then if they choose to exercise their freewill in that regard they face unjust consequences .
they control what they do , the state controls what happens to them when they do what they do. political freedom is not the same as metaphysical freedom. Have you figured out away to be a libertarian whilst denying this?
Uh oh. Your lordship has declared I’ve got questions to answer. Well, guess what, I already did. I suggest you try to understand the replies you got.
Oh yes. That’s why I, unlike you, argue for objective common sense morality.
You just made my case. Lack of political freedom, is not a lack of free will. Thank you.
Let’s stay on topic, instead of personalizing the discussion.
Nobody ever said it was. So, what’s the problem ? We can’t write ? Or you can’t read ?
find a quote where i denied the existance of free will. ever. let alone when political unfreedom was in effect…
are you now accepting the distinction between political freedom and metaphysical freedom that you earlier denied? if so then you are making my case.
it wasn’t personalizing. it was being colloquial.
Is it possible to be a libertarian whilst denying the difference between political and metaphysical freedom?
Did I claim you did?
My case has always been about free will. You or others may have conflated it with political freedom and then tried to claim I was conflating.
You never made you case clearly. We never lose our free will. We simply choose not to exercise it. That is why people choose to pay taxes instead of choosing not to pay taxes. The decision is not made for them. It is made by the individual.
You don’t think I am a libertarian anyway, so why play this game?
i never said that. i always thought you were. again i’m not playing a game. i am making an argument. it makes no sense to deny the distinction between political and metaphysical freedom and be a libertarian. since a fundamental point of being a libertarian is in ones opposition to a state of political unfreedom. which if you conflated with metaphysical freedom would not be an issue.
Juan, if you’re going to present yourself as not only knowing what others think, but having an answer for everything, then it seems somewhat disingenuous to now ask what others think, wouldn’t you say?
juan please apologise for appearing to be omniscient
So you think my position is equivalent to moral nihilism, but you think I am a libertarian. Is that a correct understanding of your position?
Is it possible to be a moral nihilist and a libertarian at the same time?
I’ve asked you to explain this political state of unfreedom. I’ve asked Juan to explain this political state of unfreedom. How does one man tax resist, and another does not? If this political state is objective in its effect and purpose, why are people exercising free will differently under it?
I do feel like you’re playing games, although I can’t know your intent. You’re tremendously intelligent, and you surely understand my argument at this point, yet you insist on avoiding the heart of it, and to erect strawmen around it. It’s very frustrating, and I’m done.
well, when i followed you on thread here you always seemed rather vocal about your ethics, and i assumed that you were a moral realist. so i didnt realise when i ‘joke-warned’ kinsella about the libertarian moral nihilists that you felt yourself included by my description.
it is possible to be a moral nihilist and a libertarian (thought its weird). essentially the state that you hate is not wrong, and the statesmen not evil. you simply dont like them. you hate them , but they are not in the wrong. you just dont like them. you also prefer to deal with people without initiating coercion against them, which is cool. im glad you do. but you do this only because you prefer it, like you prefer whatever flavour ice-cream and not because it is proper or the right thing to do. that is how you can be a libertarian moral nihilist. what you cant be is - confused to the point where you cant distinguish political from metaphysical freedom.
they do by virtue of their metaphysical freedom which all people have, regardless of whether they are politically free, or the most captive of slaves.
your question is a non-sequitur . that the political state is objective in its effect and purpose does not mean that all people will act the same way. but it does mean all people under its ambit will have it as a datum, it will figure into their calculus. a libertarian realises that the state has no right to introduce itself as a datum of that kind.
when the state says pay this tax or go to jail. they have no right, to make it the case that if i exercise my free will and abstain from paying they will jail me. (of course they have no right to actually jail me , also). but recognise that they don’t commit a crime only when they do in fact jail me, but when they credibly threaten to jail me . even if i pay them off and they dont jail me.
