-
my sloppy assertion “ancap is true/not true” is similar to the sloppy assertion LS made “Anarcho-capitalism doesn’t profess to be a universal truth”. So, take it up with him.
-
I tried to clarify that I was talking about the underlying ethical position of libertarianism and that position can be true or false.
No, it isn’t.
Ethics are subjective.
Whatever the king of the subjectivist ‘philosophers’ declares to be true shall be accepted as truth!
That’s better. [;)]
This is very true. Cohen still thinks that the philosophy of historical materialism is still acceptable though which is strange because the class conflict is supposed to be synthesized through the LTV.
Since you brought it up, I’m still a bit confused about whether or not there are obligations under ‘ethical subjectivism’. If we were to enact this theory would I be obligated to follow the NAP? Not a question of will I or wouldn’t I, but should I? And also do you realize that you are being an emotivist by stating that ethical propositions are incapable of being true or false and only show a individual preference?
Under so called ‘ethical subjectivism’ you have the universal obligation to parrot that murder, among other crimes, is just a subjective preference and that there’s nothing ‘intrinsically’ wrong with it. Just an example - hope that helps.
That’s pretty funny Juan. I think you have a career in comedy. You certainly crack me up with your jokes.
You know I am not joking. So, don’t pretend otherwise.
Maybe I should add that the internet is serious business.
You make it sound like a formal system. It’s not.
Are you obligated to follow the NAP? By what or who?
That is a question only you can answer.
No, I didn’t realize that. Fascinating.
It’s always hard to tell when a joker is joking and when he is serious.
On the contrary my friend, I struggle each day to be as “real” as I can be.
Very true. You should add that.
Really ? Okay, let’s assume I’m sarcasm-challenged. Are you calling me a joker ?
Natural law, utilitarian principles, legal ‘public choice’. I personally like the first one.
Well I proposed it to you specifically in the hope that you would answer it.
Yes, it is a system of thought utilized by logical positivists in order to marginalize ethical meta-physical beliefs and theory. Not saying that you are a positivist, but if you are then I’m not going to worry about it.
But which one obligates you? Or do they all obligate you? If more than one obligates you, can you list them all for us?
You also asked me for a pony for your birthday, and that ain’t happenin!
I think you guys do a good job marginalizing yourselves.
So if you’re not saying I am a positivist, what are you saying? Or should we both not worry about it?
Really.
I don’t have to assume that.
That depends. If I was calling you a joker, how would that make you feel?
I think natural law does. Utilitarianism really only matters if all agree on what the social wealth that is to be achieved is and public choice under Buchanan is rather silly.
Well hey, I’m just trying to see if you still believe that the NAP is obligatory.
Who is, ‘you guys’?
Trying to be friendly and not give you a title that you don’t actually practice.
You think, or you know? In order to be objective, you have to know. If you’re just thinkin’ 'bout it, mulling it over, picking and choosing, then that sounds like subjectivism to me.
Ah. But doesn’t objectivism have a utilitarian aspect? What more is utilitarianism than preferences expressed as absolutes?
You still haven’t made clear that something (or someone) objective must drive me to embrace the NAP.
Never mind that.
Bit late for flowers and fruit baskets, isn’t it?
You could use non-cognitivism to simply bypass that proof problem that natural-righters and moral absolutists can’t seem to overcome.
Natural law only matters if people agree on what the rules actually are.