I don’t ‘plead’ anything. I don’t recognize ‘justification’ as being coherent. I do as suits me, and all who do otherwise in regard for ‘rights’ or ‘argumentation ethics’ are spurious lunatics.
all who do otherwise than suits you?
Uh yeah, how does this make sense? I wasn’t aware agreeing with Hume or Liberte on a specific issue makes someone automatically Pro-Hitler.
all who do otherwise than suits you?
I treat them as I do any other obstacle - go around them if they are too strong, or annihilate them if I can.
Nitro, Wilderness is referring to where I said I would vote for Hitler on another thread. Nonetheless I am not pro-Hitler (I don’t even know what it means to be ‘pro’ something devoid of context and options, this is praxeological nonsense) - But I would find voting for Adolf Hitler to be more entertaining than any other prospective candidates, except maybe Superman or Dr. Doom.
If you don’t advocate anything, why do you feel the need to state your opinion here? (I consider you a multi-account troll and am bewildered by the fact that you aren’t banned yet.)
I enjoy talking to some of the people that post here. The rest of you, I don’t care about.
Philosophy and sociology fascinate me. I just don’t think either have any normative implications.
Heeding “rights” is usually to “do as suits [you]”. They are guidelines.
[quote=“From “Human Action” by Ludwig von Mises, “Chapter VIII”, section 1, “Human Cooperation””]
Society is the outcome of conscious and purposeful behavior[…] The actions which have brought about social cooperation and daily bring it about anew do not aim at anything else than cooperation and coadjuvancy with others for the attainment of definite singular ends. The total complex of the mutual relations created by such concerted actions is called society. It substitutes collaboration for the–at least conceivable–isolated life of individuals. Society is division of labor and combination of labor. In his capacity as an acting animal man becomes a social animal.
[…]
Within the frame of social cooperation there can emerge between members of society feelings of sympathy and friendship and a sense of belonging together. These feelings are the source of man’s most delightful and most sublime experiences. They are the most precious adornment of life; they lift the animal species man to the heights of a really human existence. However, they are not, as some have asserted, the agents that have brought about social relationships. They are fruits of social cooperation, they thrive only within its frame; they did not precede the establishment of social relations and are not the seed from which they spring.
The fundamental facts that brought about cooperation, society, and civilization and transformed the animal man into a human being are the facts that work performed under the division of labor is more productive than isolated work and that man’s reason is capable of recognizing this truth. But for these facts men would have forever remained deadly foes of one another, irreconcilable rivals in their endeavors to secure a portion of the scarce supply of means of sustenance provided by nature. Each man would have been forced to view all other men as his enemies; his craving for the satisfaction of his own appetites would have brought him into an implacable conflict with all his neighbors. No sympathy could possibly develop under such a state of affairs.
[/quote]
To be perfectly honest, the ignorance of the results of the Swiss study that analyzed how Hitler rose to power under normal voting behavior in this forum is astounding.
He (or his party, at least) more or less did what every major political party in America has been doing for a century: pandering to populist, middle class worker appeal, & promising to make the best out of a bad situation created by the current or previous political party in power.
In many ways, I doubt many people actually knew what the hell would happen by voting National Socialist. Ignorance is key in a democracy, & not every voter, not even back then, was fully competent of information on the NS party to be called Pro-Hitler.
Obviously, some did, but a population’s critical faculties might cease given the hyperinflation that occurred in Wiemar Germany.
Hitler was an opportunist, above all else, and even though his party won, it was just barley. Under normal conditions, it’s doubtful he would even been given the light of day, let alone “critical listening” that didn’t involve pointing & laughing.
I mean what it normally means. Normative ethics involves arriving at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct.
I actually agree with everything here. But, like you said, you haven’t crossed the bridge between descriptive ethics and normative ethics. This, as Hume pointed out, cannot be done.
I mean what it normally means. Normative ethics involves arriving at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct.
I actually agree with everything here. But, like you said, you haven’t crossed the bridge between descriptive ethics and normative ethics. This, as Hume pointed out, cannot be done.
But arguments do. To arrive at normative ethics from the axiom of human action, you need an argument. Thus far you have not provided one. The scarcity issue is a red herring.
I love how Hoppe emphasized this part of a collection of objections: [pg. 8]
I guess that’s good to know from at least one person that has read Hume.
