Well, from a moral standpoint, yes. Why is it “good” or “right” to do?
I think you are confused. Just because Praxeology contends that humans act to alleviate discomfort, that doesn’t automatically assume that this “ultimate end” is morally “good”. It is simply a statement, not a moral assertion.
How is it not totally random to declare that “one should eat when hungry” as a moral assertion? If that is your moral assertion, are people evil when they fast, have anorexia, or are on a diet?
You are completely conflating deductive reasoning and morality. In a moral statement, the ultimate end is always “to be good” (measured by whatever standards you abide by) other resulting ends are just secondary, collateral consequences. Compare,
“If I am hungry, then I should eat”
to,
If I want to be a good person, then I should eat when hungry"
Well then you should probably better re-define morals and ethics. Or at least define it more clearly.
Your telling me that a system of morals or ethics is nothing more than series of guidelines to achieve a specific end. Whether the end is derived arbitrary or not is irrelevant.
Because the premise is that I should satisfy my hunger when hungry.
Well then you need to re-explain to me what arbitrary criteria you set to isolate normal Premis’s/ends/ and actions from ethical ones. But by your definition I see no way of separating the two.
You said.
I beleive Eating food is morally good when hungry, because I beleive it is good to satisfy one’s hunger when hungry.
You are telling me that is an ethical statement. This is your definition, not mine. I knew you would be re-defining ethics, but go ahead and do it any ways.
Lets pretend I know nothing of ethics(almost true). Since your the ethical nihilist you need to be the expert ont he matter. You need to explain to me where I am going wrong. Not scream, pout, call me illogical or stupid. I am simply re-wording your instructions back to you on how I understand them. Correct me so we can move on. Don’t be belligerent.
What kind of question is this? Man operates in guidelines. He knows that if he is hungry he eats. He doesn’t go swimming when he is hungry. His guidelines tell him he should eat when hungry, not swim.
Are you going to tell me we should abandon all guidelines as well? That man’s actions should not be guided by any criteria? That we should just be arbitrary? When I need to pee I should go stand on my head?
The guidelines tell me what I should do to increase my odds of satisfying an end.
Well, bully for you. I don’t see how this proves that I think all action is ethical.
It is.
Why would this cause me to re-define ethics?
Why are being so petulant? I would just type “LOL” at your growing wildness, but I wouldn’t want to be considered a troll again.
What instructions? Yeah, if you follow an moral ideology that “eating when hungry is good” then of course you will take that into consideration when deciding if you should eat or not when hungry. If you don’t prescribe to that ideology, then why is it necessary that moral considerations have to enter into it. I know that you think you’ve got me “pinned down”, or something like that, but your “trap” is nonsensical.
Don’t boss me, you hypocrite [:P]
That’s learned behavior, or it’s instinctual impulse. I don’t see where conscious guidelines are absolutely necessary.
Then I’ll ask you to re-define the word ethics, and if you must use Morality also define morality. And please do not copy and paste wiki. I need it in your own words. Your last definition seems to be incompatible with your argument.
Then as I have tireless asked again and again, explain to me what is ethical and what is not ethical. Explain to me why somethings are arbitrarily ethical, and others are not. Or drop your beef with property, as property isn’t any more ethical or non-ethical than anything else. Property is simply a means to an end. It is an economic phenomena.
What makes it ethical? What is the substance that makes somethinge thical or moral.
If ethics and morals are guidelines the ends of of a certain premise, what kinds of guidelines are there that are ends for premis’s that are not ethical?
I am attempting to grab at what little you have provided. The question like “What instructions?” and taking me literally is an example of being belligerent. There is no need to do so. According to you, you have nothing to fear. Do not be upset.
Why does it become a moral ideology? What if it’s something I simply believe? For example, I simply believe that after eating I will no longer feel hungry. I simply believe that property and it’s concept are necessary consequences to the 3 problems I started with on this thread. I simply believe that without respect for property entrepreneurs and capitalists will have to consider extremely heavy risks before making any type of business activity. So much that they may choose not to. And I also simply believe that entrepreneurial and capitalistic activity is necessary for my own personal economic wellbeing and that of others.
That I believe eating is the RIGHT thing to do when hungry, as opposed to the WRONG thign to do. What makes it an ethical statement? Is it arbitrary taxonomy? Assigning some codes of ethics as morals and others as not? Or is placing “Ideology of eating” in front of “eating” that makes it moral?
So if you don’t beleive that eating when hungry is the RIGHT thing to do thats fine. But who are you to judge those who do beleive that? And should you argue with them and tell them that eating is not necessarily the RIGHT thing to do when hungry?
Likewise, if capitalists believe respecting property is the RIGHT thing to do to foster their own personal prosperity, who are you to judge whether they are right are wrong? What do ethics have to do with their attempt at increasing their economic welfare.
I actually don’t think you know what I am getting at. I am not attempting to disprove your ethical nihilism, the belief in and of itself is self defeating.
?
The same could be said for property, and not everyone eats when hungry. People’s codes of conduct change drastically from person to person. Some people only eat vegetarian things, others eat meat heavily. Some eat healthy, others don’t. They all fabricate their own personal codes of conduct. You can attempt to influence them, but ultimately they create a code of conduct. If their behavior starts to undermine their personal code of conduct they will likely rebuild that code, or adjust that system.
So you don’t make a conscious decision to go eat? It’s instinctive like breathing? You just sit there and eat? What do you eat? Do you decide what to eat? Do you decide how much? ect…
So you agree that guidelines are necessary?
