find to be dry and unfruitful, as fruit is something I am looking for if you get my drift. In other words, is this s v. o that you delineate productive for you? If it is, then that’s enough for me to go on. I’ve opted out of this a long time ago, and though I’ve gotten swept up in the mess at times, I now have been able to pull out of this wreckage with what I had before ever coming to these forums. That is something of a better quality that isn’t hung-up on class conflicts. I’m not necessarily, possible, but not necessarily saying you or anybody is stuck or hung-up on anything, unless of course you want to continue to pull the discussion back to something I’ve already identified to Ang. And that is I’m not necessarily being objective nor subjective. Those are too narrow to fit what I understand.
Withdraw from what? Prove what? And yes, I haven’t called it anything other than, it’s not of this class conflict. That I do know.
and peace to you
Well if that is your tenet for objective anything then the supply and demand chart is completely subjective due to the fact there are people who believe in post-scarcity. The impossibility of socialist calculation is subjective because there is right now a group of people who believe it is possible. There is nothing in the world that everyone agrees to so everything is completely subjective according to that premise. Welcome to the world of nihilism.
No, we’re not. We’re in no way missing that telling someone who doesn’t care that no one may violate another’s rights won’t matter. But who cares? We’re not trying to win the thug over, Giles. YOU are missing THAT point.
But nothing. Morality deals with the group-rules of human interaction. How we deal with each other. How we act. What we may and may not do as far as acting goes wrt others. It is an action-based concept.
You don’t need to do anything. And yet you keep doing things.
Thank you for conceding, I’m glad you finally see the light. But once again you’ve committed the same error as before. Just because people believe in post-scarcity doesn’t mean anything. You cannot believe scarcity away. Its an objective fact of life.
Action is an axiom of human nature.
People try to live in a post-scarcity world. The fact that they do such a thing shows that they can violate the law of supply and demand.
In a descriptive sense not prescriptive (which has been my focal point.) But even in a descriptive sense morality is ever changing and still comes from the conscience.
They try. They fail. Laws always win.
Well they can commit the action like murderers can commit murder. Now according to you, since murders have the ability to murder people then they can deny objective ethics. By logical extension, because people can live in a post-scarcity community would mean they defy the law of demand.
Strawman. Yawn
I think it follows. If you feel it doesn’t please explain. Anguse’s argument was that since man can murder that then means that objective ethics are not universal in the sense it can be transgressed. The laws of economics can be transgressed. People can totally disavow the premise of supply and demand by believing and acting as if we are in a post-scarcity. Therefore not everyone believes in supply and demand, therefore it is not universal by Anguse’s very argument. And Anguse did say that economics is objective.
But I am growing tired of this discussion and I think Anguse is too. Anguse, let us agree to disagree on this subject?
Thats not a logical extension. Its a just fabrication. People cannot live in a post-scarcity community. Scarcity is unavoidable.
The laws of economics can’t be transgressed any more than the laws of physics. Even for the sake of argument we pretend that there are no economic laws such actions would still result in failure. As scarcity just points out that resources are limited. But pretending they aren’t won’t change the conservation of mass.
there isn’t anything more to discuss, you’ve already conceded.