What would be an example of when the is-ought gap is crossed? I mean don’t people do it everyday when they tell each other what will be done with any particular scarce good? Though that “telling” is an ordinal range that you mentioned as well between argumentation (principled chatting), negotiations that may lead to compromises, all the way to the other end of the scale that involves violence. These actions by people everyday in the store or in a war are not crossing the is-ought gap? These people are not telling each other what their choices are?
Please explain as you seem to be somebody that has actually taken the time to look into this from numerous angles with what so far appears to be objectively, ie. scientifically.
My interpretation of Argumentation ethics just says its just not possible to argue for slavery rationally. People can still say things like “you should consent to slavery” or “Circles have 4 corners” but they’ll be wrong before they can get any further in the argument.
I mean what it normally means. Normative ethics involves arriving at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct.
I actually agree with everything here. But, like you said, you haven’t crossed the bridge between descriptive ethics and normative ethics. This, as Hume pointed out, cannot be done.
But arguments do. To arrive at normative ethics from the axiom of human action, you need an argument. Thus far you have not provided one. The scarcity issue is a red herring.
It is what’s hanging me up. The ‘should’ question is a very important one — one that cannot be answered by appealing to the laws of economics.
Are you hinting that ethics is completely subjective?
This is precisely what you cannot say. It begs the question “why not?” which, to answer, you would have to appeal to moral standard that applies to the both of you and judges your actions.
Let me clarify: you cannot make a decision regarding whether right should make right, or whether property rights should be instituted. Yes, people will make this decision anyways just by interacting with each other; but at this point you cannot say that the decision ought to be made one way or the other.
You sort of did… I’m not sure if you’re trying to offer a subjective basis for ethics. I would argue against this position. All that I meant is that you cannot start out describing the facts of reality and end with any moral rules. It is logically impossible to derive the latter from the former.
Does this have something to do with how you are walking on one’s grass and not violating their property rights? (your previously stated opinion.)
The failure to distinguish between political philosophy & personal ethics makes this a strawman (fallacy) against the Libertarian / Rothbardian position and if you acknowledge that is not what you are trying to do, then it is a red herring. As such it’s an invalid argument against an axiomatic-deductive rationalist objective ethics. Please try find a valid argument that doesn’t do this. (Good luck).
“Normative ethics involves arriving at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. In a sense, it is a search for an ideal litmus test of proper behavior. The Golden Rule is a classic example of a normative principle: We should do to others what we would want others to do to us. Since I do not want my neighbor to steal my car, then it is wrong for me to steal her car. Since I would want people to feed me if I was starving, then I should help feed starving people. Using this same reasoning, I can theoretically determine whether any possible action is right or wrong. So, based on the Golden Rule, it would also be wrong for me to lie to, harass, victimize, assault, or kill others. The Golden Rule is an example of a normative theory that establishes a single principle against which we judge all actions. Other normative theories focus on a set of foundational principles, or a set of good character traits.”
Do you have any that actually addresses the libertarian position? Eh? What a joke.
What arguments? I gave you two axioms and a postulated scarcity as it is defined within both of those axioms. I haven’t argued anything to you beyond that. I don’t know exactly what you’re looking for (which doesn’t mean I don’t know what a premise/conclusion is).
Who said I’m “arriving” at anything you preconceive that I am arriving at. I haven’t provided one because I haven’t and need not.
No. It’s not. You need to provide an opposing argument to back up that red herring. Property is scarcity. Economic action and ethical conduct involves scarcity. Read Rothbard and Hoppe. To get you started. Before you try to make a counter argument I suggest you provide one other than asking me to things for you like “provide an argument” or that somehow scarcity is a “red herring” yet I know it isn’t and you don’t provide me with any ideas as to why you think it is. Give me some ideas as to why you are making these statements. Something of substance that I can work with. Don’t demand arguments when it’s not necessary for me to do that and so forth.
Sorry about the redundant posts.
The is-ought gap can never be crossed. It’s a logical issue: a conclusion cannot contain any terms that are not present in the premises. An argument that starts merely by describing scarcity and economic laws cannot imply a conclusion with extra terms; whether it’s an “ought,” or anything else. The point of all of this is to show that ethics is a subject that needs to explored as a field of its own; with its own axioms, arguments, and conclusions. “Natural law” is useless because there are no ethical laws that are revealed by nature alone.