For example, I have a guideline that tells me I should not eat poison, if my goal is to live. I am sure you follow some type of guideline which tells you what to eat when you are hungry. Avoid things you are allergic to ect…
honestly you have some kind of guideline, otherwise you;d be sitting like a vegetable in a room somewhere. Why do you bother posting on this forum if not by some set of personal guidelines you follow? Again praxeology 101…
I missed this earlier,
In earlier posts you said that you disliked paying taxes as it makes you work more. But aren’t you just subscribing to an ideology, a code of ethics, that states you want to do whats in your best interest? I would contend that you are very utilitarian if anything.
Morals are not about whether or not you are a “Good Person” or “Bad person”. Christian’s arn’t christian’s because they want to be good people, they have specific goals in mind. The good Samaritan is not the good Samaritan for it’s own sake. People do so for various reasons. Some reasons are scientific, some economic, some religious, some ideological. But there is no such thing as, I do this because I am a good person. That could be said for anything and is an arbitrary explanation that holds no weight. For example, I kill people because I am a good person. I like monkeys because I am a good person. I like hot chicks because I am a good person. I XYZ because I am a good person.
People use the statement but it is superficial. But still, even if we conceded the point that people do XYZ to be a good person than your attack on property is fruitless.
People don’t defend the concept of property to be “good” or “holy”, or righteous. They do so because it within their economic interests to do so.
Don’t badger other people than if you cannot even explain your own position. You frequently derail other topics on this forum. Now I am bringing some questioning and asking you to backup the premise from which you argue with. If you can’t be bothered to explain yourself why bother posting at all?
This is why I previously thought your intentions were only to argue, and I am beginning to think that is the case again.
Revisit your example of FILC, Jackson, and the chair.
Why do you assume FILC is protecting his chair by way of force due to ethical reasons? Why wouldn’t you just assume he has economic motive to do so? He doesn’t want other people on the chair. He is attempting to retain possession of an object currently in his possession, he desires to further possessing it.
You actually went out of your way to add that FILC had an ideology agenda, but unless you can read his mind you do not know this. What if his ideological agenda is economic welfare? How is him wanting other people off the chair any different then you wanting less taxes?
Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
And finally
Please
stop
doing
this
It makes your posts hard to read and makes you seem hasty. It also shows you are reading things one sentence at a time, rather then one paragraph at a time. And that has lead to you missing the point in the past. If you must respond to each sentence
“Ethics is a method of determining the morality of actions”.
What is incompatible about that?
What is ethical and not ethical depends on your personal moral beliefs. I’m not trying to be evasive here, is just that I don’t really understand what this question is driving at. What do you really want to ask me?
What do you mean arbitrary? Is there an arbitrary distinction between astronomy and astrology? Ethics is concerned with achieving moral ends. Nothing more, nothing less.
I disagree, because by my preferred definition of the word “property”, it is a rights based concept.
Whether or not the ultimate end of the action is abiding by some rigid moral code of conduct.
I don’t understand what you are trying to say here.
Because you seem to be making this assertion based upon some sort of metaphysical concept of “right” and “wrong” or “good” and “bad”. You seem to be confused about the ability of those words to be used to delineate totally different meanings based upon their context. Angurse and I had a big discussion about this on another thread, in which he cleared up my confusion on the issue. Maybe you could PM him or something, as he could probably explain it a lot better than I could.
That is a non-ethical assertion. If you wanted to make it ethical, you might say,
“I believe that eating when hungry is a good thing to do.”
Do you see the distinction?
And I don’t understand why you think that, because I disagree.
Like they do now. You and I can both agree that not everyone believes in, or respects the concept of property (rightful ownership of matter), and that the state is only marginally effective at enforcing the concept of property, so how do you suppose markets ever came into existence?
I’m not judging anyone.
I’m simply stating that I disagree, and asking why they think that. It’s judgment-free.
Nothing. Unless they want to justify that action morally, which is what I believe the concept of property is an attempt to do. As we agreed upon, I can leave your claimed “property” alone without respecting your claim of “righteous possession”, simply because for some other reason, I believe it benefits me not to (gun, strength, fear of retribution, etc.) attempt to take what you have claimed.
I would agree that most animals eventually form some sort of habits of interaction with the world throughout their lives. And it seems like most creatures are born with instincts.
Without prior experience, all you would have to rely on is instinct. These are hardwired guidelines of conduct. Anything beyond instinct I view as useful, but not absolutely necessary.
Sure, I agree with that, every plant, animal, bacteria, virus, and maybe computers have guidelines.
I don’t deny that I have them, I’d just like to expose them within myself as illusions.
No, as I don’t see myself justified, or righteously deserving of that desired end.
Why are you assuming he should be able to claim the chair? It’s this claim of “ownership” (rights-based justification of possession) over “property”(matter upon which ownership is claimed) that is ethical
.
If that is the case, then I would say that would be non-ethical. If he makes no presumption of “ownership”, and is just prevent Jack from sitting on the chair because he doesn’t want him to, and his ability to see his end realized is superior (gun, willing to kill over the chair) to Jack’s (no gun, sitting not that important) than he will see his end realized.
That scenario didn’t presume anything about ethics. It was to demonstrate how ethics is not necessary for action, how I was interpreting your previous statement, and agreeing with it.
It might not’ve been. Of course, he wouldn’t presume any sort of “ownership” over the chair, if his action wasn’t based on an ethical consideration. His sign might’ve read,
It doesn’t explain what morals are, and how they differ from ethics. I asked you to explain your definition of ethics, you said.
