How is it that the Mises ideal is so specially different from other ideals?

[liberty_student]

@Laughing Man

No it isn’t. Utilitiarians propound that the good is maximizing social pleasure, the bad is vice versa. What maximizes social pleasure is subjective, however the system itself isn’t.

What does that even mean?

You’re playing a semantic game poorly. We’re all utilitarians because we’re all rational actors. So-called social pleasure is just another value preference. I wouldn’t even grace what you are doing with the label “quibbling”. You are trying to manufacture a divide where none exists. Not unlike the broader argument about the objective ethics that you cannot prove, and also resort to semantics over.

Please don’t bother contradicting me with a picture of Rothbard, like that appeal to authority adds anything to your non-argument, if you don’t actually have something to say.

[Laughing_Man]

@liberty student

What does that even mean?

It means that objectively speaking the maximization of social pleasure is the goal of utilitarians. All of them apply that tenet to their actions and premises. What that social pleasure varies, however the fact they all look for the maximization is objective.

@liberty student

Please don’t bother contradicting me with a picture of Rothbard, like that appeal to authority adds anything to your non-argument, if you don’t actually have something to say.

Thanks for the obvious strawman. You said everyone is a utilitiarian, I show you someone who wasn’t and suddenly I’m appealing to authority.

[nirgrahamUK]

@liberty student

We’re all utilitarians because we’re all rational actors.

Utilitarians are not defined by their human penchant for being utility maximizers, they are people who believe that what actions are ethically objectively right and wrong are determined by the consequences they have for the ‘utility of the populace’

in other words saying that so and so is a utilitarian is saying something about their normative beliefs. and is not describing their positive behaviour (as such)

[liberty_student]

@Laughing Man

the maximization of social pleasure is the goal

Is a subjective preference.

@Laughing Man

Thanks for the obvious strawman.

Was it a strawman?

[Laughing_Man]

@liberty student

Is a subjective preference.

To you, when does subjective turn into objective?

@liberty student

Was it a strawman?

A misrepresentation of an opponents argument. The fact that you think I am trying to appeal to authority by disproving your statement that ‘everyone is a utilitarian’ with a picture reminding you…that not everyone is a utilitarians. I can give you other individuals in history who weren’t or aren’t utilitarians.

[liberty_student]

@nirgrahamUK

in other words saying that so and so is a utilitarian is saying something about their normative beliefs. and is not describing their positive behaviour (as such)

Oh, so it is more pointless discussion. I avoid threads on religion for precisely this reason. Thanks.

[nirgrahamUK]

peoples normative beliefs have dramatic effects on their behaviour. i dont think its pointless for this reason. This thread however may be pointless[:)]

[liberty_student]

@Laughing Man

To you, when does subjective turn into objective?

Please don’t suck me into your bottomless pit of thread jacking to debate endless arguments so far offtopic, no one but the parties in them cares to follow the discussion, and the parties in them only carry on, because they are chained to the discussion by their already sunk costs in the debate.

@Laughing Man

The fact that you think I am trying to appeal to authority

You were. You didn’t need to show me a picture of anyone.

@Laughing Man

I can give you other individuals in history who weren’t or aren’t utilitarians.

But you didn’t.

[liberty_student]

@nirgrahamUK

peoples normative beliefs have dramatic effects on their behaviour. i dont think its pointless for this reason.

I want to make a joke here, but fear I have already invested myself too much in other people’s wasted time.

@nirgrahamUK

This thread however may be pointless

Indeed.

[wilderness]

for clarity as it is quite easy to not take the time to contemplate in detail the definition of words:

Main Entry: ¹ob·ject
Pronunciation: \ˈäb-jikt, -(ˌ)jekt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin objectum, from Latin, neuter of objectus, past participle of obicere to throw in the way, present, hinder, from ob- in the way + jacere to throw — more at ob-, jet
Date: 14th century

1 a : something material that may be perceived by the senses b : something that when viewed stirs a particular emotion (as pity) <look to the tragic loading of this bed…the object poisons sight; let it be hid — Shakespeare>

me: emotions are correlated with hormones, but I’m not an endocrinologist and haven’t studied at length this subject so I can’t get all expert on you in these regards.

2 a : something mental or physical toward which thought, feeling, or action is directed <delicately carved art objects> b : something physical that is perceived by an individual and becomes an agent for psychological identification <the mother is the primary object of the child>

me: an object, such as feeling or tree, can be intellectually apprehended as I pointed out. Objects have definition and boundaries. Love is definable from hate. To what extent the definition proceeds for instance a love writer might have a expanded version of what love is, pages and pages worth, whereas something depressed might not have the stomach to even bring it up. Yet these are intellectually apprehended by various resources whether experience, a couple holding hands, or the shouting of the words ‘I love you’ from the roof top of a building. Many instances of it’s recognition and the epistemic skill is sometimes referred to in any defining of a concept as layman’s version or experts with many in between and neither necessarily right - depends. This is one of the definitions I was specifically referring to.

