I don’t get it.
Non-effective communication doesn’t strike you as… non-effective communication?
Sure it does.
Doesn’t look that way
“I don’t get it.” “why not?” “Why are you pointing it out?” “I don’t really understand what this link infers.”
So now I am to be faulted for misunderstanding what you are trying to communicate to me?
Of course.
OK
One axiom necessarily rules out other axioms. For instance if I have an axiom which states that “All cars are red” then it rules out all axioms such as “all cars are not red” or “all cars are green”. If two axioms come into direct conflict one or both must be false and are not actually axioms at all. Furthermore an axiom in one science cannot contradict another or one if false. Economics rules out the axiom “there is objective value” and therefore there can be no objective ethics per se, I will expound upon this further down in the reply.
Lol, sorry I don’t really understand exactly what you are asking here. Individuals exist objectively, they value things at points in time objectively and can set objective standards, but over time they are subjective and varying, and their value preferences are, by their very nature subjective from individual to individual, therefore there can be objective standards set, I can say “killing is always wrong” and that ethic exists objectively, so in a very real sense objective ethics do exist, but only as standards. The worth behind that ethic however is entirely subjective, I can even change my mind about the ethic afterwords, I can decide that “killing is sometimes right” and that will now become my new ethic but by the judgment of the old ethic this new ethic will be immoral and wrong.
By this reasoning morality is utterly subjective in its actual worth and relevance. I feel as though I’m not being very clear here so I will attempt to clarify the position somewhat. Let’s take the ethic “don’t steal” now, according to this ethic, confiscating the property of others is immoral and each individual should refrain from doing so. If someone steals the wallet of another he is now immoral according the standard of ethical behavior implied within the phrase “stealing is immoral” however he is now moral under the ethic “it is moral to steal wallets” you choose your ethics, depending upon your subjective value preferences you project worth onto a set of ethics or consider one set of behaviors to be “wrong” and another “right” there is nothing objective about ethics, it varies between individuals depending upon their value preferences because there is no such thing as objective value, and over time as the value preferences of these individuals changes.
It would in the sense that human action is, by definition, always real. However it is not alway purposeful. I’m sorry if I’m missing something but quite frankly I don’t understand how this is relevant
I was merely giving an example of an objective ethic that one could propose, I think you misunderstood me. Indeed the last part of your statement agrees with my concept of subjective morality, human action is within each individual respectively, there’s not some sort of standard which can escape the fact that it is your preference and the ethics of others are their preferences.
It isn’t objective in that it does not have any inherent value except what you and others give it.
Any and every ethical system. This is talked about above. Worth means exactly what it sounds like, value, whether you value its validity, implications, ECT.
Finally I doubt that your ethical system and my ethical systems have any major differences other than that you hold yours to be somehow objective, and I understand that objectives are, by their very nature, subjective, you seem to be under the impression I am a consequentialist, I am not, I am an existentialist libertarian
Those are not axioms. Those are premises. There is a huge logical difference.
Sorry. But that’s not the definition of axioms at all and is rather confusing. Axioms are what I said above. They are self-evident and undeniable. You are talking about premises.
ok. No argument from me here.
I have no arguments with that.
No. Because then you dismiss the value that you previously discussed yourself above IF you mean by subjective=value.
I base my ethics on economics and stealing is not economically valid. It destroys capital and makes even barter impossible if taken to the extreme.
depends, but so far you understanding of subjective doesn’t conflict with how I understand objective. Your subjective ethics and anothers objective ethics, we are using two different words. I am not sure if I am a subjective or objective ethicists. I never really have made up my mind as I find these terms to quickly become meaningless when we discuss what we actually mean by those terms.
It depends on what you mean by “objective value”. You made value objective when you typed it here, in one sense of the word objective. You made it understood to others in order that others can observe these words and preferences of yours.
Human action by definition is always purposeful. That’s praxeological. And I say that because I’m really having a difficult time understanding how you are using the terms subjective and objective. And it’s not your fault. It’s the terms that themselves that I find no use for, unless you could explain what you mean by those terms. The meaning is what I want to know about.
I don’t know of an objective ethics that would disagree with that to be honest. Keep in mind I have yet to label myself as an objective ethicist as I find it more useful to discuss the denotations of these terms or the meaning of these terms.
ok, but if it’s what I or others give it, then it’s of our preferences.
Ok. We both have meant this, and nobody has said otherwise. I really don’t see the difference between what you’re trying to explain and what an objectivist would try to explain.
I haven’t said if mine is “objective”. I’ve argued that I don’t hold either position due to semantics, but I might hold one of those positions in the way I act. I haven’t been able to accurately label the adjective of my ethics for nearly as long as I’ve been in these forums. I’ve argued from both sides and only argue against mishaps in a mediator style as I find objectivists and subjectists talk past each so often and don’t realize that they are talking about the same thing. I have yet to find out what you mean by “objective”. If you could define that it would be very helpful. Usually some people don’t have the patience with me when I get this far with them on what I’m trying to relate as to what my ethics are. Thank you for being forthcoming and patient with me thus far.