I asked you, if you used the word morals, to define morals. Please define morals.
There is a very distinct difference between astronomy and astrology. You so far have failed to provide a distinct difference between what a moral code of conduct is and a non-moral code of conduct. All you have provided are semantical changes of sentences that say the exact same thing.
For example you say
I eat because I am hungry
is not an ethical statement but
I eat because it is the right thing to do
is an ethical statement.
But that is never the case. People don’t eat because it is the right thign to do, people don’t worship Jesus because they perceive it as the right thing to do, period end of story. There is always a BECAUSE as stated earlier. There is always a REASON. People don’t arbitrarily do things, and subscribe to ideologies without reason, they do so for a plethora of reasons, like world peace, pollution, or whatever. Example:
ManA: I eat because it is the right thing to do
ManB: WHy? Why is it the right thing to do?
ManA: Because I would starve otherwise
ManB: Ahh so you eat because you are hungry, you seek to satisify your hunger, and to do that eating would be the right thing to do
ManA: Yup.
Define: moral, and or morals.
Just as my right to eat dinner when I am hungry? There is no distinction between the two. Saying I have a right to eat is silly, just as saying I have a right to property. It is not a ethical statement, but an economic one. You simply let the word get the best of you just because it says “rights”.
Yea still missing that definition of what is moral. As far as I know ethics and morals are just codes of conduct for determining right and wrong based on ones premise.
What specifically is confusing about my statement?
No my friend, it is you who is ignoring the context. You assert that because a man is protecting his chair, a chair he spent several works working to obtain he is doing so not out of economic reasoning, but out of ethics. The man simply does not want to work 3 more weeks to acquire another chair, he wants to retain possession over the one he presently has and he will protect his property to achieve that economic goal.
You auto-assume that everything has to do with this innate sense of right and wrong people seem to subscribe to. Ignoring the fact that whats right and wrong changes from situation to situation and is generally arbitrary. You don’t like the concept of right and wrong so you attempt to divorse yourself from it, but doing so is folly. As you follow a set of right and wrong guidelines in every action you take. From riding on the bus, to walking to work. There is a right, and a wrong way to do it.
Likewise capitalism has a right way of functioning, and it is with property. Whether we choose to acknowledge it’s existence or not does not make it any less there. People choose to protect the wealth they have worked to obtain.
You yourself have conceded the point. You would rather not pay taxes, as it causes you to work more. The man with the chair would rather not loose his chair, as doing so would be the equivalent of taxation. So you and the man in the chair are the same. Does that make you a ethical ideologue? Or simply a man who wants to protect the assets he’s worked to obtain.
But there is no simply. “I beleive eating when hungry is a good thing to do”
There is always a why, and because.
Why is eating when hungry a good thing to do?
Because I do not want to starve.
So how is your statement ethical in any way? There is no such thing doing things for the sake of doing it. Humans and human action are not arbitrary. We do not all walk around in convulsions at a whim.
Ask any mystic ideologue why he believes what he believes. Assuming he does not have a communication problem you will see him provide all kinds of theology, history, and reasonings behind his faith. He does not have faith just to be a good person, he does so because he beliefs he will benefit from it in one way or another. There is ALWAYS a reason. Human action is NOT arbitrary as you seem to be asserting with ethics.
You don’t understand that the man simply wants to protect the chair that he has labored 3 weeks for? You sure? You possibly cannot fathom why someone who works hard for an object would like to protect it?
Earlier you said
How are you any different then the man protecting his chair? He would rather not loose the chair he has worked for, as it would set him back and mean more work to obtain another one.
You and him essentially coming to the same economic conclusions. Does that make you an ethical ideologue too than? What gives you any right to your labor, your wealth? What gives you a say in anything you work towards? Perhaps nothing, but irregardless you will work economically to maximize your leisure and minimize your toil. The man with the chair is doing exactly the same thing as you are when you make the statement above. He is making a statement that he would rather not work for another chair, just as you make a statement that you would rather not work extra due to taxatation. In a sense, taking his chair would be a tax against him.
So if you don’t understand it why/how can you defend your stance against taxation?
My point is those people who argue that property does not exist undermine their own argument when they exhibit signs of maintaining property. Markets are emergent because indnividual human actors work in their own interest, and make efforts at working in an economicaly effecient manner. That includes maintaining possessions one aquires and coming to peaceful exchange with others.
Ethics have nothing to do with it.
Then if you have no judgement on the matter why are you offering up your opinion in a confrontational tone. You seem bent on disproving the concept of property, something you yourself have acknowledged that you neither have the tools to prove or disprove.
You judge others who beleive property is an economic phenomena when you make statements like this.
Breast crawl is not the same as ordering a complex meal of your choice. As an adult you make a conscious decision what to eat, and when to eat, and how to eat it. To argue otherwise is folly.
It is not instinctive to know that putting your hand in fire would cause it to burn. So you would say that having that foresight isn’t always necessary for say like a firefighter? Or would you concede that having this knowledge may increase his chances of success as a firefighter.
But you do, by some code make an effort to acheive that end. Otherwise you wouldn’t bother voicing your opinion about taxation.
Likewise you think the guy with the chair is an ideologue, but he only posted that sign to deter you from stealing the chair he worked 3 weeks to obtain. Your all bent out of shape out of the language and words, and fail to recognize that the man is simply attempting to retain possession of things he has worked for. Being justified has nothing to do with it, he simply does not want to work an additional 3 weeks to buy a chair he already has
I made no such assumption. Why are you assuming yuo should claim ownership over the money you pay with taxes? I am not making any such a claim that this man has a divine right from god which states he owns the chair. I am saying that the man realizes that it took him 3 weeks to purchase the chair, and out of self economic interest he does not have the motivation to work an ADDITIONAL 3 weeks of buying another chair simply because you want his.
