PDA

View Full Version : If you shouldn't legislate morality...




Kludge
07-02-2009, 09:44 PM
... Then you shouldn't outlaw murder.

Vessol
07-02-2009, 09:46 PM
Strawman argument is a strawman argument.

Rael
07-02-2009, 09:47 PM
I don't want to hear anything else about MY polls sucking.

Wineman77
07-02-2009, 09:47 PM
My freedom to live should trump your freedom to kill me. Laws should only be there to protect freedoms.

Kludge
07-02-2009, 09:55 PM
My freedom to live should trump your freedom to kill me. Laws should only be there to protect freedoms.

Believe what you want, but I disagree.

Murder is not immoral. I wouldn't murder, but I don't believe it to be immoral.

Vessol
07-02-2009, 10:01 PM
Believe what you want, but I disagree.

Murder is not immoral. I wouldn't murder, but I don't believe it to be immoral.

However it violates the rights and freedoms of others.

Bman
07-02-2009, 10:02 PM
Believe what you want, but I disagree.

Murder is not immoral. I wouldn't murder, but I don't believe it to be immoral.

If you don't find it immoral what prevents you from doing it? Is there anything you do kill?

Kludge
07-02-2009, 10:02 PM
However it violates the rights and freedoms of others.

Rights??? I don't believe in rights (except maybe the right to free healthcare).

If you believe in rights and want to protect them, do it with your own funding. Don't push your system of beliefs on me.... I think that would violate my rights.

Kludge
07-02-2009, 10:03 PM
If you don't find it immoral what prevents you from doing it? Is there anything you do kill?

Why would I want to kill?

I'll kill a bear if it's threatening me.

Fuck bears.

Bman
07-02-2009, 10:05 PM
Why would I want to kill?

I'll kill a bear if it's threatening me.

Fuck bears.

So you have a reason to kill something. What's your reason not to kill something?

micahnelson
07-02-2009, 10:06 PM
Morality is subjective. Liberty is more quantifiable.

The basis of our legal system should be to maximize liberty. Since taking another life destroys completely the life and liberty of the victim- it should be declared an impermissible act and punished when carried out.

The goal is to maximize the total liberty among society, not to insure any one person total liberty.

Kludge
07-02-2009, 10:06 PM
What's your reason not to kill something?

Why would I want to?

I don't do things because there's no disincentive. I do things because there's an incentive.

As a nihilist, I have difficulty seeing any value in your death.

Unspun
07-02-2009, 10:09 PM
Why would I want to?

I don't do things because there's no disincentive. I do things because there's an incentive.

As a nihilist, I have difficulty seeing any value in your death.

Not to mention the effort... it's just not worth it...

Kludge
07-02-2009, 10:09 PM
Morality is subjective. Liberty is more quantifiable.

The basis of our legal system should be to maximize liberty. Since taking another life destroys completely the life and liberty of the victim- it should be declared an impermissible act and punished when carried out.

The goal is to maximize the total liberty among society, not to insure any one person total liberty.

Are you claiming that it's possible for government to "maximize liberty"? Rights seem like they lessen liberty. Where's my liberty to murder at will? Gov't might give me authority and safety, but I object to any claim that it grants liberty.

Vessol
07-02-2009, 10:10 PM
Why would I want to?

I don't do things because there's no disincentive. I do things because there's an incentive.

As a nihilist, I have difficulty seeing any value in your death.

So you deny all forms of morality?

I'm a moral relativist, but nihilism?

Kludge
07-02-2009, 10:14 PM
So you deny all forms of morality?

I'm a moral relativist, but nihilism?

I don't believe people are capable of finding morality, though that belief isn't based on evidence, so it might exist. I call myself a nihilist because more people are familiar with nihilism than absurdism.

"True" morality might exist, but I'm not aware of it. The most likely instance in which morality might exist is one in which God exists (IMO).

FrankRep
07-02-2009, 10:18 PM
However it violates the rights and freedoms of others.
Who defines Rights and Wrongs?

micahnelson
07-02-2009, 10:18 PM
Are you claiming that it's possible for government to "maximize liberty"? Rights seem like they lessen liberty. Where's my liberty to murder at will? Gov't might give me authority and safety, but I object to any claim that it grants liberty.