I don’t know what a “consequentialist” or a “existentialist” libertarian are. I know the former is discussed much on this forum, but I haven’t found those topics to be of interest to further pursue as of yet. My interests in learning since I’ve been here have been first logic with some political/ethical books thrown in. Yet even in the latter books I was very interested in the logic and have studied the terminology as much as possible and have read various books of Aristotle or Aquinas’ commentary on Aristotle, etc… But never in the books that I have read have subjective, objective, nihlist, etc… come up and if they ever have their purpose in explanation wasn’t very relevant to the totality of the books goals. Those terms are usually discussed a lot on this forum which I find, as I mentioned previously, to not be very meaningful and personally speaking don’t provide much understanding. I’ve only recently begun to get into economics as I’ve slowly worked my way into being able to comprehend economics in a fashion that I think knowing logic will be of significance. Near when I first came to these forums I discovered the importance of logic. Then reading Aquinas he said logic should be the second subject people learn (math being first). Lastly, when Mises was asked by a student at a seminar or something, what is the first economic book that he should read and Mises said “Intro. to Logic” by Cohen. I bought that book and have slowly been reading it. It’s fascinating. Anyways enough of my tangent and jabbering. Generally that’s what I’ve pursued since coming here. I’d be interested in knowing what an existentialist libertarian is.
You’re trolling, and whenever someone calls out your bullshit, you play the victim. It’s very boring to be honest.
Why do you think I’m trolling?
Because you attack everyone else’s position on ethics and property, but when your premise that supports the attack is confronted you recoil.
Also you have yet to clarify your position on ethics. A whole day has gone by and you conveniently have decided to start ignoring my probing questions.
Just because you can’t seem to understand my answers, doesn’t mean I’m being evasive. It could be equally as possible you are dense.
OK, I’ll try to make this as explicit and simplistic as possible.
I disagree with this definition, because it seems to imply (as I understand it) that ethics can be applied when attempting to achieve any kind of end (being happy, getting food, relieving my poison ivy rash). I think this definition could work if only one type of end was desired, namely:
That, to me, is all ethics are good for.
If I want a dollar bill, I don’t apply ethics to figure out how to get it, I come up with possible actions that I think give me a reasonable chance at getting the dollar. Let’s say I come up with three possible actions I can take to get the dollar:
-
ask a friend
-
mug someone
-
work at my lemonade stand
Now, at this point, I might begin to weigh ethical questions when making my choice about which action to take, if it is important to me which actions are more/less moral than the other two. Ethics does not help me achieve the end of “getting the dollar”, it only helps me achieve the end of “making the most morally “good” choice”. Do you understand?
This is why I added that caveat to your definition.
And what if my decisions are purely based on economics, not on ethics. What if the formation of property was an economic attribute, not an ethical one. That people chose to acknowledge property not becuase it was the right thing to do, but because it made the most economic sense to them personally. This becomes exacerbated across all capital owners. To state otherwise is a conflation of economics with ethics simply because it is an economic viewpoint that many can agree apon. The same could be said for the market, many agree on the market but by your definition does that make it an ethical system? As economics can tell us what is the right, or wrong they to do, assuming we want personal prosperity.
The reasoning why mugging may outweigh in costs over benefits is due to how this action may be perceived by others in possession of goods. It may have an effect on future market dealings with capitalist possessors. If people who possess capital hear that I choose the action of theft and muggign they may decide not to do business with me. This would undermine my point of mugging. So having that forsight would deter me from being a mugger. Ethics never enters into it. I’m not saying all theives have this forsight. I’m saying many a common man recognize that they would prefer to exchange possessions with others, and that their possessions and likewise their exchanges, would be respected as such. Not on an ethical level, only out of an economic level.
This makes the definition of morality circular.
Ethics = morality = ethics = morality. You have to be even more explicit.
Still if I understand morality as I understand ethics, all it does is create a set of guidelines to shape our action to help us attempt at achieve a desired end.
For example, If I want to go to heaven I have to praise Alah. My morals create guidelines to that end.
All that is set is a premise, the morals are the recomended actions to reach the goal of that premise. (Same as ethics, code of conduct, ect…)
The same could be said for eating, and any other premise.
Premise:
I should satisfy my hunger when I am hungry by eating.
If I am hungry the moral thing to do would be to eat. If I starve myself I would be violating my own code of ethics.
However on the flip side,
If my premise is to starve myself, I would then be violating my morals by eating.
This can be witnessed by people who have different ethics/morals. Satanists vs Christians for example and Socialists vs Capitalists ect…
All you have described for us is a guideline, a set of codes or procedures, from which to direct our actions, that help us achieve an end.
In my case above the end is purely an economic one. Capitalists want to invest their capital, and they want to do so with the least amount of risk. Ethics aside, they will choose to do business with people they trust. Whether theivery is right or wrong is besides the point, people prefer to work the least amount of time for the most gain. Under the economic insentives they would be deterred from dealing with the theives. Again ethics has nothing to do with it. This is why when Wilderness, Esuric, and I are talking about property, we are not saying we have a moral right to property. We are saying that property naturally exists, as an economic phenomena in interpersonal exchange.