The man is operating entirely under an economic premise. He does not want to work more then he has to. Same as you with your tax statement. You and him are the same.
So you concede that this man is practicing property rights, without any concept of ethics. He is doing so entirely from an economic premise.’
E X A C T L Y. IE Property doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with ethics. It is simply an economic phenomena. Simply because some people preach it like an ideology doesn’t make it so. Or because many people share its concept does not make it magically any more ethical. Many people share a mutual belief that they would rather peaceful exchange possession of things currently in their ownership, rather then violent confiscation. Just because a broad amount of people share this belief does not make it some ideological ethical system. Many people believe the sky is blue, that doesn’t necessarily make it an ethical belief.
So as I was saying, people exhibit the concept of property with or without it’s worldly understanding. AND, they do so outside of the realm of ethics.
But he only posted that sign as a deterrent to keep others away. He does not assume that the chair descended from heaven from god as his divine right. He is doing something many people do to deter thieves, post a warning sign. People put BRINKS SECURITY signs in their window without ever buying the actual security system as simple deterrent from thievery.
You have taken it to the extreme opposite direction and advocate communism, a system of no property. That no man should make an effort to protect the assets he has worked on. Whether it’s the ethical thing to do or not is irrelevant.
You are correct, I am sorry. However the same principal still applies to contradicting axioms.
How so?
Then although you and I base our ethics on different things we still seem to come to the same conclusion, you don’t pretend that your ethics are inherently “better” than mine, therefore I consider your ethics subjective.
I use the term “objective” in this case to mean an ethical system that claims that it in inherently superior to all objective systems as a closer and better model of human behavior and morality, and that it cannot be broken or shifted in any way without the shifter or breaker becoming “immoral”
In this case when I use the term “objective value” I mean a thing or substance that has value inherently, which is of course impossible.
Which ethics don’t disagree with it? They all say, for instance. that “killing is wrong” and that their system in by nature the very best that there is, and that it is then immoral to kill someone, once you say that value is based upon the individual valuation, then the entire idea of objective ethics falls apart
True, but that simply means that it is your preference
No problem, I define objective above, and also the difference between what I am trying to explain and what an objectivist would be attempting to explain is that the objectivist makes out that one ethical system is “better” or “worse” than another and holds on to the old immoral and moral crap that was given to him as a child.
Consequentialism, or utilitarianism, implies that one’s ethics are based upon general utility, for instance I would, from what you have said, consider your ethics rather utilitarian in nature. If someone says that it is morally good for the state to fund roads because it helps people, and therefore it is not just practically but also morally justified for this reason, then they are using morally utilitarian arguments. An example of a consequentailist utilitarian would be Milton Friedman.
I use the term “existentialist” lightly, I agree with certain aspects of the philosophy in terms of what it says about human nature an happiness (on these fronts I am far more objectivistic in belief) but for me the simple idea that they believe individuals project their values outward to create their own subjective ethics causes me to consider myself one of their number in what I consider the most important way, so for the sake of this conversation I consider an existentialist one who projects their values out wards for their ethics without claiming that their ethics are inherently “better” than anyone else’s.
Also just throwing my two cents worth out there but neither of those philosophers were around by the time any of these terms were really constructed which was much more 1800’s
When I hear/read morals, I think, “normative rules of right and wrong”.
Sure I have. The ultimate end of behaving ethically, is to steer your action toward being “good”, in the moral sense, as it will relieve your discomfort. To behave non-ethically, one does not assume that there is a “morally good” and a “morally bad” way to behave, or that it will affect his ultimate end of relieving discomfort.
And the reason is that they think it will relieve their discomfort. But why will worshiping Jesus relieve your discomfort? Because they think it is the “morally good” thing to do. They have faith that proscribing themselves to the ethical guidelines delineated in the Bible will relieve their discomfort, much how you have faith that the only way society can function (thereby relieving your discomfort) is by having the ethical concepts of property, ownership, and rights. I am saying I disagree, that my comfort can be relieved without the pretense of property, ownership, or rights.
Hey, we agree! I think assuming you have a right to eat or have a right to property is pretty silly too.
I literally cannot understand what the point of the sentence is. The structure is terrible.
What makes it his chair?
Yeah, I agree with that. I just don’t see how this statement implies they have a right to the wealth they worked to obtain.
I don’t think anything.
That’s all I’ve been saying this whole time!
Exactly!! So why do we need rights-based concepts for this to occur?
You and I are working off of different definitions of property. We seem to be describing the same concept, which is “objects you want to keep”. If we both think that concepts of “rightfully owning the things you want to keep” is superfluous to people having “objects they want to keep”, then we are in complete agreement.
Bravo, couldn’t have said it better myself.
True, but who’s to say how much of that is a result of social conditioning.
Of course. But people aren’t “born to be firefighters” either.
That’s one way of interpreting it, but I don’t see how it is any more or less likely that the guy feeling justified in defending his claim.
That’s just an assumption on your part. He may be, he may not be.
No, I’m conceding a man is defending a chair with a gun. Whether or not he invokes the concept of property rights to make himself feel his actions are justified, or morally good, is beyond my reckoning.
It depends on your definition of property.