When government in its only pure and valid form is from the mutual consent of the governed. Collectively, people can pledge to each other the commitment to stand up for the liberty of each other person. This commitment is the basis of valid government.

Anarchy results inevitably into tyranny of the strongest. Despotism is codified tyranny.

The Republic, a government system, is the best way to insure the maximum amount of liberty in a society. Humans are great because we use tools to solve problems and overcome shortcomings. Animals choose governance based on strength and breeding rights. Humans developed a better system.

It is important to remember, however, that this praise of government hinges on the assumption that the government is from the consent of the governed and egalitarian in nature.

When it comes separate from those roots, it becomes just another beast in the jungle.

Kludge
07-02-2009, 10:27 PM
When government in its only pure and valid form is from the mutual consent of the governed. Collectively, people can pledge to each other the commitment to stand up for the liberty of each other person. This commitment is the basis of valid government.

What good is "consent of the governed" unless all of the governed consent? There are certainly some anarchists here who reject the authority of the government. The only way I can see "consent of the governed" applying is in voluntaryism, which is practically anarchy.


Anarchy results inevitably into tyranny of the strongest. Despotism is codified tyranny.

The Republic, a government system, is the best way to insure the maximum amount of liberty in a society. Humans are great because we use tools to solve problems and overcome shortcomings. Animals choose governance based on strength and breeding rights. Humans developed a better system.

It is important to remember, however, that this praise of government hinges on the assumption that the government is from the consent of the governed and egalitarian in nature.

When it comes separate from those roots, it becomes just another beast in the jungle.

So might makes right in anarchy? (How) is this different when government is added to the equation? If citizens believed in what the government enforces, then government wouldn't be necessary at all, would it (except maybe to defend from outsiders)?

I agree that a republic is most efficient in protecting government-granted "rights", but I still question the morality of enforcing morality ("rights").


Everyone is born into some system or another. When we are children our rights are limited due to the fact that we are completely dependent on another entity ( a whole 'nuther issue). When we are of age and able to live independently we have the choice, in a free society, to leave, change the system, or abolish the system. Any free society will have mechanisms for change in place.

(I accept this answer)

micahnelson
07-02-2009, 10:33 PM
I agree that a republic is most efficient in protecting government-granted "rights", but I still question the morality of enforcing morality ("rights").

Everyone is born into some system or another. When we are children our rights are limited due to the fact that we are completely dependent on another entity ( a whole 'nuther issue). When we are of age and able to live independently we have the choice, in a free society, to leave, change the system, or abolish the system. Any free society will have mechanisms for change in place.

Vessol
07-02-2009, 10:38 PM
Who defines Rights and Wrongs?

As in the Rights of an Individual under the Constitution, not morality, illiterate nuttwat.

FrankRep
07-02-2009, 10:44 PM
As in the Rights of an Individual under the Constitution, not morality, illiterate nuttwat.
The Constitution gives me rights?

idiom
07-02-2009, 10:51 PM
My freedom to do what I want trumps your freedom to do what you want.

tpreitzel
07-02-2009, 10:52 PM
The Constitution gives me rights?

;)

Personally, I don't hold the position that morality shouldn't be legislated so the point of this thread doesn't adversely affect my position. :) However, minimal law is always a beneficial tactic for the sake of maximal harmony. ;)

Stary Hickory
07-02-2009, 10:55 PM
We should not regulate moral decisions that affect no one but the person making the decision. Obviously murder affects another human being negatively.

Stary Hickory
07-02-2009, 10:56 PM
My freedom to do what I want trumps your freedom to do what you want.

Well then good luck on your descent into barbarism.

VIDEODROME
07-02-2009, 10:58 PM
So if a member of Kludge's family was murdered what should the consequence be?

Kludge
07-02-2009, 10:59 PM
We should not regulate moral decisions that affect no one but the person making the decision. Obviously murder affects another human being negatively.

Negatively? Who's to say?

