its an admission of blind anti-positivist faith towards positivism. which is a start I guess.
Any kind. What I wanted to get at is this:
Normally falling into error is undesirable because, eventually, there is some unpleasant consequence that could result (other than simply being in error). It’s clear why it’s undesirable to be in error about whether a thermos contains antifreeze or KoolAid. It’s also clear, after a fashion, why I’d want to avoid being in error about what 2 plus 2 equals. What’s not clear to me is why being in error about “hard points of objective morality” is undesirable.
What material or psychic detriment is there? Being conflicted or contradicted is only usually undesirable because it has the clear potential to negatively influence my happiness. But this case of objective morality seems unique in that it isn’t clear what actual undesirable consequences there could be.
How is that blind faith? I am skeptical toward my own perception. AJ, I can see how anguish could result from seeing the ideas you once clung so tightly to melt away… I personally found the experience extremely refreshing and liberating, like taking a huge dump.
Jackson, thanks for your comment, but I’m not sure what you’re referring to exactly. Could you clarify?
You’ve got spunk, kid. Welcome to the forums.
I don’t feel particularly motivated to imagine bogeymen to help motivate your caring about the truth or falsity of some claim X.
if you don’t care about X being true or false, just let me discuss it with people who do care.
Are you skeptical about positivism? how might reality demonstrate that positivism was flawed? please imagine a way it could be falsified.
A way we might know that NOT ‘All swans are white’ is if we could find a black swan.
what is a way that we might know that NOT ‘positivism is true’?
I join nitroaddict in welcoming you to the forums
Well, I’m curious why you care about being in error about objective morality. (No need to answer if you don’t want to.)
Mate, endangered species can KMA!
Thanks for the question, BTW. I love it when I get to reply with something redneck-like.
One can use the tools and might of language and reason to understand the nature and tendency of things better. One may even try to use the might of them to put them above another type of power (physical strength, the individual, superstition, habit, etc), in fact in this day it can be used quite succefully to trick a fool to bow to the god of reason. One can use the might of reason to establish their morality on others, and one can be weak enough, give up their power, and claim to KNOW the true morality of that person. It’s happend countless times.
However if I am a 300 pound man and you are a 100 pound boy who tries to make a boxer play a chess match, don’t be too suprised if I used the power more suited for my build (and presumably the circumstance) to win the day MY way. The only way I would lose is if I willingly gave up a power that would give me what I wanted to suite your power. This will always be part of the nature of things so long as it is possible. If you apply the wrong tool (ex: reason and language) in the wrong situation you will fail if someone has the power to call you out on it.
So long that a person has the power he makes his own law. That may sound a bit harsh, but I think upon evaluation it isn’t at all, it seems a lot more sane and civil than anything else I can think of.
OK, back in the saddle again. Thanks for welcoming me to the forum everyone. AJ, I was talking about the psychic pain that could be inflicted on oneself when they realize they are in epistemological error. Nigraham, I think you are getting wrapped up in the “truth” aspect the argument too much. I’m not confident that perception equates to actual reality (if there is an actual reality at all). It is illogical to think that an objective, universal “truth” or “right” could even be observed by any of us, because simply by the act of observation we distort whatever we are observing. Say I look at a red chair, and say “it is true the chair is red”. Now, another guy looks at the same chair and says “it is true the chair is blue”. Which is correct? Of course, you can spew some gobbledegook like “the fabric of the chair reflect the visible light spectrum of 700 nm, so it must be red!” Of course, you have no way of knowing what that individuals brain does with the raw information his optic nerve sends it. Maybe he has a condition that makes 700nm look like what most would consider “blue”, of course now you can say “See? This person simply has a problem. He can’t perceive the true reality, as the majority perceives it!” Well, frankly, who made the majority the boss of reality? Haven’t you ever seen “The Matrix”? This is also a slippery slope into authoritarianism, because once you are convinced that right and wrong applies to everyone, you can start to conceptualize superiority over the “wrong”. And confidentially, those you consider to be wrong won’t become right until you impress your will upon them (even in something as innocent as a debate) that might begin to violate NAP…
Hey Dondoolee!, It’s great to have another egoist aboard!