No I haven’t! Not at all! All I’m saying is that I have no opinion whether or not “man should make an effort to protect the assets he has worked on”. You betray your ethical bias with the normative statement.
Axioms can’t contradict themselves. Axioms are also called “first principles”. They can’t be logically proven in any type of formulation (don’t confuse “proven” in this context with empirical proof, again very different). The reason axioms can’t be logically proven is the axiom has to be used in order to try to affirm or refute it. Thus why the “first principles” because they are considered principles that are first and foremost before any other principles can actually be formulated and proven. These axioms provide the self-evident assumptions to then base other principles (that are not axioms) upon and so forth. Axioms don’t contradict each other because they are all used in order to even establish if there is even a contradiction in the first place. And I am talking about human nature, so, all axioms in regard to analyzing human nature can’t contradict each other or else they are not axioms to begin with because even to try to establish, as I noted, if an axiom is a contradiction would have somebody have to use that axiom. So it can’t be a contradiction as it was used. Human action is an axiom not because it is provable in the logical sense, but that it is self-evident, meaning, in order to try to refute or affirm human action, the person has to act.
I might have misunderstood you here. Do you mean that what somebody finds moral is based on the individuals own decision? If so, then I agree and it can’t be any other way.
The only “better” ethical decision that I find appropriate to advance is in regards to justice based on property rights. Somebody individually prefers to value having capital not confiscated whereas a thief prefers to value confiscation of capital. I being the somebody preferring capital accumulation think my preferences are “better” then the thieves.
If you were a thief and advocated thievery then I would think my ethics are better, but I don’t think you do, so, yes yours are not better than mine nor mine better than yours.
That sounds more like somebody who regards their values in a confident way. They are not ashamed of their ethical conclusions and really believe in what they believe very strongly. Usually somebody that would put their life on the line and tries to capture or defend themselves against a criminal would feel very strongly about their rightness to rid the criminals effort. Don’t you think? Maybe you mean something else. I think in terms of not only discussing these issues but also that what people think does occur in real-time. We can try to learn and educate ourselves to the best of our abilities. A person can try to find and discover the best theories available, but eventually the person on a daily basis, too, will need to act out what they theorize. And sometimes their theories are mistaken but they only have to go on what knowledge they have at the time.
I agree with you.
An objective ethicists believes, as far as I understand from discussing with them as Justin who is one responded to me asking this very question earlier in this thread, that objective ethics are decided upon by an individual. This is exactly my point to both sides. If “individual valuation” is the only significant difference in which a subjective ethicist regards him or her self as being different from an objective ethicist, then the point becomes mute because objective ethicists know their theorizing is also based on individual valuation because only an individual can valuate. That’s why I don’t readily see any differences, and therefore need, for objectivist and subjectivist ethicist.
right, which an objective ethicists wouldn’t disagree with. It’s why I think this whole play on words is a divide where no divide actually exists.
I think it depends. Of course I would value my preferences on what is ethical higher, maybe, than somebody else’s if on logical or factual grounds I find disagreement in what they are saying. Thereby I deem mine “better”. Wouldn’t you? But I think I asked you this earlier in the thread, so, you don’t necessarily need to answer this here.
When you say “general utility” do you mean in regards that what is best, is best, because it’s the most useful for the most people? If so, I totally disagree with that proposition. I think of my position more along the lines of what I find to be the best theory so far, that is the theory I would try to convince/persuade/argue, etc… others in accepting. Sometimes I find what I tried to profess earlier in my life is what I disagree with currently. But my gap between theorizing and what is, is very small, and what I theorize is the current conclusion of what I think the world is. But since I understand this, I also am very aware that I am still learning, and as long as I am currently educating myself, nearly daily, then my open-mindedness stays more open. It’s when I get stuck in a rut and am not trying to think too much about the world and find what is working to be working, even if not efficient in hindsight or flawed, I may try to convince others it’s great and grand. And I may even not find myself very open to other ideas at the time, but usually I’m learning daily so my mind is kept flexible and daily reminded that there is more to know as each page or sentence I read while educating myself reminds of this fact. But I still act in real-time so what I currently know can not escape the fact that I am sharing with others and doing things in my life now, whether that is politically, economically, etc… motivated or not. I think each person rubs off on other people so we share what we know, sometimes very deeply, with others and so at times may share something that is deeply flawed or might be deeply true. But it happens and what I know can’t be held back from being shared with others even in causal conversation at the grocery store, etc… little tid-bits about my liberty perspective and my stance on justice and economics probably is shared even if it is a very small amount of information.
I doubt you would actually be able to provide me a real world example of someone who acts arbitrarily for the good of it’s own sake. Give me a man who acts the good samaritin and you will likely find some form of reasoning behind it. The belief that people act on a whim as you assert is a fairy tale notion you subscribe to and is anti-praxeological.
And now we are back to praxeology.
Why are our arguments going in circles? You said this several posts above. By this criteria anything is an ethical decision. If I have a thorn in my finger I may decide the moral thing to do is remove that thorn, to relieve my discomfort. If I feel alone and empty I may subscribe to some religion to deal with that. Ultimately there is always a reason, whether it’s concrete, subjective, true, false, fictional or not fictional, big or large there is always a reason. Humans do not act arbitrarily.
I don’t know but it’s not open for analyzation as far as ethics go. People can choose to beleive that it works or does not work, it’s besides the point. Whether the end is arbitrary or not is besides the point. Why do people pull thorn’s from their finger to releive discomfort? Ultimately the end is irrelevent, the point is that they have some premise to follow from which builds their moral code. That moral code directs their actions.
