And? This doesn’t hamper the subjective source of the opinion. If they mean “bad” as in unhealthy then it isn’t necessarily an emotional expression but a factual assertion (it may not be true though). If they mean “bad” as in unethical or evil, then its pure emotion.
Try and keep up. I pointed this out pages ago.
Plenty of room for reason.
It begs the question what is “wrong?”
I’ve been asking you that very question this entire thread.
So if it is best for man’s nature to rape, then rape isn’t wrong? Because I disagree with that entirely.
Private property is more economical than slavery and communism. Read some Mises. As a matter of fact, I’m no supposing that everyone wants happiness or prosperity. One of the biggest problems with natural rights is that is assumes there is an end that satisfies the wants of everyone. There isn’t. I simply could care less about the desires of murderers, thieves and rapists. (And yes, everyone is selfish (they just show it in different ways).
If that is true why aren’t we all killing each other over ideas in which we think are false? If all that matters is social utility then why were there natural rights theorist? What utility did Locke gain by being exiled for his ideas? Where is the social utility gained by Spooner? Rothbard? John…Lilburne even with his ‘freeborn rights’? Was this all a clever ruse to trick others into fighting for these individuals ability to be free from government? Or was it a premise that there are realm in which should not be violated? Things that are instinctively wrong?
Read Wittgenstein’s Vienna by Allan Janik and Stephen Toulmin before you get too into Russell or Tractatus Logicophilosiphicus. From Chapter 5 you will understand how the new positivists of the Vienna Circle used Wittgenstein’s work to advance their own theories but were clearly misguided.
If anyone wants to check out/buy this book and discuss in another thread, I will be up to it as soon as I have more frequent internet in a week or so. It bewilders me that wikipedia’s page on Heinrich Hertz says nothing of his philosophical work, even though much of today’s theoretical physics rests on it and it was central to Wittgenstein’s work.
Ernst Mach, following Humean principles, totally mistook Hertz’s use of the German Bild for image/model. If you google maybe you can find some good stuff on the critical difference between Vorstellungen and Darstellungen.
Subjective is dependent on the individual speaking. Objective is when it applies to the whole without exception.
So is reason subjective?
I answered this at the bottom of my response to this with the quote.
But it is not best for man’s nature to rape.
You presuppose that people want an economical system. What if they don’t? What if they want mass starvation and death?
You are saying that private property is more economical. I would ask why you think it is more economical but I think I know why and I don’t want to get off on a topic that is a small side issue.
Because there is, liberty.
You are establish a objective behavior in individuals. What happened to all the subjectivity?
Again, I must ask you to read more carefully. I wrote, “LM, Everyone is an individual utilitarian in that everyone, by definition, tries to maximize their own utility.” I was explicitly distinguishing individual utilitarianism from Benthamite social utilitarianism.
Yes, I know, I read that. That is why I said, ‘was natural rights just a clever ruse to trick people into fighting for the rights of an individual theorist? Or was it something beyond the theorist himself, something that dealt with a realm that cannot be transgressed and that applied to everyone’ [ in oh so many words ]
I see what you are saying, people joined natural rights because they thought they would get the most out of it just for themselves. Perhaps that is true for some but I believe that there is / was a group of individuals who were natural rights theorists not simply because self interest but because of the benefits it would bring to the masses. Its like libertarianism. Perhaps there are some libertarians who are libertarians because they want to do whatever they feel like as long as it is NPA-approved. However there are libertarians who are libertarians because they want liberty for all, prosperity for all etc.
Well the theory itself doesn’t bring people benefits. Natural rights doesn’t give me liberty. It merely illuminates a truth of my existence, which is that since I am a human, I am afforded certain obligations which I must obey concerning the treatment of other and they most obey in treatment towards me. So I have liberty, self-ownership and the ability to produce property that I can call my own, natural rights is the organization of that into applicable system in legal theory.
Exactly. Ethics fall into the subjective category.
No. It is a contrast to emotion.
But you have yet to prove it. You have yet to prove what is best for man’s nature. Men aren’t a collective entity, they are individuals with very different needs and wants, some are at odds with one another.
Want an economic system? Its impossible for men to escape an economic system. If men want mass starvation and death it natural rights aren’t going to be any more useful than they currently are.
Liberty doesn’t solve that problem though. I want to murder you, you want to open a flower shop. Liberty won’t help us both.
Liberty isn’t a right, read de Jasay. “Liberty should be presumed, not because we have a “right” to it, or because it is the most important value or goal, but because it follows from the requirements of epistemology and logic.”
and it doesn’t contradict what I’ve said. i don’t know what you’re reading. objects are not merely material, but you like to think so.
I posted definitions as to what I’m talking about, but here’s even another dictionary that spells it out more explicitly, almost word for word as I’ve said all along. It did take some thought to understand the definitions I pointed out above, but since you are non-cognitive and rely upon your feelings to read it might make such efforts difficult. idk. Here it is. It’s a common understanding:
anything that may be apprehended intellectually: objects of thought.
the rest of your post is merely a fetish about subjective or objective, which I’ve stated I’m not hung-up on. You’ve taken up the cause of supporting somebody laughing at the ill-wills of others. I don’t find that to be ethical. So I’m moving on in light of your disposition about the world, ethically speaking.
yes, it boils down to that, OR you can be logical and reason ahead of time, “Oh, that’s somebody’s property and they might beat my face in if I violate it.” Natural rights are not arbitrary, but coherently logical that any one person can discover such truths on their own. That’s why it’s called natural (intellectual) law. When critical thinking is being applying on human nature these become self-evident truths that entail peaceful co-existence. But you seem to be saying instead of thinking ahead of time and having the low-time preference for far-sightedness, then you need to know each and every time that walking onto anothers property may lead to a persons face being beaten in. Good luck with that venture. Do you have to learn that everyday? I guess this is why Pavlov’s law doesn’t always work. hmm, is it really a law?
Rights are principles. This isn’t anything new. Natural means intellectual and the objects apprehended by such (the intellect). It always has in the natural law tradition. If I were de Jasay, I wouldn’t leave out metaphysics because liberty is.
You seem to be suggesting that your “natural rights” will restrict how a person can defend their property. I’m afraid it isn’t up to you what a person does to defend their property.
Yes you do need to know ahead of time if a person will kill you for walking on their property. They make the rules. If you don’t like their rules, don’t go near them or their property. It’s too simple.