I know this is getting old, but I still need some clarification. Here’s my position:
There is an objective system of ethics which exists independently of state decrees, and it is the result of praxeological laws and physical constraints (scarcity ect). It emerges naturally from social relationships and doesn’t exit in the material world. Therefore, I will concede the point; there is no “natural law” in the literal sense. But, again, this system is the result of exogenous and fixed variables. All people prefer more to less, now to later, and pleasure over pain. I haven’t read any natural rights literature but I always assumed that this was their position.
The independent subjective moral judgements of individuals are entirely immaterial as far as the system is concerned. An individual may believe that stealing is an effective way to acquire vast sums of wealth, the same way that a home owner may believe that his/her house is worth 1 billion dollars. But in both cases, the system will show them that they’re are wrong.
I’m not saying that all thieves are eventually caught or that all idiotic home owners are unable to sell their houses at over-valued prices (they may eventually find the moron willing to pay such a price). But this does not invalidate objective ethics anymore than a non market clearing price invalidates the price mechanism or the law of markets. Denying an objective system of ethics means that no one is wrong and no one is right; people are just different. I must reject this position as nihilistic nonsense.
I recommend renaming the thread to differentiate it from the other natural rights threads, such as: Natural Rights: What’s Wrong With My Analysis? or such forth.
"Therefore, I will concede the point; there is no “natural law” in the literal sense. But, again, this system is the result of exogenous and fixed variables. All people prefer more to less, now to later, and pleasure over pain. I haven’t read any natural rights literature but I always assumed that this was their position."
so there is no natural law but there is a ‘system’ of ethics?? a system that does what??
who makes the system? people with subjective moral judgements???
what is the objective system of ethics called??? and if its objective why are you asking questions still??
if i put a pin in your eye, blinded you and robbed you ,before you could do anytihng about it…what system is it that will come along and show that it is wrong???d
I can’t believe I’m actually responding to you, but I will, just this one time.
Who makes the price mechanism, or the capital structure? People with subjective values, right?
If you think that your Toyota Corola is worth 1 million dollars, and no one can convince you otherwise, is there a system that will tell you that you’re wrong?
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it. It’s closely aligned with my philosophy: Morality from a Societal Perspective. I’m basically viewing natural law as objectively discoverable, but at the same time as social contract, and one must choose to live either peacefully (cooperate) or to be animalistic (aggressive).
But it’s not a simple theory. It is evolving every single day, even right now, which makes it difficult at times. Nature is change.
I don’t know what you mean by the literal sense. The social acts and the reasons of people are in nature. This is why Aquinas and others point out that reason discovers natural law. The key concept is “discovers”. It is an active process that will be on-going by each single person on this earth as it has been, and will be. It is people who discover the law. Where people say this law comes from doesn’t necessarily have to be included in the discussion. If a person believes that people discover the law because people live in nature and this is a natural thing for people do as people are not living in some separate world detached from nature/universe, then it wouldn’t be necessarily wrong to say it is a natural law. People People naturally think the law and the law can change but as long as the law is established due to conflicts that involve people then the law will be grounded in events people partake in. And if a person believes that people are connected or related or have some establishment with God then such people will relate their lives to the presence of God having something to do with their lives.
Keep in mind that axioms, the terms in propositions, are all based on common sense. They are common sense and that’s why they are called assumptions because they are established before an individual makes logical deductions. The deductions can not happen unless we first assume some things about the world. Praxeologic is an assumption about human nature. It is assumed we have value judgements, choose, act, etc… These are not logically deducted as proven. They are the assumptions in which all the deductions can then take place.
I don’t know if this helped or not. It’s not that ‘nature’ is out there. Nature is in here too. We are part of nature not in some separate universe or dimension. That’s what I’ve come to learn and understand.
That’s true. From my discussions with some subjective ethicists in this forum is that for some reason they will only affirm that a person can’t say a robber is wrong. I have yet to see a subjective ethicist make a consistent argument and thereby also declare that the innocent person (the one being robbed) it can’t be said that they are wrong either. Some subjective ethicists make their case by repeatedly pointing out that the robber can’t be wrong. But what about the innocent person can’t be said to be wrong either. I think that would be a better subjectivist ethicist case. To provide both sides to the argument instead of focusing on robbery.
To make a supportive assertion for subjective ethicists what some mean by this is that their theory is grounded in what they know. It is based on the individual. But objective ethicists can only ground their theory in the individual too because it’s praxeologic that it is only an individual(s) formulating a theory.
I think some subjective ethicists try to establish their philosophy on the ultimate meaning of life sort of thing which means they are trying to establish an absolute theory of ethics that includes what the robber and innocent protray. It’s not praxeologic enough in my opinion. It is trying to make an overarching claim of some third absolute option that fits for all time and eternity. When some do this then it debases the assumptions of what the discussion is about.
The discussion is usually in this forum about economic action which involves the assumption of private property. And since that is assumed, usually by some, to try to argue for an ethics that would tear down these assumptions of a society that establishes a law to maintain society in order that social acts ought to follow such a law that is grounded on economic action and private property, that is assumed, at least for me. Since it is assumed that we are talking about a society established on economic action and private property then such a society, again it is assumed, that such a society (or societies) will possess a law that maintains economic action and private property. Some subjective ethicists in this forum or nihilists are not making these assumptions. That’s what an axiom is. It is simply an assumption. A starting point for a discussion and in this case, society maintaining itself.
