So then, if no one in the class aced the test, that means that it is impossible to ace the test?
No.
There is rightful and wrongful.
If humans are inherently incapable of discovering rightful and wrongful, then as far as humans are concerned there is no rightful and wrongful. That is, it does not apply to their actions.
But if humans are ignorant of rightful and wrongful, jet capable of discovering it then it does apply.
My argument is that men always “prefer” food to the lack of food, but I don’t think it’s accurate to refer to it as strictly a preference because it is part of our basic being that we need food and instinctually crave food. It’s very similar to Mises’ discussion of logic: yes, we could possibly conceive a being - perhaps descendant from us - that does not need food, but if we are to deal with what is and not with what hypothetically could be, food is an ultimate end held by all human beings.
“Food” isn’t a homogenous category. For example, I eat good cheese and drink good wine because I derive pleasure from doing so, but I drink protein shakes because I want the protein. I’ve known people who derive very little pleasure from eating, for them food is merely a means to an end. They eat because they need the nutrition to perform their daily tasks, not because they particularly enjoy eating.
It is a fact concepts of right and wrong have only ever been expressed by human beings.
If you have evidence to rebut that fact please present it.
So, Yes:
Human beings decide what is right and wrong.
If human beings are unable to decide there is no right and wrong.
Inherently incapable is false:
Human beings are limited at any given moment by what they choose to believe.
Human beings can change what they choose to believe at any given moment and are unlimited in potential.
Question:
How is rightful and wrongful determined?
You said nothing about the definition of natural law. You said the word is becoming worthless. Again. A word is a word. You are not philosophically arguing nor seeking what a word means when you say that. Don’t change the subject.
How else does a word become worthless? Yes, I was talking about definitions.
That’s not necessarily true. I suggest people drop the objective/subjective false dichotomy. It makes some people argue in circles. Objective about desires is absolutely possible because I know my desires exist for a fact.
Here’s a extant philosopher that is more dependable than a dictionary to provide the depth in which some people are talking past each other:
This is real philosophy.
The definition of natural law is everywhere. It’s quoted in books everywhere. I don’t know what else to tell you.
natural law definition: think for your self
How is that the definition?
Yeah, in many, incompatible forms, too.
This is exactly the problem right here. The definition is given and you still question it. You (1) do not know how to think for yourself (2) do not know what the words ‘think for your self’ mean (3) have some hidden motive that you have not yet disclosed and I would rather think the last one is false.
Yes, because everybody is thinking for themself. Is there something wrong with thinking independently?
P.S. And I say to Esuric. You have said you have not read that much on the philosohy of natural rights. Would you, thinking back, rely on this forum, on all posters in this forum that make every single post, would you rely on them to describe the teachings of Mises or would you actually read the works of Mises.
You can not rely upon this forum to make a conclusive statement on what natural rights are or you decision on them, I mean you can, but without reading Mises how will you know what Mises means. There was nothing wrong with what Marko said, but then again, what Marko had said had tons of assumptions built into it. The murderer can think they have the right to do whatever, but if a society wants to maintain the law that the murderer can not kill, then it takes bodies to fulfill that philosophy. That’s all Marko was saying. Of course the person shouldn’t. And society will stop the person because it is implied in the law that the murderer shouldn’t. Society then goes after the murderer.
This forum lacks Misean insight everyday and I have had to actually read his books to know what Mises meant. Some people in this forum get Mises wrong all the time. The constant bashed of natural rights and natural law in this forum by some people who clearly have no idea what it means because they will not even read the relevant material, these people are not experts to rely upon. This turf war is terrible. Who the f- cares if Mises is wrong and natural law theorist are right or vice versa. Because Mises never addressed the natural law theorizing that Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Jefferson, Ron Paul, Rothbard, Hoppe, and many, many others have written about. This is using semantic quibbling to subvert a perfectly good philosophy by some people that don’t even know what it means. I mean Lilburne is just now asking me what certain words mean after 100 posts later. Words that he could have looked up in the dictionary himself long ago.
The definition makes no sense.
Why should all of them use the same word if they are using different definitions?
Pick one of those three I. Ryan. Which is it?
When we analyze whether a person is “correct” or not in their actions, we ask whether a causal connection exists between their means and their ends. But more than just the advisements from their subconsciousness determines what their ends are. Do you really believe that, if I intend to go on a hunger strike, my body “proves [me] wrong” once I start to feel hungry? Believing that is implying that those advisements are infallible. But, for an example of the faculty of one which is complete failure in the modern world, see taste. Just because chips or whatever taste good to me does not mean that eating them is a means to my ends.
Also, I think that the point that Lilburne made recently was very important. You might be able to say that people always, as a “biological fact”, have the “desire” to eat; saying that probably is correct. But what you are missing is that the ends of other people that people should use to judge whether that person is “correct” in their actions is their highest valued end. If I prefer going to Spain to going to France but I still want to go to France, going to Spain is not being “incorrect”. In the same way, if I prefer going on a hunger strike to eating but, based on what my subconsciousness is telling me, I still want to eat, going on the hunger strike is not being “incorrect”.
None of the above.
Then what’s the problem.
Ambiguous language. Poor communication.
What is ambiguous about think for your self.
Nothing.
Some people are talking about sides in this forum. There are no sides. That’s absurd. I now know that some people are not interested in truth-finding and are only trying to make divisions.
This thread has proved this to me as a fact. No matter what anybody would have said there have always been some people who have coughed up an imaginary divisional line and have made on purpose (human action) a division where there is no division. I would love to know someday why some people have on purpose created a division where no division is. There is no division when it comes to my life. I am. I exist. And that’s natural rights and natural law. And yet some people have said my life is an error and is wrong in this thread.
Some people in this forum are not out for truth-finding. They are only out to tear some people down. They were never going to understand, but they can’t. It was all a farce and a rouse. Whether they imagined it or not, that was the unintended consequences. They had to prove by insistent questioning over and over on purpose to make it appear they couldn’t understand the other person to metaphorically cook the books.
In my opinion.
Why not just define it as your preferences not subject to proof or disproof? That would be less obscure.
Is my person not subject to proof? Do I not exist? Am I not real? What kind of question is that!
I am not sure what you are talking about.