YouTube - Dan Gilbert: Why are we happy? Why aren't we happy? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTO_dZUvbJA)

^ Oh, that doesn't actually apply to murder... More for theft/abuse.

Kludge
07-02-2009, 11:00 PM
So if a member of Kludge's family was murdered what should the consequence be?

I wouldn't press charges, were I able (not because I don't love my family.....).

idiom
07-02-2009, 11:02 PM
Well then good luck on your descent into barbarism.

http://home.comcast.net/~mahousu/extras/racialtranscend(1).gif

If you shouldn't legislate, then you shouldn't legislate.

Stary Hickory
07-02-2009, 11:05 PM
Negatively? Who's to say?

YouTube - Dan Gilbert: Why are we happy? Why aren't we happy? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTO_dZUvbJA)

Well generally speaking murdering someone is quite a negative in the life of the murdered. I mean if there was a contract where the murder was performed at the request of the victim...well gee I could care less.

However lets not be silly, the line is easy to draw, you have the right to freedom up until a point where it impedes the freedoms of another person. And THEN the law comes into play to protect everyone equally.

The whole idea is to AVOID conflicts and violence, and build a peaceful society. It's not rocket science. You can tip toe all around it if you like.....if you want straight anarchy and barbarism then I simply will say our goals are totally different.

VIDEODROME
07-02-2009, 11:16 PM
We should not regulate moral decisions that affect no one but the person making the decision. Obviously murder affects another human being negatively.

Isn't this an example of liberty vs. tyranny on a small scale?


An individual free to do what they want with their own life is freedom and liberty. The other extreme is inflicting their will on another individual and taking away that same liberty and freedom.


So what if we shouldn't legislate any law based on Morality. But if instead base law on preserving Liberty of the individual?

tpreitzel
07-02-2009, 11:26 PM
So what if we shouldn't legislate any law based on Morality. But if instead base law on preserving Liberty of the individual?

Because someone's life (moral issue) should, errr must, ;) have higher precedence than someone's liberty if applied unequivocally. Where have I previously heard this assertion?

Dreamofunity
07-03-2009, 12:41 AM
Morality should only be legislated to the extent to which is effects others.

Murder goes against someone elses rights, being gay or doing drugs does not.

idirtify
07-03-2009, 01:45 AM
I agree with Dreamofunity and Stary Hickory.

I can not decipher where Kludge is coming from or heading to. I can not fathom any kind of philosophy that would not see murder as a violation of the victim’s rights (that would be appropriate to this board).

The root-word “moral” in the term “legislate morality” does not refer to violent non-consensual crimes. Although a violent crime such as murder is certainly “immoral” (in either a religious or purely ethical context), the term in its political usage typically criticizes legislation against victimless behaviors; actions that do not violate another’s rights – such as drugs, prostitution and gambling. Of course those who support laws against victimless behaviors will often make the strawman argument about murder and violence. It’s one of a drug-prohibitionist’s most favorite tactics.

SimpleName
07-03-2009, 02:03 AM
You are your own property. You can use it, mutilate it, and sell it. Just as you cannot wreck somebody's land, you cannot destroy their body.

nobody's_hero
07-03-2009, 05:43 AM
I'm curious as to what you would call the thing that makes you differentiate between right and wrong when you make laws against murder, theft, etc.

If it walks like morality, and talks like morality, then it must be . . .

micahnelson
07-03-2009, 06:57 AM
The law, in a pure form, codifies and punishes acts that violate the rights and liberties of other individuals.

Morality prevents us from doing things against other people that we would not want to have happen to us.

These will often overlap, but not always.

BillyDkid
07-03-2009, 07:08 AM
... Then you shouldn't outlaw murder.I'm sure others have answered this, but there is a very easy answer. The law should be based on protecting our rights. All real crimes including murder involve robbing others of their rights. What if your morality says that murder is okay? People have different moralities. If go by the standard that we all have certain "God given" rights and the purpose of the law is to protect those rights, how can you go wrong. Morality does not have to be involved at all unless you think the fact that we are all endowed naturally with certain rights can only be based on morality. I think the fact that we all have certain basic rights is self evident.

