It does?
From my interpretation, I can’t see anything denying the existence of ethics (in the sense of aesthetic) at all.
Well like I said, you will kindly have to ask Jackson to explain it. I am not the expert in that area by any means. I was lead to understand it that way, and ofcoarse I could be wrong.
Central planning.
I don’t know what your policies are.
You’re welcome to try to take it. I must warn you though, I am armed.
Should or should not don’t enter into it. I will decide, until I stop, or am stopped.
The nihilist might say that they weren’t lying, but rather that they believed in a falsity (morality). As for the action itself, a full-on nihilist would say that there’s no reason to save the girl or let her drown.
This doesn’t seem related to me. “Good” in the sense of taste isn’t an ethical judgement.
I’m not sure where aesthetics came from.
This is pretty much where Stirner’s philosophy leads. Not “might makes right”—because right is a “fixed idea”—but rather that possession is always dependent upon might.
Hey man, you got the effin’ gold star for this one!!! Bullseye!
To avoid repetition I’ll start (and end) with the end:
I’m of the position that ethics are a form of aesthetics, all of them taste, morality, humour, etc. come from the same sources and ultimately come down to the individual. With that I cannot possibly understand how one could say “morality” is wrong anymore than “good taste” is wrong, or “funny” is wrong, etc… they are all personal judgments.
That is still a belief of entitlement though.
Can we determine what constitutes murder in an ethical vacuum?
- You posses an arm (probably more than one).
- That arm belongs to you.
- If I chop off your arm, it now belongs to me.
- I have stolen your arm.
Do you find this objectionable? If not, then we can debate whether chopping of ones arm is moral or immoral. We can’t talk about ethics before we understand basic terminology.
But you don’t understand why markets emerge.
Well, there’s massive empirical evidence supporting my claim, but I don’t believe that statistics is necessary. The fact of the matter is that there would be no incentive to produce if you knew, before the fact, that your productions would be taken from you. All actions are means towards ends–this (where everyone steals) could only make sense if people, for whatever reason, enjoyed having their productions/property taken from them. A game theory type of situation would emerge, where rational agents would not produce, and just steal the productions of others (assuming that people still don’t like to produce in this absurd hallucination). This, in turn, would lead to no production (because you know, with absolute certainty, that your productions will be taken from you). And, if people valued the products they produced, they would try to defend it. Thus this type of condition is impossible in a world with praxeological agents. You would have to rebuild and reprogram man in order to see this condition manifest.
How so?
Don’t get me wrong, I wasn’t advocating Stirner. That was just my understanding of The Ego and Its Own. To me, it basically feels like a lot of non-think—acting on impulse and whim.
As you are entitled to all that you may possess, no matter how you may come to possess them.
I disagree with the implication that the arm rightfully belongs to me. Without that axiomatic outlook, I don’t see why you couldn’t have just taken an arm, rather than “stolen” “my” arm.
When at least two individuals exchange goods or services, right?
That makes sense.
First you would have to assume a complete inability to prevent others from taking what you have produced.
Entitled by whom, or what?
Oh my, I didn’t mean to imply anything about your beliefs. My apologies.
Yourself.
I never used the term “rightfully.” I merely said that it belongs to you, that it’s part of your physical constitution. I’m not asking you if this action (taking ones arm) is moral.
Does your arm belong to you?
No, we just have to assume a 100% success rate. This means that, when you try to steal, you will succeed, but you may lose an arm, leg, or eye in the process.
How can an individual entitle themselves? Seems like setting up an artificial mind/body duality.
Yes. It was implicit (by my understanding). I didn’t say you explicitly used the term “rightfully”.
Why would you automatically assume 100% success?
Kings did it quite frequently. I suppose you could say you were entitled by “the law of nature,” (Hobbes) genetics, nutrition, advantage, opportunity, chance, or luck if you wish.
We’re talking about a world where theft of ones productions is certain, are we not? If you want to change the scenario, which we can do since it’s your hallucination, then we can talk about what would happen if there wasn’t a 100% success rate (but everyone still attempts to steal anothers productions).