I look at facts at learn things from them. If by a ‘theory of justice’ you mean an axiomatic proclamation from which all morality derives, then no.
Looking at the facts, I’ve learned of the importance of liberty and the market economy. I’ve also learned things about animals.
so based on the fact that you dont have a system, i think its fair to say whatever you do have is ad-hoc. and you brush over this and hide it by calling it ‘cmmon sense’.
but anyway.
do you understand ‘moral agency’ ?
Title of the thread was originally “I want to see frothing-at-the-mouth Rothbardians defend a puppy getting its ears and tail hacked off”.
I guess its a little harsh but don’t take too much offence. I think Rothbards work, particularly the revisionist history, is exemplary, however his overall theory is a failure and his arrogance and intellectual laziness (or deliberate ignorance) in justifying animal cruelty and calling foetuses and newborn babies parasites is to be condemned.
But hey, nobody is perfect … at least yet. Including me.
i think you are lazy and arrogant.
do you understand ‘moral agency’ ?
Why should I care about dogs?
And lack of a system implies failure to you. To me it reflects the reality of imperfect knowledge.
Also, keep in mind that anarcho-capitalism based on the absolute human-exclusive non-agression axiom, is a comprehensive failure when applied in reality.
If interpreted correctly, it says you can’t kick a guy in the guts if he’s running at you with a knife because you have to wait until he actually stabs you. You can’t pre-empt because it’s against the human-exclusive non-agression axiom. Common sense based on the realities of the universe, however, would tell us that it is perfectly reasonable to kick the guy in the guts.
Is it something you read in a book by one of your god-like celebrity philosophers, whom you so admire?
Don’t resort to sophistry. That’s a Marxist’s job.
Curlz31, do you eat meat? If so, stfu and go away.
A lack of a system reflects chaotic, possibly insane, irrational behavior that is not possible in a human conscious unless one were clinically insane.
Given that you have no system and are pleading implied ignorance to the world around you then who are you to say what is and isn’t a failure?
Actually that is a clear and present threat. We deal with strict constructivsm and your strawman fallacies lack any subtly.
What wonderful double think. Here you are claiming humility in not knowing everything [ perhaps an admirable trait ] yet denounce those who have a handle on intellectual endeavors. Perhaps jealously is your vice.
Well if we are going to reduce ourselves to childish insults then i’ll say this …
Poms are cheaters. Every single one of you. You cheated in the first Ashes test and you are jealous of Australia’s sporting superiority.
This statement tells me either you havent read this whole thread or you have the level of understanding that many others in this thread have displayed.
lack of system implies failure to attempt to systemitize, it amounts to contentedness with ignorance. what i cant fathom is your arrogance in suggesting that your disorganized, unanalysed (non-systemitized) moral insight is superior to the moral insight of those who have done some due diligence.
as a logical possibility, you might be right, all the moral positions you hold. may be the correct ones, but you have no basis with which to rationally dialogue with other pople about this, since you havent put in any effort to even thinking about what you think about. (you have foregone Meta-analysis).
a) you dont understand moral agency. which makes you as foolish as someone opinionated in science who does not understand proper experimental method. It blows my mind that anyone who does not understand moral agency yet who wishes to assert moral opinions would expect to be taken seriously.
b)
despite it beign something i read about, it is also something that is necessary for discussions of morality to have any meaning.
does your ignorance of philosophy give you special priviledge to make pronouncements about morality, that those of us who have made studies of parts of that field of knowledge can not do?
hilarious fallacy of guilt by association. hence you are hoisted on your own petard, as sophists propount fallacies. i suppose by your standard this would make you a marxist.
you said it first. you said it about Rothbard. why can you say that about him, but we can’t say it about you?
your irrational collectivism has just been loosed.
An axiom is a universal truth. The fact that you have admitted what you have is proof that the human-exclusive non-agression axiom is not an axiom, but rather something you apply in conjunction with a subjective view of ‘clear and present danger’.
I wonder what other exceptions you have. Many … I know.
Actually the axiom states that individuals cannot aggress against another violently with moral authority. Therefore I am justified in defending my person or property when I am threatened with violence from another individual.
Haha honestly, how petty you have become in this thread. You know I supposedly have expections yet the idea of systemic logical deduction eludes you. Dig yourself deeper into the hole of idiocy. I can still hear your screams.
the fact that a universal axiom, is applied in conjunction with subjective beliefs, does not make the universal axiom not a universal axiom, it makes the conjunction of the two ‘not necessarily’ universal and axiomatic.
contrary to your logical fallacy.
I accuse you of trying to systemise without a basis for doing so.
That’s your opinion.
No it’s not. That’s your opinion and the opinion of the celebrity philosopher from which you got that.
No. I’m just saying don’t do what Marxists do because its just sickening. Quoting ‘Das Kapital’ like the word of god and not engaging argument based in reality.
you are going to feel very stupid when you discover what ‘moral agency’ means.
you havent made any statement about morality and reality yet. you have only said you dont ‘like’ the ‘ugly’ pracrtice of cruelty to animals. i dont doubt that you dont ‘like’ it. way to keep it real.
Nirgraham…I have no idea how you are going to combat the stunning retort of ‘well that’s your opinion’.
Best throw in the towel…[:P]
when is it proper to systemitise? what are the reuired basii?
im confident its your opinion too. in a rational argument, two opponents mull over facts, check deductive steps, with the hope of reaeching agreement by virtue of agreeing on facts, and assuring each other that deductive errors have been avoided. you have so far gone on record saying that morality is not to be systemitised, which is to say that there is no system from distinguishing moral facts from non-moral facts, nor no system for distinguising valid moral deductions from non-valid moral deductions, leading rational argument on the topic to be impossible.
are you hoping to have a rational argument here, or is this just about venting your spleen?