Why do people remove the thorn from their finger to releive discomfort? Well clearly they do not like discomfort and beleive that is a way to releive it. Why do people woship Jesus to releive discomfort? Well clearly they do not like discomfort and beleive worshiping Jesus is a way to releive it.
If your issue is with Jesus and the problems with that specific reasoning that is one thing, but it’s an entirely other leap to abandon all ethics all together simply because you disagree with a religion. As I have shown not all beliefs are in error. Removing the thorn from your finger would be THE RIGHT thing to do to relieve discomfort.
So your saying that you disagree, that your comfort is not relieved by removing the thorn from your finger? Isn’t this just being stubborn?
Also, care to answer Esuric’s question back on one of the first pages? Esuric stated he would like to take your arm from you. Sounds like you have no dog in the fight? Can you relieve your comfort while allowing Esuric to take your arm?
How about this, you work 2 months to pay for a computer so that you can participate on these forums. Are you telling me you do not necessarily need to take care of your computer, protect your possession of it, keep it virus clean, and maintain it to ease your comfort of posting on these forums? What happens when it is stolen/virus infected/or crashed?
If having possession of the computer is not necessary to ease your comfort why did you buy the darn thing in the first place?!?!?!
I imagine you have an antivirus and a door lock to your house. Both of these exhibit signs of maintaining your property. Your own actions undermine your argument.
**
**
Thats because you’ve entirely re-defined the word property and miss understood it’s point. People protect their assets not because they have an ideological belief of property rights. They do so because they toiled over it and know that in order to accumulate wealth they need to take care of the things in their possession and ensure that they remain in their possession. People do so because they desire to satisfy various ends and discomforts. People want a car to drive so they buy a car, a chair to sit, a dog to play with. Whatever the reason, people recognize the fact that objects are scarce and that they must work to aquire them. What good is toiling for 3 months to buy a computer that someone else will use?
**
**
**
**
If ethics and morals are guidelines(Codes of conduct) to direct the action of attempting to achieve a specific end(Satisfy discomfort),
then
what kinds of guidelines are those which also aim to achieve certain ends but that are not-ethically oriented.
I’m not sure how best to write that heh. My sentence structure seemed fine to me, though I had several typo’s.
__
__
Simple, the fact that he has a gun and you do not. The fact that he is protecting the asset in his possession and desires to retain possession of it. What makes your wages yours? Why should you care if we tax you or not?
**
**
**
**
That IS the concept of property that your agreeing to.
**
**
it is you who is assigning the baggage of “divine right to”. If the man who owned the chair though he had some kind of universal right he wouldn’t need to protect it with a gun now would he. [:)]
Also the ideological argument of property is just a tool, just like the gun, to protect property. People spread the ideology behind property as a more economic way of reducing the risk of lost assets. It is cheaper to have everyone around you agree to the concept of property rather then pay for a guard to tirelessly protect all of your assets. The ideology behind is is just another tool for people retain possession of their assets.
This is an example of you responding to each sentence in kind, while missing the punchline entirely.
**
We don’,t the only one here who is making that claim that Property inherently has to do with what is divinely right and divinely wrong is you as we have repeatedly pointed out.
Does anyone else here on this forum right now think that you are born and endowed with a divine right to a specific property? even if they did their belief would be superficial. People know they must protect what t hey have, that process of protecting their assets IS THE PROPERTY RIGHTS.
The Austrian’s concept of property, correct me if I am wrong anyone, is that it is a natural phenomena that occurs consequentially out of various complex axioms and earthly conditions. We are not espousing to a religion, we are espousing to an economic method of thought there.
Property is the act of maintaining objects in your possession. Even Crusoe does this on his island alone. He protects the tools he’s made even though he doesn’t have to worry about theft. Does the rain violate his rights when it rains? No but he none the less will protect his tools from the rain, it is his property in this way. He has property(assets) and must protect his property(assets) from the elements just as the city goer protects his property(assets) from thieves. There is no difference, and both are doing so out of the concept of property.
I have shown you that people act under the premise of property rights due to various unchangeable aspects of our earthly world. People maintain and have “PROPERTY” because it is in their economic interest to do so.
Then stop conflating property with ethics.
On a side note,
When a communist is arguing with a capitalist over who should have control over a specific tangible object, is this an ethical argument? If yes then how do you deal with such situations?
You have done this social conditioning twice now. Keep your baseless assertions out of it. You have nothing to back up such a ridiculous claim as this. I don’t eat spicy foods because I was socially engineered not to, I don’t do it because I get indigestion.
people have different preferences and make conscious decisions on what to do based on those preferences. If we were all socially engineered we’d all be eating the same thing now wouldn’t we! As such I’ll continue to dismiss the crankish social engineered argument.
Good
Irrelevant.
Desire(Action),Goal(End)
Now explain to me this. Why is.
I want to eat healthy because Jesus says I should and my goal is to please him.
An ethical statement where as
I want to eat healthy my doc says I should and my goal is to live a long life.
A non-ethical statement.
Why
I want to help people because I want to be a good person
Is different from
I want to help people because it will improve my disposition in the community
Here are the only stances you can possibly take
A) You don’t believe any are concrete ethical statements, you believe ethics do not exist at all and none of them are ethical statements. They are simply statements of the desires of various ends. Regardless of how real or fake the ends are they are simply statements.
B) You believe all of them are ethical statements. But each of them ahve their own codes of conduct. You recognize that ethics may be subjective from one person to the next. More or less you agree with point A, just that you acknowledge that ethics are nothing more then a code of conduct for the attainment of specific ends.