You might want to choose which redneck you are trying to emulate: “Mate” isn’t used by American “red-necks”, although the British red-necks (Australia, I’m assuming) do.
“Boy”, or “Shiiii”, or
Also, thanks for not really answer the questions I posed, but I suppose it’s enough that you acknowledge them. Maybe when you answer them, others can take your position more seriously.
A voice in your head whispers, Should I use paragraphs?
Egoist response: writing structure is merely a construct!
I didn’t know you speak for others besides yourself? How many people do you speak for exactly?
I am not sure what post of mine are you referring to.
I think it is exceedingly rare for any entity to have its sense of morality perfectly aligned with true morality. I think there exists a true morality. I am not saying anybody actually adheres to it. However I am saying it is knowable. We have the ability to figure it out. But it is perfectly possible to feel righteous indignation over what is a perceived injustice, but is not an injustice in truth, which is something all of us do to one extent or another.
Simply because we can not but not abhor wrong (anti-justice) behaviour, does not necessarily mean we actually know a great deal about what qualifies as wrong behaviour. Consequentially a culture can have very warped moral sensibilities.
A little editing can do wonders:
I think it is exceedingly rare for any entity to have its sense of Santa Claus perfectly aligned with the real Santa Claus. I think there exists a real Santa Claus. I am not saying anybody actually understands him. However I am saying he is knowable. We have the ability to discover him.
The rest is too silly to even ridicule (plus I was having a tough time shoehorning it into the Santa analogy). If you don’t like something, or want something to happen, prevent it! Don’t lean on an unknown “true morality”. And if your contention that this “true morality” is constantly violated, what purpose does it serve? How would you discover this true morality? Empirical research? Polls? Reading the Bible? If you do some soul-searching, and realize the set of guidelines that you will live your life by, that is a personal morality! Not mine, not everybody’s, yours! If you convince me of its virtue, and I convert, it’s only through you impressing your will, your force, your perception of morality, upon me! We did not come to the ultimate, logical conclusion independently. I mean, what are the odds that we would?
What would/could this set of guiding rules consist of? One, ten, one hundred, one thousand, commandments? Who would decide whether a rule would be accepted into the canon of “true morality”? What would the “righteous” believers of true morality do to the unconvinced, or unenlightened? Accept them as “separate yet equal”, avoid them, convert them, kill them? I’m telling you, this is a dangerous road to begin to walk down… beware the fixed idea, beware faith!
True morality is discovered by the means of reasoning.
I would further implore you to desist from making assumptions about my position.
What if certain individuals are unreasonable? Will you Vulcan mind meld with them to “show them the light”?
What assumptions?
Here is a thought exercise I’d like to get some opinions on here… I thought about it when I was trudging through some Hoppe last night (gag)
Jim and Bill are in a room with one chair. Jim is sitting in the chair, Bill is standing. Jim gets up to get a drink at the water fountain across the room. Before he leaves, he puts a note on the chair reading:
“Jim’s chair, do not sit!”
Bill disregards the note, and sits in the chair. Jim, upon returning from across the room, notices this violation of his property rights.
“Get up!” Jim exclaims.
“No way. You weren’t using this resource, so I homesteaded it. The chair is now mine.” Bill replies.
Jim pulls out his trusty revolver, shoot Bill in the chest, pulls his corpse off the chair, and has a seat.
Now according to your reasoning, who was right, and who was wrong? Explanations would also be helpful.
The idea is that people rejecting libertarian ethics might somehow feel pain from the supposed “contradiction.” I don’t think this is true, both because I don’t think there is any such contradiction (I reject objective ethics of all stripes), but that is what I was asking about.