Working Poor
07-03-2009, 07:17 AM
Kludge you are terrible

PaulaGem
07-03-2009, 07:23 AM
I'm sure others have answered this, but there is a very easy answer. The law should be based on protecting our rights. All real crimes including murder involve robbing others of their rights. What if your morality says that murder is okay? People have different moralities. If go by the standard that we all have certain "God given" rights and the purpose of the law is to protect those rights, how can you go wrong. Morality does not have to be involved at all unless you think the fact that we are all endowed naturally with certain rights can only be based on morality. I think the fact that we all have certain basic rights is self evident.

I totally agree. The only justification for any law in the Constitutional framework is preservation of rights or preservation of the state. Preservation of the state is secondary to preservation of rights because if the state does not preserve rights of individuals it has no valid reason to exist.

Morality is extremely subjective. Laws can not be based on subjective criteria.

MRoCkEd
07-03-2009, 08:33 AM
... Then you shouldn't outlaw murder.
True.
That's why I think we should legislate morality - my morality! :D

erowe1
07-03-2009, 08:56 AM
This is completely true. If you can't legislate morality, then you can't legislate anything at all. All laws are based on some principle that is assumed to be a moral absolute.

The question of what we should and shouldn't legislate, and even the question of whether laws or governments ought to exist at all, are ultimately moral questions. If you exclude morality from consideration, then we have no basis for giving any answer at all to either of those questions. Morality is not subjective. It is objective. People disagree about morality because we don't always get it right (just as we disagree on tons of other objective matters). But the goal is to get it right.

paulitics
07-03-2009, 09:12 AM
Consider your argument that you should have a right to murder. Your right to murder is less than my right to live.

You also have no right to murder my car or anything else that belongs to me. You have a right to yourself and what you own as long as it was not stolen.

If you take away that which is not yours, (esp considering you don't think anything is immoral )
there needs to be laws to protect those against people like yourself who feel that murder is acceptable if there is incentive to do so (lets say a million dollars) If there is no law, then there is much less disincentive to murder, as we can't leave it to your conscience to do the right thing. And since human life is invaluable, the penalty should be stiff.

Kludge
07-03-2009, 09:27 AM
Many of y'all keep talking about which rights exist and which have priority over others. Believing Right X trumping Right Y isn't morality is a false premise. Atheists like to call morality "ethics" as a euphemism, but all they have done have put imperfect Man in the role of God.

Property rights don't exist in nature. They are (immorally, IMO) created by government (or perhaps God) to protect property claims from unrestrained liberty. The only true liberty is in libertinism, for the individual, and anarchism, for the collective.

Matt Collins
07-03-2009, 09:47 AM
... Then you shouldn't outlaw murder.This one is easy. Government only exists to secure individual rights per the DoI. When one murders someone the person just killed had their rights abridged. It has nothing to do with morality.



Try asking a hardball question sometime :p

Kludge
07-03-2009, 09:51 AM
This one is easy. Government only exists to secure individual rights per the DoI. When one murders someone the person just killed had their rights abridged. It has nothing to do with morality.



Try asking a hardball question sometime :p

When you use government to fortify the concept of rights and punish those who disagree with you, you are pushing your quasi-religious beliefs on me and persecuting those who disagree.

PaulaGem
07-03-2009, 09:58 AM
This is completely true. If you can't legislate morality, then you can't legislate anything at all. All laws are based on some principle that is assumed to be a moral absolute.

The question of what we should and shouldn't legislate, and even the question of whether laws or governments ought to exist at all, are ultimately moral questions. If you exclude morality from consideration, then we have no basis for giving any answer at all to either of those questions. Morality is not subjective. It is objective. People disagree about morality because we don't always get it right (just as we disagree on tons of other objective matters). But the goal is to get it right.

You can't legislate morality because THERE IS NO MORAL ABSOLUTE.

This does not make sense:

Morality is not subjective. It is objective.
- If it were objective there would be a proveable truth and an agreed upon state.