You don’t say that following that code of conduct will get you to those ends, only that they were designed to help you get t here. You don’t say that praying to Alah helps you get to heaven, only that it was designed to attempt to get you there. The success of the code of conduct is not what is disputed, only that it is nothing more then a set of rules for the attainment of a certain end.
C) You believe they are ethical statements but some of them are wrong. You believe that the correct ethical statements are ones you decide, by whatever judgement you use.
D) You arbitrarily choose at a whim which statements are ethical, and which are not. Which ones make you uncomfortable and which do not. You are essentially the same as point C, only to another extreme. Even though all these statements are guides for Action and Ends, you simply go down the list and arbitrarily decide what is ethical and what is not. This seems to fit your category. As such you have no real argument as your assignment of what is or is not ethical is entirely arbitrary and holds no real weight.
I have asked this in nearly every post to you on this point. Either you believe the first sentence is an ethical statement and the second one is not, or they are all ethical statements, or none of them are ethical statements. You seem to cherry pick which doesn’t really give you any legitimate argument to use.
The end for why he choses his actions doesn’t matter. Whether he defends his property out of zealous ideology or does so because he just purchased it today makes no difference. His actions are not open for judgement, which you are doing Judging him for having an possible ethical system.
The point is that he does act in this manner, man does act to protect his assets, he exhibits property ownership naturally on his own.
And it’s an assumption on your part that he’s doing it out of zealous ethical reasoning.
So then if you are indifferent to it why do you spend so much time attacking property on this forum?
Let me ask you this.
If
Goods were not scarce
Time was not scarce
and we did NOT have to occupy goods over time
Are you tellign me that people would still hold this radical ethical based concept of property?
Or is it more likely that property would seize to exist, not because it is built on an ethical framework but because it is built out of necessity due to the following reasons.
Objects are scarce
Time is scarce
The occupation of objects over time is necessary to satisfy desires/needs
Then why did you say this?
Seems you have a very strong opinion to me. You admit as much that you at the least would prefer to keep the wages of your labor to yourself. Just as the man in the chair would prefer to keep the chair to himself, regardless for what reasons.
Because we are both bad communicators, at least when typing responses.
Why would this have anything to do with morals?
I agree with that.
This must be where we disagree. Why is the premise, or the moral code necessary?
You are using “right” in an amoral context here. You seem to be confusing “morally right” and “best way to achieve end”
How does this follow?
I would try to prevent him from taking my arm, although not everyone might.
No I’m not. But you already know the end I hope to achieve. You cannot a priori, begin asserting I have to take care of a computer if I buy it.
malinvestment. [:P]
How does with imply I believe that I have a right to protect my stuff? Perhaps I am simply protecting stuff. I imagine car thieves have locks on their chop shops.
No I haven’t, I just have a different interpretation of the word. Ask wilderness, he’ll tell you.
I know, that’s what I’ve been saying this whole time. Property rights are unnecessary.
I totally agree.
Glad you agree with me.
praxeology, biology, etc.
See, I knew you’d get it.
The way you interpret it.
I’m sure he would, maybe even more frenetically, due to his action being justified. Righteous action is one of the most dangerous phenomena on the planet.
Me too!
I read that passage, I can assure you. Like I’ve been saying, we agree on pretty much everything, except use of the word property.
That’s how I interpret the word. I’m sorry we disagree, but there really isn’t any point of arguing about semantics.
I’m not saying specific property, I’m saying property in general.
No. As we agreed previously, you don’t need rights to be able to defend things.
Not to play devil’s advocate, but you still have to take the axioms on faith.
According to your understanding.
This is simply how I interpret the word property. To me it describes a completely different phenomena than you are attaching to the word. I’m sorry this bothers you so much.
Yes.
I don’t. I think they are both full of it.
Your claim is just as baseless as mine.
I’m saying that a concept of the self may be due to social engineering. Without that, you would perhaps still learn by trial and error, but you wouldn’t be “telling yourself” what to eat.
I’d say “A” probably.
I don’t attack, I am trying to figure out why people feel it so necessary to justify their action against some moral framework.
Some might. People kill each other all the time over where they go when they die, although no one even knows if anything happens.
There was no normative in my statement. A subtle, but important difference.
Ethics does not try to determine an “inherent value” in a thing or substance, however. Objective ethics attempts to identify the morality of actions.
A knife is neither good nor evil. A man using the knife to kill another man is acting immorally (or evilly).
It was pointed out in another thread that “value” is a very overloaded term, and I think this is causing some confusion here. There’s a great wiki article that might help clear things up.
Maybe I misspoke, or maybe I’m misinterpreting what you’re saying here, but I disagree. I believe that an objective ethical code exists regardless of whether actors choose to consciously acknowledge it. The role of the individual is in attempting to delineate what this code is. Consequently, different individuals may have different interpretations of an objective ethical code, but that doesn’t make them all equally valid. If a murderer says that “killing is good,” that doesn’t mean it is. It means he thinks it is, but it’s up to everyone else to cognitively determine whether he is correct.
A subjective ethicist would say, “I do X because it agrees with my personal conscience.” An objective ethicist would say, “I do X because it is an objectively good thing to do.” Again, the latter may err in such an assertion, but that alone doesn’t disqualify the notion of an objective ethical code.
I don’t assert apriori that you do. I assert after observing as much. You care for your computer.
The following axiom’s are not based on faith.