3 a : the goal or end of an effort or activity : purpose, objective b : a cause for attention or concern

me: teleological understanding here

4 : a thing that forms an element of or constitutes the subject matter of an investigation or science

me: this is also what I was referring to. feelings and a tree, as well as, thoughts, buildings and birds can be conceptualized, recognized, in other words, intellectually apprehended. There are definite borders as to what each element is. A tree is not a bird and a bird isn’t necessarily love, but it is possible a songbird singing on colorful evenings is feeling love. I don’t know. But a person isn’t love, but a person can enjoy and experience love and such love can be necessarily, at the moment of enjoyment, be considered that particular persons love. I can simply investigate much easier with a person, than say a bird, by asking the person, “Do you feel love now?”. They can say yes, no, or lie, but it is definable and has discrete boundaries. Love is an object of inquiry or answer. It is a subject matter that can be investigated scientifically - it is or is not.

5 a : a noun or noun equivalent (as a pronoun, gerund, or clause) denoting the goal or result of the action of a verb b : a noun or noun equivalent in a prepositional phrase

me: grammar talk

6 a : a data structure in object-oriented programming that can contain functions as well as data, variables, and other data structures b : a discrete entity (as a window or icon) in computer graphics that can be manipulated independently of other such entities

me: I’m not talking about computers

synonyms see intention

— ob·ject·less -ləs\ adjective

— ob·ject·less·ness noun

----

(the italicize won’t turn off here for some reason, must have something to do with the copy and paste above, so this is not purposefully displayed this way): so to get mired in the fixation that something or everything (making absolutes about what ethics can and can not be) is subjectively ethical or objectively ethical is to get captivated by these classes. The marginal revolution has even made the effort to point out that getting stuck on the classes isn’t getting to what is actually happening in the exchange. One person, you, made the argument that laughing at somebody being raped or a farmer having a bad corn season is supportable. Ethics are only humorous as you note. I object to such a confused emotional display and entail that I not only support justice for the person that was raped, but find it in my heart and mind to find the compassion for my farmer neighbor (if I had one), instead of merely finding humor in their ill-will. I don’t deny subjective nor objective, but I don’t get fixated on such concepts and get hung-up on them, meanwhile neglecting the real actions that are being professed or argued for in such instances. It’s about where a person stands their ground and I’m not a limp-noodle when it comes to taking note that rape or a bad season of farming is something to revel. I’m a bit more thoughtful than that.

[Angurse]

@Juan

The entire point is that you just ‘believe’ in logical positivism. You are the true religious fanatic here.

And that makes you who believe in unproven natural rights the what? Zealot?

@Juan

No, the burden of proof is on you : you need to prove that common sense morality is just personal ‘opinion’.

Morality has changed quite a bit over the last 5,000 years and vary culture to culture. So there you go. If it was actually objective that wouldn’t be the case.

@Juan

Are they? Or what you mean is that you call them immoral, but the word immoral is meaningless, or at best it only means “I don’t like it” ?

Yes.

@Juan

I’m sure that if look up “moral/immoral” in the dictionary I won’t find any entry saying that immoral means “something not liked by someone - a matter of taste”

OK? And? Will the dictionary explain how its objective at all?

@Juan

Anyway, you are saying that you don’t like crime, but at the same time you claim that there’s nothing really wrong with it? Not very consistent, isn’t it?

All thats “really wrong” with it is that I don’t like it. (You could also make non-ethical case against crime as well)

@Juan

Look, you are doing philosophy, whether you like it or not. As a matter of fact, your rejection of morality is just the sort of thing that post-modern, ivory-tower ‘philosophers’ would do.

Juan, catch a joke. But I haven’t rejected morality at all, I simply understand that it is subjective. I’ve asked those who say that it is objective to prove it. Where is the proof.

@Juan

So is language. So is meaning. So is logic. Lots of key things are ‘intangible’.

Absolutely. However, logic is also a science in a similar vein as mathematics (Sorry Popper). Math not being tangible doesn’t mean its subjective.

[Angurse]

@Laughing Man

Then why do you think it is wrong? If you don’t know whether it can or cannot be wrong, why do you think it wrong?

Its a feeling. I like my stuff, I don’t want to lose my stuff. I don’t want to be a hypocrite so I don’t steal. So I think its wrong to steal. Others may feel differently though. If someone says “I’m bored” do you turn to them and say “wrong, this isn’t boredom.” These are all due to individual attitude.

