In what ways do human beings differ so much from each other? To say that there is no such thing as human nature because of individual differences is a pretty big claim.
In what ways do human beings differ so much from each other? To say that there is no such thing as human nature because of individual differences is a pretty big claim.
Because ‘mankind’ is NOTHING but a mental classification that refers to distinct teleological entities, as I have said. There is no such thing as ‘humans’ except in the most general biological sense. It makes no more sense to collectivize their ‘nature’ than it does to collectivize the nature of Canadians. And what will lead to satisfaction in an individuals case is an empirical question that no one but he can answer. One is logically barred from ‘criticizing’ and existing relations between means and satisfaction, it’s like criticizing rocks for being so heavy.
I agree with you to some degree; flourishing is highly individualized. However, I would still argue that there is an objective (but agent-relative) natural end that can be generally described. There is both universal and indivdual elements of flourishing, and the universal elements can be known by anyone.
What of ‘flourishing’? What grounds does one have to claim this for supremacy? There is nothing teleologically invalid about satisfaction from self-mutilation or suicide. ‘Flourishing’ is no more intrinsically valuable, nor ultimate, than tooth paste or the color blue.
How exactly do you arrive at the conclusion that there is no such thing as human nature? Not even a Lockean or Randian view of concept-formation will get you that far, unless your concepts are utterly disconnected from the real world. Demonstrate that there are not sufficient similarities for there to be a human nature to speak of, or any nature for that matter, and we’ll talk. If there is no “human nature” to speak of, realize there is no praxeology to speak of. Unless you admit one can arrive at sufficiently general features of human nature, in this case human action, to construct the praxeological apparatus. If you deny these general features to morality but grant them to praxeology you’re doing nothing but engaging in special pleading. Or do differences within a species now invalidate the concept? Sounds like postmodernist nonsense or an overblown view of what human nature entails. I guess only collectivists engage in theorizing about creatures who hold and aim at satisfying preferences…
Because ‘human’ refers to nothing that exists in nature, its for cognitive and communicational convenience that we refer to the species ‘human’. I do not know how well people understand what a species classification is, or just what biological individuality means, but we are all totally distinct life forms. And even if we all did have certain things in common, there isn’t even necessarily so - or ‘objectively good’ - about that. Human nature is circular reasoning, you define out everything you don’t want in it. It’s a myopic mideavil view about logic, cognition and value as being something ‘uniquely human’ or being defined by ‘human thought’. Teleology is logically prior to discussing human teleology. And, as I have said, ‘human’ really doesn’t mean anything relevant to the logical question, especially considering the obvious variances is actual highest values (survival, independence, happiness, wealth) that deliver satisfaction.
I’m frankly tired of this because it’s all magical nonsense, none of you people even agree with eachother, it’s just like religious sects. Ethical justifications are the religious trappings of moral superstitions.
Yes, “humans” are “magical nonsense” too now. Give me a break, why don’t you? Unless you can prove that individual uniqueness of members of a species invalidates the concept. Can you? BTW, the correct answer would’ve been that praxeology engages in non-precisive abstraction, i.e. it omits elements it does not need and that are irrelevant to it for carrying out its analyses. To say of what it does use and of what it does not use that it does not belong to some thing with some nature or other is plainly ridiculous - the praxeologist merely abstracts as much as is necessary for yielding the knowledge they seek, which will definitely involve leaving out unnecessary elements (for their purposes) of human nature. Ethics can draw on precisely the same kind of abstraction (you should realize your “amoralist” arguments cut both ways.) And as for teleology, it is a non-concept without a thing with a nature such that it has aims. If you dislike the term “nature”, find something else that suits your tastes better (it need not even be restricted to humans as opposed all [partially] rational beings.) Of course, disagreement implies the falsity of the discipline studying that over which the disagreement takes place. What utter rubbish. Gee, I guess there goes economics as a science too. Or anything with less apodicticity than mathematics - oh wait is there disagreement there too? Must be a matter of religious sects…
Or perhaps it’s a matter of inquiry until hitting the right answer (wealth is instrumental, and the satisfaction of preferences/happiness absent life is impossible - the question then turns to whether just any life is worth pursuing, and what best secures the pursuit of a diversity of lifestyles), whether in a teleological theory or a negative demonstration like Hoppe’s, or some mixture thereof. If anything religion merely latched onto prior philosophical debates and for centuries monopolized discussion on the topics, including in the area of morality. Hence the “religious” trappings. And then you get individuals arguing that to have well-founded knowledge (let alone morality) at all one must be a theist (usually to press you into accepting their religion.) Cute ploy, but perhaps I’ll just reject their amoralist/skeptical arguments as ill-founded rather than accepting either horn of their dilemma (belief in god or skepticism/nihilism.)
Worry not if you tire of it, I’m taking a break from the forum for a brief while. I’m sure someone else here will bother you with their silly belief in morals though. Pesky fools. For my part, I’ve seen no argument demonstrating the impossibility of morality.
I have given you an argument, I can not provide you with understanding.