Yeah life’s is so… so… sniff, sniff… tough when liberty is at stake. [:'(]
But of course you don’t give carrot stick’s you only know the gun.
I would suggest you reconsider reading some books on ancap. As another poster suggested, David Friedman’s The Machinery of Freedom is a pretty good one to start with. I agree with you on morality, but Friedman gives a purely consequentialist argument for ancap.
Look at my signature and state what’s wrong (if you can contradict yourself) about morality.
Bob walks into Pobork’s house and steals twelve ounces of gold; he doesn’t get caught and lives a more satisfying life because of his increased wealth. In this case, stealing contributed to the life and flourishing of a living entity-- so it should be considered good.
To deny morality is to deny human nature. Human morality is an evolved trait. We can argue about what comprises it, but it exists. Morality is a hot topic in evolutionary psychology, as well as harder sciences such as neuroscience. A psychopath may be a person whose disorder that most likely affects the moral faculty in the brain. It is wrong to think that morality is all subjective. It is clearly not.
I would call it mob rule.
Well, you are definitely not in the minority for that concern!
First of all, why does a state really need a standing military? It is pretty easy to call up people to fight, if they are really needed. Second of all, if people are free to trade with everyone, there probably will not be any reason for another country to attack us. However, if you believe people are inherently evil, then you probably believe that it would be pretty easy for a leader to convince a nation to attack another peaceful people. If so, it will probably be pretty hard to convince you that a standing military is not needed.
Impressive.
You are pretty much correct. All morality is subjective. But I think the idea of theft is pretty much universal and easily understood and agreed upon that stealing from another is wrong.
As to deciding who has the best claim to ownership, well that is why humans need neutral courts, to resolve disputes.
No it is not. Morality is subjective. Do you think killing someone is always wrong? Or do you think all murder should carry the same sentence? Do you think it is always wrong to steal from someone? Do you think it is always immoral to lie? Or when a cop asks you for your information, should you tell the cop the truth?
That does not take into account what is not seen - Pobork’s loss. His life would be less satisfying.
Good luck measuring the amount of satisfaction and doing the arithmetic necessary to determine whether or not Bob’s gained satisfaction outweighs Pobork’s lost satisfaction. Wait, by what metric do you even measure satisfaction? Hint: you don’t. it’s impossible. You’re talking about moral nihilism
And then Pobork walks into Bob’s house and blows his brains all over the walls.
It is not about morality, it is about mortality and dispute resolution.
And it was bad for Pobork. A clear understanding of justice would help you with this but since you don’t believe in justice, liberty, and having any moral clarity you prove my point that individuals, such as yourself, that lack moral clarity would have a difficult time not praising Hitler and Stalin.
Many humans clearly believe that morality is a coherent concept; the fact of people believing in morality and the logical coherence of a particular moral code are two distinct ideas. I agree that belief in morality is an evolved trait, though it is not so clear exactly how this trait evolved. Clearly the genetic evolution of homo sapiens has lead to a sentient species that has a tendency to believe in morality, but it is not so obviously a biological necessity to believe in morality as there are exceptions. You could say the same about other things like religion. The fact that in the past, belief in religion was nearly if not more prevalent than belief in morality is today does not necessitate that religion is an absolute necessity or that religious beliefs, whether pagan, Muslim, Christian etc. are true. The fact that just as religions differ, so do moral codes, indicates that actually existing moral codes have some element of subjectivity.
It would be silly to argue that belief in morality or religion does not exist-- but not to argue that the claims of moralists and theologians are false.
Also, I’m not trying to steer this into a debate about religion, just using it as an analogy.
^ this. Let’s be as civil as possible, shall we?
Is it a killing of murder? Who initiated the coerciveness?
Defining the sentence is not questioning the morality of murder or not. That’s why it’s called murder - it’s wrong.
Yes… it can help somebody survive as this is the typical counter argument, but whomever was stolen from isn’t to be blamed because of the fault of the thief and their incompetence of understanding nature.
I don’t know. This has nothing to do with the morality of natural rights. But lying is a vice.
lol… Why should you have to? A cop isn’t more moral because he’s a cop. Individuals v. individuals. You’re going to use a statist argument to try to counter a natural right argument…lol
Pobork’s loss may be taken into account-- it just shouldn’t necessitate that Bob sacrifice his own happiness.
Yep, that’s what I’m talking about. There’s no reason why Bob should do any estimation of Pobork’s lost satisfaction unless he believes it would be to his advantage to do so; and even if he did think it was advantageous to make such an estimation, he wouldn’t necessarily have to sacrifice his own estimated satisfaction for the sake of his estimation of Porbork’s. That is the basic idea of (some forms of) moral nihilism, that there is no imperative to consider anyone’s satisfaction but your own, unless their satisfaction relates to yours of course. See, all forms of morality necessitate that the individual consider something other than his own satisfaction
All conjecture with absolutely no facts about what my signature states. Thus the faults of moral nihilists. No practical wisdom to understand what should or shouldn’t be done when we act and we act - we do act - but moral nihilists therefore don’t know how to act. Moral nihilists and their slippery slope to admiring blood dripping from a knife. Majevska, yesterday it was ok for you to kick over a thing somebody’s yard, today you’re saying it’s ok for somebody to steal from another. Tomorrow blood dripping from the knife? One can only wonder how far this slippery slope goes of yours.
Whipitgood had a good post responding to you, but I’m sure you don’t have the explanatory power to figure it out.
Oh? So you have never ever copied a rental dvd or downloaded a song without first paying for it?
Obviously, you were wrong when you stated lying has nothing to do with the morality of natural rights. And no, I am not using a statist argument. I did not say you have to answer the cop, I was asking if it is OK to lie to the cop.
It’s funny, in the sad sense of the term, how moral nihilists like to focus on the satisfaction of crimes and advocate for criminals. They love to watch the blood drip. They are a sadistic, perverted, and thus cold-blooded bunch.
Come on man, enough with the psychologizing and emotional tirades about knives and Stalin.
What makes you think society works because of the centralized force? And not in spite of it?
Does anyone force you to say ‘hi’ to your acquaintances when you meet them? How do they know how to respond? Does the government make them do it or is it one of the many social customs that society has figured out on its own? “Thou shalt not steal” and other moral rules had appeared long before the rise of the centralized governments in every society in the world. In fact, people still support the government because they hope it will provide fair protection of their property and their lives. But who said we need the monopoly of force to do it? Give me a gun, and I’ll deal with the criminals on my own. Or pay someone else to do it. The government extorts more income from you than any racketeer and doesn’t even promise individual protection (unless you’re some kind of a government VIP).
And just to be clear, you’re the one who seems to have a “blood drip” fixation if anyone does. You’re really starting to sound like you’re in a fit of hysteria or something.