Objects are scarce
Time is scarce
The occupation of objects over time is necessary to satisfy desires/needs
Why don’t you just simply stop?
No my claim is based on the 3 pre-existing conditions I posted above, and an understanding that property is a necessary consequence. That if any of those 3 conditions did not exist, property would also not need to exist. It shows that property is built as a natural consequence, not as an ideological belief from the divine heavens.
Again those 3 pre-existing conditions are
Objects are scarce
Time is scarce
The occupation of objects over time is necessary to satisfy desires/needs
Conversely your argument is based on a simple,consistent, but unsubstantiated assertion that rights are always implied with property. You have nothing to backup your argument and no evidence whether it be logical, or empirical, only anecdotal over situations you have perceived. You considers such situations at face value and never stopped to consider that what is not seen, the economic consequences that are implied when people protect assets. Praxeology alone refutes the concept that property is a right, as it shows that people ackwnowledge property not from an ethics stance but as an economic one.
But after trial and error I can then proceed to formulate a code of conduct. I will touch the fire pit with my hand only once. After that I will make a rule not to do it again. Guidelines are in-escapable and ethics are just guidelines for specific ends.
If you believe in A then we can safely use the word “Property” without assuming any prior ethical intent.
Thats your problem. People don’t feel it’s necessary to justify their actions against a moral framework.
After such an answer I give up. If you truely beleive that with
No Scarcity
No limitation on time
And no need to satisfy desires
You still beleive there would be an “Ethical” concept of property well then I cannot argue with stubborness. Your only reason to dispute that is the unwillingness to be wrong.
I doubt any other reasonable person here would argue other wise.
A semantical play on words does not mean you don’t hold an opinion. It just means y ou are good at sounding neutral. It has come at a cost though. Most of your response’s are vague and meatless. But being the semantical king that you are no less does not mean you don’t hold an opinion. You have already stated as much t hat you do hold opinions. In fact you’ve been arguing with me for 8 pages, if that is not evidence I don’t know what is.
In fact many of your statements show strong signs of having opinions of others ideological beliefs, which only becomes an outlet for your own. For example..
When an economist explains why socialism cannot calculate he is making an ethical argument eh? Why do you bother posting here again?
Any ways I am pretty much done so I will sum up our discussion as follows.
Your answer here concludes that your unwillingness to consider the points. I applaud your consistency but am sad to say at least in this case it does not come to your advantage.
And the following statement:
Can be safely discarded as non-sequitur and irrelevant.
Finally.
Why do you post here specifically? I know you want to “test” your beliefs but from my viewpoint your beliefs are not open for scrutiny. Nor is your stubbornness. Which is an unfortunate trait. Still why not test your “beliefs” elsewhere. Why here specifically? What makes you come to Mises.org as opposed to somewhere else? Sorry if that is too forward.
I agree. I went back to the exchange to see why I said I agree with Late and it was because I was agreeing the impossibility of finding an inherent value. I agree with that. But I forgot to stipulate this point. I do not agree that objectivist ethicists are looking for an inherent value. They are not. I know that. I forgot to add that into my response which was sloppy of me.
right
I agree with that. I’m asking: Who is being conscious of any such actions? I think it is the individual that realizes what is already present (meaning ethical actions are here regardless if somebody acknowledges them or not).
right. That’s what I mean.
true. The different interpretations can also be called different theories. Principles/axioms are not theories and are constants, but how these are interpreted, the knowing of what these principles are, thereby the theories manifest of such principles can vary. The truth, logic, and facts, these are part of what goes into knowing if one theory is better than another theory.
You seem to be throwing your hands up, because you are hung up on the word property. I know you probably don’t like to admit it, but we seem to be agreeing on ethics not being necessary to consider when acting.
You like definition #1, I like definition #4. I don’t know why this bothers you so much. Instead of moving on, you’ve been stuck in this Ahab-esque obsession with disproving my chosen understanding of the term.
You seem like you don’t want to continue, which is a shame.
You know thinking about what you said, maybe I do hold on to my beliefs a bit to tightly, but I still remain skeptical of what I read. Maybe too much so, but I haven’t really heard anything too convincing in what you’ve said. If anything I feel viondicated that our disagreement was mostly just one of semantics.
The reason I post here is my belief that the Libertarian movement is my best bet of getting the state off of my sack. I’d like to get to know who I’m allying with. And honestly, where else could I go to talk to people about these kind of topics?
Jackson, the same goes for you too. You can’t argue against property being not defined by ethics. You would need to understand who you are talking to and understand their definition is not your definition. Then you can’t readily argue against their theory simply because you don’t like a word they use. That would only affirm your own belief, true?
Yeah, I know. It turns out the actual concept filc is using property to describe, and I use possession to describe seem to be the same thing, although I think if we kept talking about it, the difference you and I found when corresponding (remote possession) would probably crop up again.
I know, I’m not trying to. I was arguing against the necessity of rights based ownership to the rising of markets. Once I found out by property, filc was just talking about possession, I was completely ready to declare that we agreed. I don’t think it’s fair to claim I’m just arguing because I don’t like a word, anymore than it is to say you guys are arguing because you like the word.
and of course i thought you were arguing just to argue as you seemed to be doing a run-a-round on the topic… that’s why i dropped it… it became useless[:P]…lol
it doesn’t appear that way at all when reading the discussion between you and filc.
Sorry that’s how you took our correspondence, or my debate with filc. I guess I’m just not very good at being concise when writing responses. I assure it wasn’t my intention, though. I wanted to really find out what you guys where trying to say.