@Laughing Man

The simpsons being funny isn’t a ethical proposition. It’s like saying ‘Blue is an interesting color.’

Goodness. Saying “blue is an interesting color” is the same as saying “eating meat is wrong” in the sense that they are mere statements of opinion. Neither asserts a truth-apt idea, they are emotional expressions.

@Laughing Man

I never made a comment about economics goods meaning commodities.

Of course you didn’t. You said there was no economic good. Which was false.

@Laughing Man

So it is merely a matter of showing the rational to others why they are not good.

You could try and emotionally persuade people to see things more like you. Or try and explain the consequences of taxes.

@Laughing Man

That’s not an opinion. That is a false statement.

A false statement can still be an opinion. They aren’t mutually exclusive.

@Laughing Man

Yes it can be through logical deduction.

A.) What was it about Ghandi’s protesting that was wrong?

B.) Under what conditions was Ghandi under?

C.) What was his motivation?

Are you being serious?

A.) Begs the question.

B.) Begs the question

C.) Begs the question

Logically deduce what entails “wrong.”

@Laughing Man

Explain how private property comes about.

Economic necessity. Selfishness.

[Angurse]

I have no idea what point you are making. Are you even trying to discuss something? Not a single definition above contradicts what I said.

@Angurse

Feelings are emotions they only exist within the mind, they are intangible. In stark contrast to an object, which exist outside of the mind.

Further, there isn’t a thing there saying that feelings are material in any way.

Main Entry: ¹feel·ing
Pronunciation: \ˈfē-liŋ
Function: noun
Date: 12th century

1 a (1) : the one of the basic physical senses of which the skin contains the chief end organs and of which the sensations of touch and temperature are characteristic : touch (2) : a sensation experienced through this sense b : generalized bodily consciousness or sensation c : appreciative or responsive awareness or recognition
2 a : an emotional state or reaction b plural : susceptibility to impression : sensitivity <the remark hurt her feelings>
3 a : the undifferentiated background of one’s awareness considered apart from any identifiable sensation, perception, or thought b : the overall quality of one’s awareness c : conscious recognition : sense
4 a : often unreasoned opinion or belief : sentiment b : presentiment
5 : capacity to respond emotionally especially with the higher emotions
6 : the character ascribed to something : atmosphere
7 a : the quality of a work of art that conveys the emotion of the artist b : sympathetic aesthetic response
8 : feel 4

@wilderness

so to get mired in the fixation that something or everything (making absolutes about what ethics can and can not be) is subjectively ethical or objectively ethical is to get captivated by these classes. The marginal revolution has even made the effort to point out that getting stuck on the classes isn’t getting to what is actually happening in the exchange.

I even tried to make it clear that this was the terms that I was using.

@Angurse

But I’m going to consult Princeton to help what I’m saying.

Finding more definitions won’t change a thing for you.

@wilderness

One person, you, made the argument that laughing at somebody being raped or a farmer having a bad corn season is supportable. Ethics are only humorous as you note.

This is absolute Horse shit. I never made any such argument. I said that humour and ethics are both subjective. You conflated that as saying they are the same. Which is simply a misunderstanding of subjectivity on your part. I haven’t condoned any sort of behaviour whatsoever.

@wilderness

I object to such a confused emotional display and entail that I not only support justice for the person that was raped, but find it in my heart and mind to find the compassion for my farmer neighbor (if I had one), instead of merely finding humor in their ill-will.

Confused emotional display? A confused emotional display is when you call ethics objective, thereby removing them from the world of emotions to which they fully belong. But you are on the right-track. Compassion comes from the heart.

@wilderness

I don’t deny subjective nor objective, but I don’t get fixated on such concepts and get hung-up on them, meanwhile neglecting the real actions that are being professed or argued for in such instances. It’s about where a person stands their ground and I’m not a limp-noodle when it comes to taking note that rape or a bad season of farming is something to revel. I’m a bit more thoughtful than that.

Who’s neglecting? What are you even talking about?

I’ll ask again. Prove natural law. Prove natural rights. Prove objective ethics. (Just pick one if you prefer)

[Laughing_Man]

@liberty student

Please don’t suck me into your bottomless pit of thread jacking to debate endless arguments so far offtopic

Please, when we start getting to the root of your flavor of the week, you suddenly start calling me a thread jacker or just say ‘this is a waste of time’

@liberty student

You were. You didn’t need to show me a picture of anyone.

Obviously you were false in your belief that 'everyone is a utilitarian.

@liberty student

But you didn’t.

Because you strawmanned me by saying I was appealing to authority by showing a picture of Rothbard. Now you are mad because I didn’t provide several other authors of natural rights. One was enough to disprove your statement, therefore I gave one. You are smart enough to know others and why you made that statement that ‘everyone is a utilitarian’ is bizarre.

