wonderful, but what does that have to do with what I said - nothing.
but your definition of autonomy was
or was that just fluff? tell me about ‘mental autonomy’ what is it, and what is its negation?
Try to arrive at natural rights without making the illicit jump from is to ought. Try it.
Ah so you are a Hobbesian. Wonderful. I assert the right to kill you therefore I can. What a world.
So you postulate that they are only rights if people consent to them? So then how could the state rightfully kill me? I mean I am sane and don’t have a death wish yet you previously stated that just by assertion the state can rightfully kill me. Uh oh…seems like we have a flaw here.
Utilitarianism is a moral philosophy. Regardless of all the failings of utilitarianism, this ‘common good’ you speak of contains normative value statements concerning what is good human behavior. So if you have law pertaining to the incentivisation of human behavior towards the ‘common good’ then you have law based on morality. If you don’t have law based on that then I ask what it actually is based on and why bring up the ‘common good.’
So we are all conning each other! What a wonderful confidence game. We don’t really rightfully own anything, we just live under the false delusion we do. Come on Lewis Carroll, take us further down the rabbit hole into a world of nonsense and nihilism.
You’re not being special. I know exactly what you are talking about so don’t play childish games. Let me know when you want to actually stand on intellectual footing and we’ll chat. Meanwhile you’re linking wild goose chases that again, have nothing to do with what I originally addressed. Thanks for the trip down red herring road.
‘We all have values, [ The Is ] so why not coordinate our values voluntarily to promote a common good. [The Ought ]’
Have you read Kant? Are you familiar with his theory of autonomy? We all have the capacity to act stupidly. Kant divides us into our autonomous selfs, which act on reason, and our non-autonomous selfs, which act on base desires, stupidity, emotions, etc.
We all have the capacity to act in either way. But if we all stopped acting on our non-autonomous desires, we would be happier. Instead of getting angry and being self destructive, I’d save for tomorrow, I’d exercise, I’d employ reason to meet my long term desires.
Try to wiggle out of my original ‘let you know’ post that ‘natural’ semantically means intellect. I guess you deny intellect if you deny natural law. It’s definitional and all this other sandbox scribbling is fun and games. I suggest quit side-tracking what I brought up.
I am aware that there is something in the format of debates that are in an adversarial ‘format’ that can skew the perspectives of those involved such as to encourage them to view each other as ‘adversaries’ in a stronger sense of that word. I just want to interject with a reality check (that is hopefully not needed) that everyone here understands that at least for all of us that profess to be libertarian we can at least admire that in the other.
please ignore if not relevant. please, don’t feel the need to post whether this notice is relevant. etc. etc. thank you. keep on.
If you read back further, I also said that a thirsty man should drink something. that is an ought statement. What I did there, you may say, was to take an “is” (thirsty) and derive and “ought” (to drink). I can do that as long as I am only asserting the rationality of something and not endorsing the desire that serves as the rule.
by this definition, the non-autonomous, are stupid. or at least act stupidly. hence your aim is to prove that jim jones followers are stupid, or at least, acted stupidly. . how will you do this?
You said you deny that ought can be derived from is. One of these statements is wrong. Either you can derive an ought from an is or you can’t. Which is it?
I would also ask why it is rational to drink water if one is thirsty?
Whose theory of natural rights are you working with?
If you could place the argument in syllogistic form, I’d be much obliged.
When did I even bring that up? Again. Stick with my initial post on this discussion you and I are having. If you can’t figure out the definition of ‘natural’ in the tradition I am speaking of, then you’ll simply be all over the place strawmanning, throwing out red herrings, etc… And that isn’t fun. So let’s stay on topic and we can get to the big stuff later if you want, but I may not have the time seeing it’s taking this long to address one words definition.
lol. You want me to provide you a definition of a concept in a syllogism? Yes. You’re off-topic.
Is the statement “2+2=4” a true statement? No, it isn’t. It’s a correct statement. It’s not a true statement. The rules of mathematics make it correct. Only objective reality could make it true, and since it does not reference objective reality, it is not a truth=apt statement.
Keep that in mind.
Now:
P. All humans want to pursue their own ends in life.
P. All humans need freedom to pursue their own ends.
C. Therefore all humans should be free.
All you’ve done is to create a rule, and then made a correct statement. Like the man dying of thirst, his implicit desire to survive creates the rule which then renders the conclusion that he should drink correct, not true. The confusion occurs when the truth of his thirst, which is an objecitve fact, is confused with moral truth. Moral truth, including natural rights, does not exist. We desire freedom, but whether that desire is morally right or not, we cannot know.
No, I want you to provide an argument for natural rights in a syllogism. Two premises and a conclusion would suffice.
doesn’t it reference reality by the fact that reality has countable things in it? and this is a statement about countable things?
So then you now agree that ‘natural’ means intellect. It would have been nice if you were explicit about conceding this point instead of throwing out links and doing the run around for a handful of posts but I can’t expect ‘nice’ things to happen I guess.
As to you’re syllogism. Thanks for affirming life, you know Hoppe don’t know? Also, I don’t need to provide a syllogism when property is axiomatic and any conflicts with scarcity will be haggled over with people that hold high regard for ‘autonomy’, ie. reason. And they won’t be haggled over by people who don’t hold reason to such high esteem and would rather pillage and plunder. I mean I used to play cops and robbers when I was a kid. It’s easily realized that there are two sides to such conflicts. Now who is right? Logically the cops have the upper hand, but the robbers will special plead.
If it did reference reality, it would be truth-apt. If I said, two apples and two apples equals four apples, then it would be true. But simple math is not truth-apt.The concept I was alluding to there was the rule-referential nature of is-ought statements. They create a rule, and then become correct by referencing the rule.
And that doesn’t answer the question of whether the rule they created in the first place was the right rule, or had any authority.
In the case of the man dying of thirst, we say he ought to be given water because that is correct, based on the implicit rule that he wants to survive. But is it right for him to survive? We took that for granted.