The attachment of reason, reflection and rights dates back to Aquinas and the Scholastics’ original formation of natural law centuries ago. That is, really, what natural rights are:the moral abilities inherent in the combination of high order reason and reflection.
Strawman. I combined reason with the ability to reflect on ones situation. Ones ability to feel things like injustice, etc. Even if a retarded person isn’t exactly a scholar of moral philosophy he can act on moral notions in a way dogs demonstrably can’t. I feel silly having to explain that further.
A libertarian as we use the term today refers to a subscriber to a certain politico-economic belief. Either for moral reasons or for utilitiarian reasons we believe in instituting some form of the NAP as the basis for law. This is the definition anyone familiar with the modern libertarian movement subscribes to.You do not have these beliefs. Ergo you can’t be a libertarian. Questions?
Yes. Yes it does. It can be rooted in what is recognized by the nature of debate. Please search Argumentation Ethics, Hans Herman Hoppe on the interwebs, M’Kay?
To call someone a moral actor is not a subjective term. It is synonymous with the concept of moral agency. It has a definition. Are you seriously denying that rational has an objective definition?
Even if your immoral you are still a rational moral actor because you had the ability to choose to be immoral. You could think about your actions and analyze them. Even the retard or the toddler can engage in such action. However, a wolf cannot morally think about whether it should kill something which threatens its territory. It’s entirely instinct.
??? We know the reason. We each are rational beings with moral agency making value judgments independent of each other based on experiences, knowledge, upbringing etc.
I only slightly got that, because I’ve never actually watched Star Trek, but I definitely think I see what you are getting at.
Actually, interestingly enough, I did see a clip of it about some giant blob that some humans were hunting. I say its interesting because it definitely pertains a lot to what we are talking about. (animal rights/blob rights)
“Animals will get their rights when they petition for them.” - Rothbard
Of course what was done to this dog is morally reprehensible. But that is not the moral question facing you and I if we act to intervene. The moral question is whether we can justify the use of force to prevent the dog’s owner from disposing of it as he sees fit. I think the answer is pretty clearly “no.” The “rights” of things which are not real or cannot speak for themselves invariably serve as a doll through which the ventriloquist speaks to advance his own interests in a dispute.
You live your life in an abstract world of words and definitions. You take ‘language’ and ‘concepts’ for granted. You take the words of someone like Murray Rothbard as the words of god itself. Stop doing that. Murray Rothbard is no better than you.
No. I just find occasional satisfaction in annoying the hell out of people who generally hold the same views as I do but who base their philosophies on abstract absurdities like a human-exclusive non-agression axiom.
What? Because libertarians argue amongst ourselves you think statists win? If you’ve ever been to revleft forums you’ll see statists tearing each other apart just the same.
Good question. So far we know that overly aggressive dogs require extensive re-education, and murdering ants requires you to pay reparations to the victim’s colony.
Yet another case of what I call “The deification of the celebrity philosopher”. You can’t use the fact that a really famous philospher said something as an argument. It’s bankrupt and a reflection on the lazy “cult of celebrity” culture that exists in all areas of life today.
You’ve never come across serious cases of mental retardation have you. What about those who are permanently unconcious? What about newbord human babies?
So even if I believe there should be no government healthcare, no government education, no government defence, no government welfare, no government anything … i’m still not a libertarian because a libertarian has to believe in the human-exclusive NAP ?
This is another example of “The deification of the celebrity philosopher”
I’m saying you can’t make an argument by constantly spitting out “rational” and “reason”. Explain your argument with a basis in the origin, existence and progression of the universe.
You’ve never heard of involuntary tics and things like Tourette Syndrome, where people can move thier body INVOLUNTARILY. Every hear of sleep walking
“Retarded people will get their rights when they petition for them” - Rothbard
“Babies will get their rights when they petition for them” - Rothbard
“A foetus is a parasite because it relies on its host to survive” - Rothbard
“A baby is a parasite because it relies on its mother to survive” - Rothbard
On top of this is the fact that this is another case of “The deification of the celebrity philosopher”.
Your morality derives from an axiom which is abstract and bankrupt and which calls foetuses and babies parasites. It is an axiom which itself has a basis in emotion rather than the origin and progression of the universe.
Via your observation that I reject the human-exclusive non-agression axiom, you have stupidly assumed that I support another axiom and indeed an axiom that would be one of non-agression which includes all animals ?
Okay, so aggressive dogs require re-education, and the colony of a murdered ant requires reparations; but what do we do to the plants we brutally murder and consume? How do we remedy this gross injustice?
Because it involves making explicit statements about the overall nature of the universe while ignoring the known facts of the universe.
Because it involves making explicit statements about the overall nature of the universe in the context of excellent and progressing but imperfect knowledge about the universe.