[liberty_student]

@Laughing Man

you suddenly start calling me a thread jacker

I’m pretty sure I have been calling you a thread jacker for several months.

@Laughing Man

Obviously you were false in your belief that 'everyone is a utilitarian.

Objectively! [8-)]

@Laughing Man

Now you are mad

You don’t make me mad.

@Laughing Man

You are smart

Thanks.

[Snowflake]

@Laughing Man

why you made that statement that ‘everyone is a utilitarian’ is bizarre

Don’t really wish to get caught in the crossfire, but the discussion over utility is kind of frustrating Laughing Man. Quoting from the wikipedia article on utilitarianism#wittgenstein’s critique:

"utilitarians have expanded the very meaning of pleasure to the point of linguistic incoherence. The utilitarian groundlessly places pleasure as his or her first principle, and in doing so subordinates the value of asceticism, self-sacrifice or any other “secondary” desire. Of course, the utilitarian will deny this contention altogether, claiming that ascetics also seek pleasure, but have merely chosen an alternative path in which to achieve it.

Yet such an argument is implicitly tautological (“What is it that people want? Pleasure. But what is pleasure? What people want.”). The utilitarian therefore has no ultimate justification for primarily valuing pleasure, other than to say that “this is the way it should be.” In this critique, utilitarianism is thus ultimately reduced to a form of dishonest ethical intuitionism, unable to recognize or acknowledge its own groundlessness."

[Laughing_Man]

@Angurse

Its a feeling. I like my stuff, I don’t want to lose my stuff. I don’t want to be a hypocrite so I don’t steal. So I think its wrong to steal. Others may feel differently though. If someone says “I’m bored” do you turn to them and say “wrong, this isn’t boredom.” These are all due to individual attitude.

Well lets hope you don’t have heart burn when you read a work by a famous author. You might be so inclined to think you are developing a pension of dislike for that person.

@Angurse

Goodness. Saying “blue is an interesting color” is the same as saying “eating meat is wrong” in the sense that they are mere statements of opinion. Neither asserts a truth-apt idea, they are emotional expressions.

If that is what you think then you lack a firm understanding of the English language. By saying eating meat is bad, one is accouncing that committing such an act is bad for individuals, bad in the sense of being beyond the person making the announcement. By saying ‘murder is wrong’ I’m not just saying that ‘well I think murder is wrong for me’ but that it is wrong for anyone to do it or to suffer from it.

@Angurse

Of course you didn’t. You said there was no economic good. Which was false.

Good in an ethical sense, yes there is no economic ‘good [ moral ]’ Economics is a positive science.

@Angurse

You could try and emotionally persuade people to see things more like you. Or try and explain the consequences of taxes.

No room for reason? We can only use emotion?

@Angurse

Are you being serious?

A.) Begs the question.

B.) Begs the question

C.) Begs the question

Logically deduce what entails “wrong.”

How does it beg the question?

What entails wrong?

‘the natural-law ethic states that goodness or badness can be determined by what fulfills or thwarts what is best for man’s nature’

@Angurse

Economic necessity. Selfishness.

Why not slavery? Why not communism? You are not supposing that everyone wants happiness and prosperity are you? And selfishness? Are you saying that everyone is objectively selfish?

[Laughing_Man]

@liberty student

I’m pretty sure I have been calling you a thread jacker for several months

Yea well that’s because you’ve become the forum ruffian or perhaps you’ve always been and I just haven’t witnessed it to this degree. You brought up ethical subjectivism, I asked a question since you brought it up. If you doubt it look back to the beginning.

@liberty student

You don’t make me mad.

Well obviously I must be producing some negative emotion in you or how else would you be so determined to think I am wrong?

[Laughing_Man]

I have started reading Roderick Long’s piece on Wittgenstein and I think it very brilliant. The language we employ is one of objective nature. There is no subjective linguistics because there is no private language and since we employ objective language, that is language that is not bound to one single individual but all the people who practice it, then it follows that emotivist beliefs are nonsense. When an individual says something is good, they usually mean to imply that it is a social good, that it is something beyond themselves. Therefore it is not just pure emotion like the emotivists try to make it out to be. That is what I have drawn from it so far, though I have yet to finish it. I recommend it.

Wittgenstein, Austrian Economics, and the Logic of Action

[Lilburne]

@Laughing Man

Obviously you were false in your belief that 'everyone is a utilitarian.

LM, Everyone is an individual utilitarian in that everyone, by definition, tries to maximize their own utility. Benthamite utilitarianism ought to have been called something more specific, like “social utilitarianism”.

I don’t know if that’s what LS meant, but if it is, I agree with him.