People disagree about morality because we don't always get it right (just as we disagree on tons of other objective matters).
- Because people disagree on what is moral that is proof that it is subjective. If you disagree about something that is objectively discernible then you can be proven to be ignorant and your disagreement is moot.

But the goal is to get it right.
- No, the goal for most people is to make their moral standards dominant so they can claim that they are somehow better than those immoral other people.

Matt Collins
07-03-2009, 10:13 AM
When you use government to fortify the concept of rights and punish those who disagree with you, you are pushing your quasi-religious beliefs on me and persecuting those who disagree.Individuals have rights inherent to our humanity. Our government (supposedly) recognizes these rights. Government's only job is to secure these rights. When one violates the rights of another, it is the job of the government to intervene.

Kludge
07-03-2009, 10:15 AM
Individuals have rights inherent to our humanity. Our government (supposedly) recognizes these rights. Government's only job is to secure these rights. When one violates the rights of another, it is the job of the government to intervene.

Rights don't exist. Our government grants those "rights". Government's only job is to protect whichever rights it chooses to grant. When one violates the rights (you're alleging to exist) of another, the person who was aggressed upon should choose the next action, if any.

idirtify
07-03-2009, 10:29 AM
Rights don't exist. Our government grants those "rights". Government's only job is to protect whichever rights it chooses to grant. When one violates the rights (you're alleging to exist) of another, the person who was aggressed upon should choose the next action, if any.

Kludge,

I am still having difficulty deducing any coherent line of thinking in your posts. Could you succinctly state your main point? I suspect it could be an anti-government one, but that’s just a guess.

You say “rights don’t exist”. Do you deny the existence of “natural rights” that are agreed upon by all? If you disagree, I must assume you care not that someone initiates aggression against you (steals from you, rapes you, kidnaps you, enslaves you, tortures you, kills you, etc). Or are you just trying to lay some sort of foundation for your position against any government (legislation)?

erowe1
07-03-2009, 10:35 AM
You can't legislate morality because THERE IS NO MORAL ABSOLUTE.

This does not make sense:

Morality is not subjective. It is objective.
- If it were objective there would be a proveable truth and an agreed upon state.

People disagree about morality because we don't always get it right (just as we disagree on tons of other objective matters).
- Because people disagree on what is moral that is proof that it is subjective. If you disagree about something that is objectively discernible then you can be proven to be ignorant and your disagreement is moot.

But the goal is to get it right.
- No, the goal for most people is to make their moral standards dominant so they can claim that they are somehow better than those immoral other people.

The fact that people disagree about morality can no more be a proof of it being subjective than can the fact that people disagree about matters of math, science, and logic can prove that those are subjective enterprises. So to argue on that basis is demonstrably wrong. Do you have any arguments for moral relativism that are not demonstrably wrong?

Also, as to your last point, when people try to make their moral standards dominant so they can claim to be better than others, do you believe that people ought not do that? If you do, then you believe in a moral absolute. If you don't, then your complaint is completely empty and nothing more than your personal preference.

Matt Collins
07-03-2009, 10:38 AM
Rights don't exist. Our government grants those "rights". Government's only job is to protect whichever rights it chooses to grant. When one violates the rights (you're alleging to exist) of another, the person who was aggressed upon should choose the next action, if any.You find yourself at odds with the Declaration of Independence and the Natural Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law)

Kludge
07-03-2009, 10:42 AM
Kludge,

I am still having difficulty deducing any coherent line of thinking in your posts. Could you succinctly state your main point? I suspect it could be an anti-government one, but that’s just a guess.

You say “rights don’t exist”. Do you deny the existence of “natural rights” that are agreed upon by all [... Seriously?]? If you disagree, I must assume you care not that someone initiates aggression against you (steals from you, rapes you, kidnaps you, enslaves you, tortures you, kills you, etc). Or are you just trying to lay some sort of foundation for your position against any government (legislation)?

Why do my posts need to fulfill some ultimate purpose? That would very likely bias the poll results.

Kludge
07-03-2009, 10:43 AM
You find yourself at odds with the Declaration of Independence and the Natural Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law)

Cool. Thanks for the heads-up.