Look, I’m trying to get you to support the claim of natural law: that normative ethics can be derived from the observations of nature alone. You have done a superb job of explaining how decisions are made given the constraints of scarcity, but this is not ethics. It is not normative ethics, as least. Do you understand the distinction? I want an argument that concludes, for example, “do not steal,” using only axioms that are derived from observations of nature.
I’ve read some Rothbard and Hoppe, and I’m currently reading more. The reason why the scarcity issue is a red herring is because it cannot bridge the is/ought distinction, and you are treating it like it does. Do you understand why this a problem? I feel like I’ve said all I can about it. Remember, the goal is normative ethics. If you don’t think that your theory ends in normative ethics, then that is all I’m trying to prove, and we agree.
Ethics are agent-relative. They involve individual people. But any of the scarce goods under question by some people are real. In this possible world, Person A is real. Product X is a real. They both exist. They are real. What A does ethically is agent-relative and completely up to A. How Product X is valued is completely up to a number of economic factors that include the judgments of value of potentially more than one person. The price at the store isn’t relativistic. It is determined by a number of real factors of cost. When Person A and B come to either a principled argument or fight over scarce-Person A or scarce-Person B or scarce-Product X, the factors of the value that A and B put into X are incorporated into how A and B will resolve their potential differences over X. Or say scarce-Person B wants to simply take X but A wants X. B punches scarce good called Person A. The whole scenario involves scarcity from the people to the products no matter who or what is being either quarreled over or agreed upon.
This is exactly why the is-ought gap is an armchair philosophy. It’s detached from the real world. Person A comes to punch me. But you say I can’t say to them ‘you ought to not do that’ which implies I can’t stop them from punching me let alone saying don’t punch me. If I’m a pacifist and don’t do anything at all that’s still human action. Oh well. I sit and let them punch me in the face. Maybe they beat me to a bloody meat because the is-ought gap said that’s all I can do. That’s ivory tower detached from the world of billions upon billions of valuations taking place in the market and between people and how they each decide to treat each other on a daily basis. Don’t believe me. Go outside and be with other people and take note of all the standards people erect between each other on how they are to conduct their lives towards each other. I’m not making this sh-t up.[:P]
Of course I can. You know praxeology? I value my private property and maintain it that way. That’s the way I think it should be. Person B doesn’t like that idea. I could care less until person B begins to threat my property or comes close. I found tonight that a robber broke into two houses near my mother in laws. One house the robbers broke in and left while three people were inside but nobody knew they were even in the house. The other house was empty of people so they stole and left. My mother in law is concerned that they may come into her house. She’s an old lady. Of course she’s going to be scared and so would I. She has a baseball bat by her bed and she’s going to tell any robbers what they shouldn’t be doing if they come near her that’s for sure. The robber’s have a different value scale. My mother in law and I have one that differs from the robber. Logic is on my side but I don’t need to justify anything to somebody trying to initiate physical aggression towards me. If they will not listen to reason as this is my property. I am a scarce good and I’m not just going to roll over and play dead well the is-ought gap according to you says I can’t tell the robber breaking into my house what I think they ought to be doing. That’s why the is-ought gap is a mental abstraction detached from the rest of the world. I don’t know how that’s not clear enough.
The fact of reality is I adhere to natural rights. I respect what other people work for and the capital they acquire. I respect people that are civil and respect me back. I don’t need to give any of my respect to somebody that tries to steal what I’ve took my time and energy to gather. I don’t need to respect anybody that tries to murder me. It’s logically implied by the axiom property that I am this property. My logical argument is based on that. If other people don’t want to take the time to acknowledge what I value in life with is to not stand in people’s way when they not initiating physical aggression. To not get in the way of innocent people in other words. To let people do what they will without causing them unnecessary harm. It’s common decency and common sense to the people that I usually meet with around here. I value the facts of this life of mine which include a wife, a son, a dog, and this little plot of land that we use for gardens and other things. I’m not initiating physical aggression against anybody and all the capital I’ve accumulated has been derived from contractual agreements. My goal is peace because of the many things in life that I can enjoy when there is peace as opposed to hellish violence.
Did that help?