Not really more subtle. I’d bet one cent he wasn’t taking you very seriously. If he was, then he’s just as confused as you (I doubt he is, tho)
Yeah well. Great unbacked assertion.
I don’t think it’s any more complicated than that.
The Rev
If you’d any of the 3 different threads where I discuss it, you’ll see it wasn’t ‘unbacked’ at all. ‘Value’ is inseperable from a specific valuer, imperatives are inseperable from their propensity to motivate someone with a specific propensity of valuation to act. Saying, “That is evil,” is, logically, nonsense. There is only ‘good’ to you, ‘bad’ to you. Morality is a delusion, a category error as Kant might say.
Boring. Your actions and thoughts rely on the concept of property that you deny. Listening to a talking/thinking machine that fails at basic reasoning is boring.
We are all self-interested seeking bengs with “morality” wetware. It is just that libertarian thinks anarchism is far more favorable than statism.
Now, do you favor anarchism over statism?
Do not be so quick to conclude that all humans have a ‘moral sense’, nor that - even if they did - that they ‘must’ pay any mind to it.
Now, do you favor anarchism over statism?
Depends on the anarchy and state in question.
No, it really doesn’t. Think you could answer the question with something more definitive, or are you content to gyre and gimble in the wabe?
So only things in your purview are relevant to you. What about those things which are NOT currently within your control, but would benefit you if they were? Or perhaps benefit someone you wished to see benefited.
Regarding politics and economics specifically, seems you dismiss the possibility that your ideas ever could matter one iota (i.e. exert influence, be of relevance).
Don’t waddle around. Anarnchism and statism have specific connotation and definition in this forum.
Even with your reasoning, you’re still an irrational being. Surely you must felt something about the golden rule or “thou shall not murder?”.
I’d generally prefer if people didn’t believe in magic, government or any other moralistic, ideological nonsense. I would probably prefer a stateless propertarianism, for a variety of reasons. But even so, I would not respect it’s ‘right’ - only its power, and its usefulness to me.
Regarding politics and economics specifically, seems you dismiss the possibility that your ideas ever could matter one iota
Not really, I just think the chances of me actually affecting certain institutions in a way useful to me is minimal. I have better things to do.
Surely you must felt something about the golden rule or “thou shall not murder?”
I have no ‘moral’ sense, no guilt, no indignation, no righteousness.
Oh well… since you can’t do anything about morals, your problem is “kind of irrelevant” isn’t it? So I guess you have no problem, but you say you do. That’s a contradiction and thus irrational.
Ok. Your perspective, so, don’t contradict yourself.
Property ? What the hell is that ?
Oh well… since you can’t do anything about morals, your problem is “kind of irrelevant” isn’t it?
You’re making false assumptions about my motivations. I hardly care whether I convince anyone - I feel like expressing my thought, and what you do with it is your affair; whether or not you like or agree with it is your problem, and not mine.
Well, “‘good’ to you, ‘bad’ to you” is a moral statement. What is moral? Is the same as asking: What is good? And since you take note that there is “…only ‘good’ to you…etc…” you discussing morals. But robots have an on/off switch and therefore can usually discuss what they want and what they don’t want. So I’m not really seeing what you mean as of yet. I have an inclination, but I thought it was decent, but then it seemed like a battle, but then not… seein’ where this goes.
Sweet. Nice work.
Your assumption is uninteresting because you deny an entire proposition called morality and ethic. It also mean that you’re clinically insane.
If you have no qualm about killing babies when it suits you, I am pretty sure it will suit you being a dictator for life.
Judging by your photo, you’re a hot chick, but I wouldn’t hang out with you.
Well, “‘good’ to you, ‘bad’ to you” is a moral statement. What is moral? Is the same as asking: What is good? And since you take note that there is “…only ‘good’ to you…etc…” you discussing morals
That’s argument by definition. And no, when people talk about morality what they mean is ‘what interpersonal standards of judgement should/do obtain’. Interpersonal standards of judgement, however, are intrinsic to a specific individual and do not even make sense to talk about as being ‘extrapersonally’ correct.
I am NOT identifying ‘good for oneself’ as a normative value - only as an ontological fact. I am not saying one ‘should’ do anything, only that whatever one does one ‘does it’ for oneself. A definition of morality which rules out good/evil, right/wrong and reason/passion as standards for behaviour - in fact, rules out all standards - is hardly a useful definition of the word.
It also mean that you’re clinically insane.
Says the believer in ghosts.
You claim to not have a single quota of guiltness, morality, irationallity, etc by which everybody else identify as their feeling.
If that is true, than you shall have no feeling about shooting somebody close to you, whether that is your boyfriend, or father if it personally benefit you to do so.
lols
Well, I guess if the definition argues you so be it. And no, when I talk about morality I’m talking about answering the question: What is good? I’m not necessarily talking about “what interpersonal standards of judgement should/do obtain”… that’s a social pattern. What is good intellectually is more moral, as I noted to you earlier for nationalism or social traditions to defy the intellect is not good. It’s society gone irrational in my perspective. What is dynamic and undefined is even better at times than what is intellectually good. So I think we cross paths here on similar thoughts.
I think “good” is an ontological fact, a metaphysical fact.
Now that’s dynamic! I like it! Freedom in the dynamic sense isn’t defined at all. The dynamic good “rules out all standards”… I agree.
And the part about I might be making “false assumptions”… I might be, but I’m trying to follow your logic and intellectually harmonize mine with yours to get some kind of understanding out of this intellectual discussion. So I’m going along wandering…