Can you in no way shape or form fathom the possibility that property can exist outside of the plain of ethics? That people choose to acknowledge property because they have economic intensives to do so?
Also, I hate to do this, but you will have to further clarify your definition of ethics and now morals. Morality is just another code for “Whats right” and “Whats wrong” just like ethics. But whats right and wrong depends on your premise. A premise can be as narrow or as wide as we like.
Let me put out a scenario to show you how I am interpreting this passage.
filc (a natural rights believer) and Jack (a natural rights non-believer) are in a room. filc is sitting in a chair, loading a gun. Jack is standing, gazing longingly at the comfy looking chair, in which filc rests. After loading up, filc gets up out of the chair, places a placard reading,
“WARNING! PROPERTY OF FILC. NO TRESPASSING UNDER PENALTY OF DEATH”
on the seat of the chair, and stands next to it, casting a “dirty Harry”-esque glance at Jack. Jack, whose feet are really starting to ache, is presented with a choice.
Ignore filc’s (is Jack’s mind, non-existent) claim of “ownership” over the “property” (chair) in question, and possibly get shot and killed in the process, or remain standing, even though he’d really like to have a seat.
He decides he values standing with the known discomfort,more than sitting with the risk of being put six feet under. Does he hold any regard for this claim of “ownership of property”? No, he does not take that into consideration at all. He just is afraid of what filc might do if he felt “violated”.
If that’s what you meant, than I would totally agree with you.
I don’t see why. It should be more like this:
Ideology/axoims/premises leads to morals.
Ethics is used to determine the morality of specific actions.
Example:
I believe X is morally good. I want to execute action Y. How does action Y relate to belief X? This would be a question you would apply ethics to.
Yes thats what I mean. You made an economic decision that it would be more cost beneficial for you to stand then get shot. Ethics aside, and it doesn’t matter what the other party’s zealous beliefs are. You made an economic decision, not an ethical one.
X = Eating when hungry
Y = Eating
I believe Eating when Hungry is morally good. I want to execute the action eating this potato, and I am hungry. How does action Y relate to belief X? This would be a question you would apply ethics to.
So in other words every possible decision you make prior to action is an ethical one based on one premise or another. So how can you stand here and tell me you do not beleive in ethics?
Earlier you said you made a decision, your decision was to remain alive as opposed to resting your feet.
X = Staying Alive is morally good
Y = Sitting Filc’s Chair.
You made an ethical decision to remain standing, since your premise was to stay alive.
I knew we could be friends [;)]
LOL, from which one of your crevices are you pulling this out of? How in the hell does that follow? Ready to see me remove the question of morality (and therefore, ethics) from the equation?
Ready, ABRACADABRA!!!
POOF!
Ta Da!
Also you never say
I beleive X is morally good.
Morals are not decided arbitrarily, they stem from a certain premise. There is always an ultimate end.
I beleive X is good, because:
- Because Alah says so.
- Because my stomach says so
- Because my teacher says so
Choose your premise but there is always a because. Morals are not there just for their own sake, they are there to guide human action to help achieve a specific end. There is no such thing as.
Rape is bad.
It is
Rape is bad because reasons XY and Z.
Now where did I loose you specifically? Everything follows from the definitions you provided.
You have conveniently decided not to specifically point out where my reasoning failed? Care to do that now? Your last post was simply an assertion. Also this is why people call you a troll. You attack people, but when your point is being scrutinized you never engage the discussion, you recoil and get petty, as you have above.
Either point out where my reasoning fails or don’t bother responding. Don’t start being Petty again.
OK, well the premise is arbitrary, then. If you dig down to the kernel upon which morality sprouts, you will find a statement of faith.
Then the because is arbitrary. You can pick any justification for action you want, and call it moral. Presto, a new ideology is born!
As if X Y and Z were absolute.
You seem to assume a sense of morality is necessary to act. I don’t understand why.
How or why is the premise arbitrary? Is it arbitrary that I think it is good to eat when hungry? If it is arbitrary then all ends are arbitrary. Felt desire is arbitrary. Are you prepared to contend that praxeology is arbitrary? That human action is arbitrary?
If man eats when hungry is that arbitrary? If man starves himself when hungry is that arbitrary? Each code of conduct has it’s own premise. The man chooses how to act by his own merit, he sets his own moralities, his own codes of conduct.
Ofcoarse they are not. Often times they are mystic, or even blatantly fictional. Sometimes X and Z may conflict, usually by opposing groups. That’s irrelevant though. It’s not true that in all cases the premise is arbitrary. As is the case of the morality of eating for example.
I personally do believe eating IS the right thing to do when hungry, if my end is to satisfy hunger. According to you this is an ethical decision that is judged by my own standards. But this is nothing more then a rewrite of human action.
And you can’t divorce human action from morality, so your argument is self defeating. You debunk yourself. All men act within guidelines they set themselves. Whether their ethical code of conduct is limited to a narrow premise they define, or shared amongst thousands of men makes no difference.