There are probably some aspects of our moral sense that nearly everyone or every culture shares, or that humans have evolved a hardwired tendency toward (Clayton’s post, although I don’t think nakedness is necessarily the best example), but not all of them (Marko’s post).
So it’s agreed! There is no evidence of universal morality. And again, biological impulse is best left as an excuse for the behavior of animals with no agency, I consider a rather distasteful behavioral explanation for a species capable of self-reflection.
what are the necessary presuppositions of interpersonal argumentation?
“Property exists by grace of the law. It is not a fact, but a legal fiction.”
“Might is a fine thing, and useful for many purposes; for “one goes further with a handful of might than with a bagful of right”
- Both from “The Ego and Its Own” by Max Stirner
If you want property, take it and then defend it, then it is yours. Property rights were always a sticking point for me, as the definition is so vauge, it can be used and manipulated to mean anything the strongest party in the conflict could want! Beware of fixed ideas, they are dangerous.
It doesn’t impress me that Stirner doesn’t have a working concept of justice
How, pray, would this “justice” be enforced?
relevance?
Relevance? To whom?
to the argument. to the people reading the argument.
regardless.. i shall induldge you.
justice de jure is what it is and needs no more enforcement than does mathematics
justice de facto will require acting man to respect it and to deal appropriately with those that do not respect it. similarly, poor mathematicians must be taught to overcome their mistakes.
That is incorrect. The whole concept of De Jure versus De Facto is a myth, a construct. Everything is De facto, and if it isn’t, of what value is it to reality? If I want to kill you, and you tell me that it is “wrong” and I do it anyways, what did being on the side of justice accomplish for you? What makes one right or wrong in that interaction, besides your personal convictions?
you say, i am incorrect and you are correct about issue Y. is this to be determined by a contest of wills or by the application of reason?
perhaps you think that because i can’t ensure, ‘de facto’ that everyone ‘doing maths’ is ‘avoiding mistakes’ that math is broken somehow and that there is no truth to it?
what did being just accomplish for me? it accomplished my not being unjust which is contrary to my values.
my contention is that math, as an idea, can be expressed in the real world. You can claim “it is true that 2+2=4” and i can claim that “2+2=5”. Both claims are equally valid until there is evidence to qualify one or the other. Now, we can take two apples from a tree, place them on a table, take another two apples from a tree, place them on the same table, and count the amount of apples. We can try it over and over again, and more than likely (unless we had almost an infinite amount of time and were going at light speed) we will come to the same conclusion every time. “Justice” on the other hand, cannot be qualified by real world observation. Proving the existence of justice is like proving the existence of Krishna. Two plus two will almost never equal five. Justice lacks this concreteness. As Stirner would put it, justice is a “spook”. Who is the final arbiter of “Justice” anyways? God? The State? You? Me? Who has the gnosis to divine this truth from the ether?
Do you seriously hold to a positivist account of mathematics? to logic?
contrary to your assertion, using reason (might be damned) one can know quite a lot about morality. there are hard points that cause one to fall into contradiction if one tries to naysay.
Why shouldn’t one hold a positivist stance on everything? If you don’t, you are basing your understanding strictly on faith, or a belief. Logic is a personal experience, I’m sure there are many people out who can explain the logic of the holocaust, or of the existence of god, or of bigfoot. What are these hard points of morality? Show them to me, measure out a teaspoon and mail it on over! Or at least explain them.
P.S. Even something as seemingly fundamental to you and I (as mathematics) is based on perception and cultural indoctrination. Here is a link.
do you hold a positivist stance on positivism?
Read about Hoppe’s argumentation ethics and get it from a master instead of me. Or try to answer it for yourself. what are the necessary presuppositions to interpersonal argumentation?
If I may leapfrog the explanation, what would be the benefit of knowing hard points about morality?
avoid epistemic error?
Is epistemic error painful?
I hold a positivist stance on my perception of reality. Is that close enough? What is “necessary presuppositions to interpersonal argumentation”?
what kind of pain are you asking about?