so much for not imposing your values on others…lol
And yet I feel that you’re a snob Lilburne who always thinks he’s right and everybody else in the world is wrong. But of course what’s that have to do with anything - na-da, except a way to bash me more. So much for you’re high-road ideology Lilburne.
LS,
You’re whole ideology is built around evade. Because it’s all subjective right? So don’t blame Juan for something you do. Practice what you preach.
See, this is where I knew it was headed.
I don’t believe it is. And I’m not sure you can make that case. Can you?
Let’s say ethics is a science. Is all science ethics? If not, then what is the difference?
dude. you started it by saying I was mocking you - when I wasn’t. You simply made it up. Why? so much for you trying to be positive. Here’s a suggestion. When you are trying to be positive with somebody. Don’t be negative towards them.
I’m not going to discuss this with you because you are already have pre-conceived notions. You said you don’t believe it is. And in the subjectivist world that’s like saying it’s written in stone. I’m not wasting my time. I’ll give you a hint and then go from there yourself. I’m not your guru especially in the current context. hint: property rights and scarcity.
It is not clear how one can make the distinction between the objective view and the subjective view.
By “seek to maximize utility” I’m sure you are referring to self-interest. We know that if man does not “seek to maximize utility” he is no longer a human being. If he is deprived of “seeking his maximum utility”, he cannot survive on his own behalf. We know all this by applying objective reasoning and not subjective reasoning. Therefore, doesn’t this imply that the goals of libertarianism are in fact grounded on objectivity and not subjectivity?
This is the exactly what you accuse me of, evasion. And yet I do not back down from proofing my claims, I only back away when the discussion is no longer about ideas and instead about hurt feelings.
You made a claim about ethics being a science. I laid out a logical train of inquiry for that. It should be simple for you to answer if you truly believe what you claimed. What I believe is irrelevant in this context, because you only have to satisfy logic, not me. Will you substantiate your claim about ethics being a science? And if not, does this mean you cannot?
As far as wasting your time, I assure you, you like me, enjoy wasting time in these debates which is why we are doing it. I think we’d both like to not waste time in these debates, but you may agree with me, that is easier said than done.
So. Ethics as science. Let’s have at it shall we?
[linky-link]False Claims -|- Exposed[/linky-link]
LOL. Now LS’ evasions when dealing with me have been promoted to signature-level! That’s something.
Funny how you never answered my questions yet you fancy you ‘exposed’ some ‘false claims’.
So that’s how it works, subjectivists can claim X is not true, but when pushed hard enough they just whine that everything is subjective. No point in wasting time with them.
I never concluded that Rothbardian Anarchism could be even Post-Oist (as I am an Post-Oist myself) for one critical reason: Post-Objectivists like myself (including David Kelley) do not see philosophy as a closed system. That premise is key to why a Post-Objectivist cannot be said to be rooted in any form of absolutism whether it’s pure Randite/Rothbardian political theory or any other absolutist theory of rights and politics.
Hot diggy dog!! Somebody else in this forum actually thinks the way I do about this!!! praise jesus.
No I didn’t. I said, “we’re cool”. I woke up this morning and the next post you respond to me is ‘see this is why I can’t talk with you’. Ok. So I go to sleep last night thinking “we’re cool”, and wake up with you telling me that you think I’m mocking you. I never said you are evading until you posted that response to Juan. So don’t throw up these red herrings detracting from your negativity.
And yet I said, “we’re cool” and you think that means I’m hurting your feelings. See what the hell is your problem?
First off, science means knowledge. So it’s not about logic. It’s epistemolgy. That is the meaning of the word epistem(ology: study of).
I don’t know what there is to get. Episteme means knowledge. Science is another word for knowledge. This is semantics that dates back to at least Aristotle. Property rights are about scarcity. Do the economics on what is logically flawed when it comes to economics and without that basis in recogition of property rights there is no economy. I already gave you a hint. If you can’t search the Mises Institute on learning what property is or economics then I don’t know what to say. I tire of your game.
good day.
That’s so wrong he has a signature of that now. Where’s his moderator respectability. I mean it is all subjective right?
Maybe I should take it as a compliments of sorts =P I’m important enough to be part of LS’ signature =]
Somebody else that GETS IT. Thanks ladyattis.
no. i think it’s really pathetic that somebody did that. i remember hashem had a signature about moderators not following the rules of the forum and he was banned, I believe for having such a signature, but I do know. I do know so many people got on him for that. but it is all subjective. subjectivists are tryannts. cause they don’t even pretend to base their absolutness on ‘the public good’ or some kind of reason. They get a stamp from some god-like belief system that declares what’s law. It’s like the Pope during the Inquistion. He said it was God’s will and gave time off purgatory to anybody that would fight in his army. And if they died fighting for him, he said they would reach instant salvation.
Wilderness, here are the questions I asked which you have avoided.
Is all science ethics? If not, what is the difference between science that is ethics, and science that is not ethics?
wow. i already answered your question twice now. are you smokin’ pot or what? <----- and that’s a serious question.
Perhaps I am misusing the term, but I see Rothbard as a post-Objectivist. Someone who breaks out of the closed system of “What Rand said” but still employs the absolutism of objective ethicism.
That’s interesting, because if I read that right, you’re closer to a subjective ethicist (as I explain it up thread) than the objective ethicists with their appeal to absolute ethics (ethical science). Is that correct?