Yes I have read EOL. What suggested otherwise?
It’s proven in there? Then why not simply source and quote it. My original post was in reference to the “proof” in EOL, which as the thread shows is not exactly accepted and is heavily debated.
My problem with Gordons quote is it does not help me at all. All it says is in essence is, Rotbhard was right, without actually proving it.
How are they not? Is it not a fact, that if no-one owns anybody, either himself or anyone, nor any share of anybody, and that since ownership signifies range of control, that no one would thus be able to do anything, and the human race would quickly vanish?
From the footnote from the precise paragraph in question;
[1] Professor George Mavrodes, of the department of philosophy of the , objects that there is another logical alternative: namely, “that no one owns anybody, either himself or anyone else, nor any share of anybody.” However, since ownership signifies range of control, this would mean that no one would be able to do anything, and the human race would quickly vanish.
What errors?
Does a man have a right to full control over his body? Or does a man not have a right to full control over his body?
Equivocating between two different definitions of ownership. The one you are currently referring to, range of control, is not ownership in the propertarian sense. So yes, without “self-ownership” in the sense of self-determination or control, action would be impossible and the human race would vanish. Of course, this is completely unrelated to ownership in the context of property, which has to do with legally and/or morally exclusive use. The former cannot accomplish what Rothbard wishes, so he proves the necessity of the former and then proceeds to use the latter definition, with all its normative baggage, to construct his philosophy.
nigraham, I will pick up where we left off tomorrow morning, as I just got home from work and it is 3 am. Looking forward to it.
Juan, add something substantial and keep your dogmatism to yourself. You will never change your mind because your precious “moral facts” are not falsifiable, like every other superstition.
In my opinion Rothbard is awesome on the content, history and practical implications of libertarianism, but his justifications for it where he sets it up as the correct theory lacks the necessary ooooomph. Thats why I favour Argumentation Ethics, i consider it the cutting edge of justifying the Libertarian Ethic (or basically ethics in general).
Consider this:
Rothbard published ethics of liberty in 1982
Hoppe published articles relating to argumentation ethics from 1988 onwards
Hoppephobia by Murray N. Rothbard (March 1990), pp. 11–12.
“Perhaps the answer is Hoppe’s logical and deductive mode of thought and writing, demonstrating the truth of his propositions and showing that those who differ are often trapped in self-contradiction and self-refutation.”
In the good old days, this was a common style in philosophy, employed by Kantians, Thomists, Misesians, and Randians alike. In the modern age, however, this method of thought and writing has gone severely out of fashion in philosophy, where truth is almost never arrived at – and certainly never argued for in a deductive fashion. The modern mode is utilitarian, positivist, tangential, puzzle-oriented, and pseudo-empiricist. As a result, modern positivist types have gone flabby and complacent, and reading hard-core deductivists – to say nothing of hard-core libertarians! – hits these people with the force of a blow to the gut.
Well, shape up, guys! In argument as in politics, those who can’t stand deductivist heat should get out of the philosophic or economic kitchen.
Please read Feser on Rothbard for a potent refutation.
Please read Casey on Feser for a potent refutation.
Zefreak, I suspect you are a materialist/positivist who believe that there’s no difference between his fridge, a car, and human beings. I suggest you discuss ‘philosophy’ with your fridge.
Did I mention that if you were consistent you’d apply the same materialistic skepticism to your own unfounded assertions ? Of course that would shut you up, but that won’t happen because you are too hypocritical to consistently follow your own ‘principles.’
You can’t prove the validity of your amoral trash - too bad.
So which is it, does “ownership” dignify range of control or right of ownership? You can’t have it both ways.
Again: does “ownership” dignify range of control or right of ownership? Choose one!
Hoppephobia by Murray N. Rothbard (March 1990), pp. 11–12.
“Perhaps the answer is Hoppe’s logical and deductive mode of thought and writing, demonstrating the truth of his propositions and showing that those who differ are often trapped in self-contradiction and self-refutation.”
Valid logical arguments are welcome. Simple equivocation isn’t.
i have no idea what you are talking about.
Ownership signifies who ought to control something, and not who actually controls it; otherwise theives would own everything they stole until they are caught and forced to return it.
We recognise right from wrong by comparing how we think the world actually is to how it would be if oughts and ought nots were adhered to. It is wrong for the thief to have control of something, because in that imaginary world in which nobody does what they ough not to, he doesn’t have control of it. In this comparision of the world as we think it is, and the imaginary world as we think it ought to be, that we find the drive to act to bring the former into closer accordance with the latter. This is why you can’t derive oughts from ises. When it seems as though you can derive oughts from ises, you must be equivocating “ought” and “is”.
Ought-statements are not about the physical world as it is, but about a hypothetical world of proper moral conduct.
Juan, tone it down.
actually, “you ought not to initiate violence against me” is a fact about this world.
the oughts are not ‘derived’ they are necessary; they are givens. they can’t be rationally argued against.
I suggest you keep your threats or ‘suggestions’ to yourself.
Yes, and the branch of philosophy that deals with the physical world as it is is physics, not political/moral philosophy. So people who reject moral facts because they are not physical are either confused or engaging in sophistry.
nirgrahamUK,
The statment, “you ought not to initiate violence against me” is true relative to some system of rules prescribing moral conduct. For a different system of rules, it may not be true. In any case, since people can choose to behave contrary to an ought-statement, saying that some prescriptive statement is a “given” seems rather hollow. We are still left with the question of whether we want to satisfy the conduct prescribed by that “given” rather than an alternative.
Not even infinite descriptive statements entail a single prescriptive statement – this is basic logic. What we can have is a descriptive statement about a prescriptive statement, for example, “for moral philosophy M, the statement ‘you ought not to initiate violence against me’ is true.”
I suggest you find something else to do with the next 24 hours besides trying to antagonize and belittle people who dare to have a view on meta-ethics different from yours.
Temporary ban.
Juan please maintain your composure. I would like to ask the others to refrain from name calling and insults as well.
This thread was meant to encourage civilized debate in order to provide an answer to my question. By name calling, and displaying aggressiveness you (plural) are not helping, furthermore, you (plural) are doing a disservice to the reputation of this forum.
its also absolutely true. refute it. go on. dont say ‘it may be refuted’ it can’t be. the attempt to do so leads to performative contradiction.
ok, recognizing ethical truth is now ‘hollow’ given that we are metaphysically free. sorry, i disagree with that perspective. to me its the opposite of hollow, its a pillar of libertarianism.
yes, each person is indeed left with the choice of doing only what does not interfere with another’s libertarian freedom, or doing wrong.
if that is valid then I can substitute. for "moral philosophy M’ with “true reality R”.
nirgrahamUK,
A true statement is descriptive, and it is true if, and only if, it corresponds to the facts. So the statement “Kit is a black car” describes a black car, and it is true if, and only if, Kit is a black car.
A non-tautological statement that is not contradicted by any descriptive statement also cannot be deduced from any descriptive statement, because every logical implication of truth must also imply a falsehood, i.e. its negation.
Since “you ought not to initiate violence against me” is a non-tautological statement, and it cannot be contradicted by any descriptive statement, it follows that the statement “you ought not to initiate violence against me” cannot be deduced from any description or state-of-affairs.
Since all true statements are descriptive statements, this means that “you ought not to initiate violence against me” cannot be a true statement, i.e. it is not a description of anything, but a imperative or command to some action.