The axiom private property is an assumption and a starting point that is a founding act of economic action. It entails the maintenance of private property or there will be no economic action. This of course is based on what we know now. I assume, or would like to assume with other people, that this is what the goal is. We start with the axiom private property which establishes a society based on economic action. Then we can possibly establish a changing law or in other words, natural law that will maintain such a society that some people ought to follow or else the goal of economic action will not happen.
There will undoubtedly be many different interpretations or basis of private property, meaning, different theories and therefore different societies. That’s what’s natural about common law. That’s why, not to bring up an argument for the United States, but that’s why it has always been referred to from it’s founding as an experiment. Living life is an experiment. We come to discover what life is and then if some people want economic action and therefore the preservation of their own life, then therefore some people will discover a way that meets that goal. That’s why in court it’s not unusal for it to be called a trial. Trial and error. That’s what some humans have been doing to meet healthy goals since the dawn of man.
Put on your flamesuit this will get ugly I wouldn’t say there is no natural law, there are natural laws. If you eat enough poison berries you WILL die. All flourishing organisms must value life over death is another. From what I’ve worked out there is objective laws that rule over the means of acheiving ends. The choice of ends is mostly subjective, but there are some objective ends like I’ve stated. You must favor life over death as a species. That objective end branches out into things like preferring food to poison and so forth. Valuing property over no property is probably another, but I’m not sure about that one.
There are no limitations on the relative strength or specific content of actual values and aims. People may prefer murder to the benefits of social cooperation.
There are no a priori efficient causes for the attainment of any particular end.
There is no a priori value for inter-time consistency of values (because I was a fool yesterday, must I be a fool today?)
Individuals are not in a position to dramatically affect the modes of social organization.
Because of 1 & 2 there is no intrinsic value to any mode of behavior or organization. Because of 3 considerations of ‘long run’ effects also have no intrinsic value. Because of 4 even if an individual did benefit from a certain mode of social behaviour, he himself need have no reason to actually support or abide by it.
And lol@ “Because I don’t like the conclusion of moral nihilism, I will reject it”.
It fails to address what most natural rights theories attempt to address, that is, for example, if my ultimate end is to raise a family and yours is to kill people, why am I more important than you?
It fails to address what most natural rights theories attempt to address, that is, for example, if my ultimate end is to raise a family and yours is to kill people, why am I more important than you?
Right, that would be a problem as compared to classical natural rights, since it is concerned with regulating (or at least judging) interpersonal relations; it is not (at least primarily) a theory of virtuous behaviour or self-development.
It’s worth noting that some of the earliest criticisms of natural rights and natural law come from Epicurus, who had an amoral ethical theory that did involve virtuous behaviour and self-development.
You can try to kill people, but they will defend themselves. People will form certain organizations/institutions in order to protect themselves from criminals like you. Such actions are not arbitrary, they are the logical and necessary result of the constraints mentioned earlier. Criminals/aggressors lead to pareto inefficient social outcomes which lower aggregate satisfaction (disutility) and productivity, and are therefore shunned (their actions are seen as incorrect, or immoral). A businessman may think that his product is worth $10,000, while another businessman may produce that very same product, but sell it for $1,000. The market (society) will decide who’s right. The market’s choice is not arbitrary; it is guided, again, by the constraints I’ve mentioned about 100 times already.
So the word “important” is rather deceptive. I would use preferable.
Because it, by extension, refutes or ignores certain physical conditions and praxeological laws. You’re essentially saying that the street vendor is right to sell his apple for $500. He thinks he can sell them for $500, but the market will tell him that he’s simply incorrect (insofar as it doesn’t conform to the societal value placed on that good).
Citing individual counter-examples will not refute this position. You need to show that praxeological laws, scarcity, and other physical fixed conditions do not push society towards certain arrangements and institutions.
It’s an objective system of ethics which emerges from various social interactions, within a real world with real physical constraints (scarcity for example), guided by fixed praxeological laws and preferences. Human beings are built this way, and nature is given. There are no criminals, for example, when all goods are superabundant, and theft wouldn’t exist if people preferred less to more, ect.
Honestly, I don’t think it does. I think Mises’ utilitarianism, consequentialism, Kant’s categorical imperatives, and natural law are all basically saying the same thing (and some religions, though I don’t want this to turn into a 50 page topic about religion), if reasoned correctly (logically consistent, based on true premises).
Also, if people preferred less to more, then giving would be seen as some sort of immoral action. But that’s (the fact that people preferred less to more) still a fixed exogenous factor which would guide society towards different arrangements and social institutions. Liberte’s position, though, only makes sense if people were all truly different, in every way (if everything was variable).
I agree. But I’m saying that the interplay of rational (in the Misesian sense) subjective moral judgements yields an objective system of ethics which is “natural;” it’s the result of natural physical constraints and human nature. Either way, economics is the best way to go when you’re debating someone.
Words are words. Some people appear, not you I. Ryan, to let words rule them instead of intellectually being able to penetrate to the meaningful substance. That’s what I have referred to as semantic quibbling.
Since it is simply natural to do what people do, then to use the term natural that way is only natural.
I wouldn’t say there is no natural law, there are natural laws. If you eat enough poison berries you WILL die. All flourishing organisms must value life over death is another. From what I’ve worked out there is objective laws that rule over the means of acheiving ends. The choice of ends is mostly subjective, but there are some objective ends like I’ve stated. You must favor life over death as a species. That objective end branches out into things like preferring food to poison and so forth. Valuing property over no property is probably another, but I’m not sure about that one.