Strawman. The state IS wrong and evil to the libertarian subjectivist. Again you’re trying to define away our position by defining “wrong” as “non-subjectively wrong”.
thats no more stirring than that the state is ugly to you.
what is special about the word ‘wrong’ when you use it , when you choose it over other words, like ugly, and ‘dont like’. ?
when a moral realist uses it he is telling people , look, recognise ,it is evil. it actually is
when a subjectivist says it, he is just saying ,“its evil to me, and i cant speak about whether its evil to you, or him or anyone else.”
As far as I’m concerned, your ‘socratic’ approach, if that’s what it is, does not work. I think you know what political freedom is, and so do I. If you want to present your case, do so in clear terms, not by asking questions.
Of course, you can use any arguing technique you want and I can refuse to be interrogated by you. But despite that I gave perfectly good answers.
Anyway, while I’m at it, I’ll give you an example of political unfreedom. Say you get a, by definition, illegitimate speeding ticket. You are free to not pay it - free will - but if you really resist, you’ll end up dead. So you are not ‘free’ to keep your property - you are coerced to pay - or else killed.
Hope this helps, though I think that re-stating such obvious facts as the existence of government to a libertarian/anarchist is pointless.
“Criminally wrong” when I use it is different from words like “ugly” and “don’t like” in that, in my heart, the act deemed so is worthy of a violent response. I wouldn’t feel justified in clubbing a hunchback for his ugliness, but I would feel justified in shooting a murderer down for his crime.
Indeed. I can’t speak to whether anything is evil to an Aspberger’s sufferer or a bonobo. Can you? I can however attempt to invoke moral feelings similar to mine in others.
Lilburne, you talk about moral intuitions all the time but never address the objections to moral subjectivism. Your talking about what you ‘feel in your heart’ does not address the point raised by Nir.
Furthermore, you confuse intuitive moral realism (your position, it seems) with a general subjectivism that in practice validates things you don’t ‘like’
Although you might ‘subjectively feel’ differently from people who believe in violence, you don’t have any moral argument against them and so you undermine your own goals - whether you want to or not.
criminals feel justified when they rape steal and murder. clearly they are not. They are not justified , subjectively to me and you, but they are justified, subjectively to themselves and others. now you can say that your position is equivalent functionally to mine, since from both our perspectives they are not in the right. but i can tell them , “you arent in the right end of story”. and you can tell them only that they arent in the right according to your feelings.
i just dont see how listening to your emotions should be a guide as to your personal conduct, to when you should be violent. the choice of when to be violent should be guided by reason. now, ones virtues and emotions can be somewhat trained and aligned with what is rational. its always best when the human is in harmony with itself, with all the oars pulling together.but without a target to aim for (a universal moral ethic), i think its only good fortune that you arent at sea.
for me its perhaps more important to actually be justified than to feel it. though of course, feeling it should come from being it.
Completely heartless (in other words, neurologically aberrant) criminals feel completely justified when doing so. Others don’t feel completely justified but are impelled by their other urges to crime anyway. Clearly they are not justified TO me, you, and the preponderance of humanity with similar psyches.
Regarding the heartless, knock yourself out. What good will it do? Regarding men with at least a shred of conscience, it will be the moral feelings you stir that makes the difference, not the logical proofs you offer.
Reason has its place, but only in judging means and in deriving “ought” from “ought”: what I call “valid casuistry” (as opposed to invalid casuistry: deriving “ought” from “is”).
For example, “Killing toddlers ought never to be done” is a non-rational moral axiom that arises involuntarily from one’s psyche. To most people, it’s just wrong: no ifs, ands, or therefores about it. The role of reason is to derive moral conclusions from that moral given: “Killing toddlers ought never to be done. Truman’s bombs killed toddlers. Therefore, Truman ought not to have dropped his bombs.”
surely the ones that have conscience will be swayed by your language of feelings, whereas the ones that you call heartless will not, and will require a more logical detailing of right and wrong, since the heart is off the agenda for them but they are yet able to reason.