I do not understand how simply stating “it’s all subjective” in a sarcastic tone amounts to an argument (I think this has been brought up before, I haven’t been online enough to remember…).
Could you elaborate on this?
FYI, this thread is getting a bit tangential with the discussion of science as ethics. If no one else minds / does, I might split it off at the appropriate posts so the previous debate on the OP doesn’t get buried by other arguments.
I don’t smoke pot. I didn’t see your answer to that question. I’ll go back and look.
Nope, don’t see an answer to these two questions.
One, if ethics is science, is all science ethics?
Two, if not, what is the difference between science which is not ethics, and science which is ethics?
You should. I am placing it there (links to our own words, nothing controversial in my mind) over many other phrases and signature content. Those two links have the highest possible value in my signature.
You might want to lock it first. It is a nightmare splitting a thread when people are still posting to it.
From what I’ve read on Post-Oist (a good abbreviation, btw, LA), this was more or less my understanding: that it is a generally more open interpretation of objectivism (“truth is objective, but it moves”, “q is prior to and may outlast a”, being the premises that come to mind) that sought to avoid absolutism associated with Objectivism.
Admittedly, however, there doesn’t seem to be much developed on Post-Oist beyond maybe a few youtube videos & what seems to be one of the initial appearances of it on the web here, so I wouldn’t be surprised if I were missing something.
At this point, it’s hard to tell, since the tangential arguments do have some slight bearing on the OP (so far). If another page goes on without reference to the OP, it will be mandatory to lock, split, un-lock, etc.
Well, for what it is worth, I don’t have anything left to add. Although I am interested to know more about ladyattis’ perspective.
I’m not being sarcastic. I mean it’s not “all is objective” right? It’s all subjective to subjectivists.
One: there’s biology
Two: one is about resolving potential conflict issues of scarcity and the other is called the study of life.
“The natural-rights proponents argued that respect for the inviolability of other people’s rights is a sine qua non of anarchism. Even if the egoist respects anarchist boundaries in practice ’ something of which the natural-rightsers felt none too confident ’ she must nonetheless reserve in principle an entitlement to impose her will on others should she judge doing so to be in her own interest. Hence the egoist must regard others’ freedom as a revocable gift from herself to them, rather than an inherent right; but this is to take the attitude of a ruler to her subjects, not of an anarchist to her peers. The consistent anarchist, the natural-rightsers argued, must reject egoism in favour of a universal and binding moral law.”
yeah. it made me upset. i don’t hide that fact. I went to bed saying, “we’re cool” and woke up with him saying I’m mocking him. So I do ask, 'What the hell happened? really what the hell?
lol… always thinking you know something when you don’t. cause you don’t know me. and that’s a fact.
good quote Juan. That’s really the heart of subjectivists. They pretend they are above the fray, some kind of uncorrupted diety letting others be saved by their grace. please[:P]
“A non-acting thing is not a man” and “If a man’s actions are circumscribed enough, he cannot survive” are objective statements of fact.
“All men SHOULD not be circumscribed so that they may survive on their own” is a subjective statement of value.
I’ve responded to this in a new thread: The Ancient Chimera of Universal, Absolute, Objective Value.
i don’t appreciate you associating my quote with your argument in the other thread, so, take out my quote in the other thread. It’s a strawman and currently intellectually dishonest. I await your timely removal.
I’m a moral realist, but being objective/real doesn’t mean it’s (ethics) a static quasi-positivist science to be turned over to dry as bones syllogism. For example, Rand noted emotions seem to be tied to how something is good/evil for a person, such a reference to emotion (perhaps as emotivism) means ethics being a science is a logical impossibility as emotions in this case are rooted in a pre-cognitive function which we as a species inherited from ancestor species (and so forth), outside of the realm of human choice and quite literally outside of the realm of the exacting nature of a purely deductive science.
right. and you know this ladyattis. meaning it’s a science, ie. episteme, that recognizes that to be human isn’t about being strictly an exclusive animal of reason. humans have hearts and feel. that is within the science of human nature, meaning, to know what a human is. well said.
I hold an original definition of science which simply means knowledge. Thus why I said you know (episteme, science) this. I had defined science this way already in this thread.
good day
OK, that makes good sense to me. Thanks.