Sigh. I have nothing more to say, Wilderness. I appreciate the debate, but we’re not going anywhere anymore. Think about what I’ve said, I’ll think about what you’ve said, and maybe later we can pick up this discussion again.
For the record, I’m not a nihilist. Disbelieving in natural law does not logically lead to nihilism; there are other (better) ways that ethics and human rights can be established.
For the record I never said you were a nihilist. Nihilism is indecision on behalf of anybody that can’t figure out who is right or wrong logically. It is sympathizing with criminals. Nihilism lacks the awareness and thus judgment and doesn’t decide on behalf of any founding acts of civil society and the free market. I have given you the benefit of the doubt as I don’t think you know what natural law is. You kept me answering your questions and figuring out your puzzles. When I alas ask you to demonstrate your philosophy so I can attempt to see it in the real world, meaning, I am interested in science not impositional theorizing. I would have liked to have read these better ethics but you haven’t stated them. It was a great discussion. I’ve been through discussions with is-ought persona’s many a times and read many of other discussions between other natural law theorists and is-ought representatives. Not once have the is-ought representatives been able to bring their armchair reasoning into the world at play. So I don’t need to think of what you’ve said. Been there, done that. Though the underlying cordial departure is what I take from your post here and I accept and offer mine back to you. peace
It’s good you realized this. It is impossible to seriously and honestly debate ethics without epistemology, and true believers do not recognize any epistemological limits.
I apologize for the condescension of my comrades. Such behavior is not a good representation of the best that LvMI (or this community) has to offer. As someone new around here, you deserve to be treated better when engaging in an honest and well thought out manner.
This was a great discussion and nobody once in this thread except for Liberte acted in a condescending manner, but I think you’re coming down too hard on other people who are trying their best. You’re not being very nice Liberty Student. I hope in the future when you stop by you’re more humble and offer a good thought or two. Stopping by to only cause trouble isn’t in anybody’s best interest and I would hope you would feel the same. peace
I guess it takes very little nowadays to “cause trouble”, such as a different opinion that isn’t necessarily “nice”, but isn’t outright belligerent either. Oh well.
I would like you to understand that when you first came here under this new avatar I agreed with you. And I know you don’t necessarily plead anything, need to justify anything. I don’t think I need to either when it reaches a certain point. Yet wouldn’t it be true that where we part ways is I don’t have Imperial urges beyond my property and you would take other people’s property if you felt like it even if they may have never done anything to you?
Thank you. I understand your desire to keep the forum discussions at a high level of cordiality. Even though the debate on this thread got heated, I did not feel mistreated by anyone, and I am still impressed with the community that you have contributed to cultivating here at mises.org.
Everything is my ‘property’, that is whatever I please is what is ‘proper’. What’s ‘right’ by my aims is ‘right’, and I have no other ‘standard’.
Does that necessarily mean you don’t consider other people? I ask because I feel at a certain level this is how I am, but I have my boundaries on how far I’m willing to take my property. I think a bit of probing of your perspective isn’t terrible as I have those tendencies too but with the mentioned caveats of mine.
Other people are nothing but objects as any other, to be used to achieve my satisfaction in any way that seems suitable. Why would they be any different? Logically, how could they be? Everything is means to ends, that is, my ends. I set no arbitrary boundries on myself, this is tantamount to being the slave of ghosts.
Does ethics exist at all for you?
I believe morality is nonsensical, and is in fact only an internal mental trick combined with signaling. I believe ethics as a sub-branch of Teleology (purposeful action) exists but only for limited cases of logical implication between ends and means whcih are so narrow as to be virtually meaningless.
I don’t update it much anymore (I may start again) but you might want to try reading the archives of my blog Mercenary Scribblings to see some of my views on economics, morality and so forth.
This is basically the philosophy of an infant. One who can’t see that there are set consequences for every course of action; and that one cannot do whatever one wants to do. Good luck to you.
It’s sure taking its sweet f’n time about it.
Reminds me of when the Christian fundies used to say "The fool in his heart says, “There is no god.” like it meant anything.
“I’ve run out of rational arguments, so I’m going to imply, without proving, that you are wrong.” Act like a grown human being, and not an 8 year old.
I didn’t say you were or had to set arbitrary boundaries. The other boundaries are bodies. They would feel the same way you do if you acted this way towards them. I know I do. And that’s pretty much the only level of exchange that would take place between you or anybody else as you’re setting the tone for it to be no other way. The measure of resistance or acceptance is ordinal or case by case. I mean what would it take for you to actually stop when you possibly see no boundaries?
I stop when it no longer suits me to continue. If it pleased me, I’d kill everyone on this planet. If it suited me to avoid bumping into people on the street, I’d do the same. The only thing that is important is my satisfaction and my estimation of the best ways to achieve it. Everything else is strictly subordinate to this, and nothing has any special status outside of this.
How ironic. Everything that comes out of your mouth is pure nonsense. I know you think that repeating that mindless Machiavellian bullshit makes you some kind of enlightened radical, but it only exposes the fact that you know nothing about human action, economics, history, and political philosophy. Saying that you want to extinguish the leftists, that you hate “white people,” and that you’re going to do whatever you want to do is not a philosophical position. Debating you is like debating a spoiled 10 year old.
And you’re entirely incapable of doing this. This means employing logic, understanding constraints, and thinking about consequences.
Then STFU, as I have no interest in your opinions either. You don’t like my song you can press fast-forward. I’ll talk to the people who don’t seem to share your penetrating analysis.
Go ahead, throw a tantrum.
Lol, you can’t stop.