Mini-Me
07-03-2009, 02:13 PM
To quote a portion of an essay I'm working on for another thread:


<snipping the previous couple thousand words>
So, does objective morality exist, or is everything relative? Are universal moral standards justifiable?

If you do not care about agreeing upon any equitable moral standards for the sake of fairness, then sure, you can say "might makes right" and let the bullets and subjugation call the shots. However, if you truly believe that morality does not exist and no act is objectively immoral, then surely you won't argue against others recognizing moral rules that they will hold you accountable to, since doing so clearly falls under the auspices of "anything goes." If I impose my moral system on you and you have no conflicting moral system at all, then my imposition cannot be considered immoral by either of our standards. Sure, you can fight against it with your actions, but arguing against other people's moralizing would be self-contradictory. To say someone "should not" impose their moral standards upon you is to make a moral claim. In this way, only those who actually believe in moral standards are eligible to debate their justifiability or specifics, because once you enter the debate, you are making moral claims by definition! In short, anyone who disbelieves in the existence of objective morality (or need for it, if you prefer) or believes "might makes right" essentially has no business arguing against other people's moral standards or requiring justification for them.
<snipping the subsequent billion words>

People can debate all they want about what kind of morality should and should not be codified into law. There are varying degrees of subjectivity and uncertainty, so it makes perfect sense perfect sense that people would differentiate religion-specific morality (no sexy-time before marriage) from "universal" morality, even if "don't kill your neighbor" morality isn't strictly universal due to the people like Kludge who haven't yet realized that philosophical skepticism is a dead end of intellectual stagnation. ;)

PaulaGem
07-03-2009, 02:24 PM
The fact that people disagree about morality can no more be a proof of it being subjective than can the fact that people disagree about matters of math, science, and logic can prove that those are subjective enterprises. So to argue on that basis is demonstrably wrong. Do you have any arguments for moral relativism that are not demonstrably wrong?

Also, as to your last point, when people try to make their moral standards dominant so they can claim to be better than others, do you believe that people ought not do that? If you do, then you believe in a moral absolute. If you don't, then your complaint is completely empty and nothing more than your personal preference.

Point 1 - if something is objectively true there is no disagreement except when ignorance or misunderstanding is an issue. I stated that in the first post. They may disagree, but there is an objective reality that will prove them right or wrong. With morality there is no such thing.

Point 2 - If I believe they ought not do that, that is my personal moral opinion. I don't have to declare it as a universal moral truth in order to believe it is wrong.

So your criticism of my statement is completely empty.

PaulaGem
07-03-2009, 02:27 PM
To quote a portion of an essay I'm working on for another thread:

Originally Posted by An excerpt from a future post...if I actually post it
<snipping the previous couple thousand words>
So, does objective morality exist, or is everything relative? Are universal moral standards justifiable?

If you do not care about agreeing upon any equitable moral standards for the sake of fairness, then sure, you can say "might makes right" and let the bullets and subjugation call the shots. However, if you truly believe that morality does not exist and no act is objectively immoral, then surely you won't argue against others recognizing moral rules that they will hold you accountable to, since doing so clearly falls under the auspices of "anything goes." If I impose my moral system on you and you have no conflicting moral system at all, then my imposition cannot be considered immoral by either of our standards. Sure, you can fight against it with your actions, but arguing against other people's moralizing would be self-contradictory. To say someone "should not" impose their moral standards upon you is to make a moral claim. In this way, only those who actually believe in moral standards are eligible to debate their justifiability or specifics, because once you enter the debate, you are making moral claims by definition! In short, anyone who disbelieves in the existence of objective morality (or need for it, if you prefer) or believes "might makes right" essentially has no business arguing against other people's moral standards or requiring justification for them.
<snipping the subsequent billion words>


Work on it some more. To state that morality does not exist is different from stating that morals are not absolute or objective. Your logic fails.

RevolutionSD
07-03-2009, 02:36 PM
In a free society with no government, why do you think murder would be tolerated? There would actually be far less killings without government. Just look at the crime stats in areas where the majority own guns vs. where gun ownership is low.

erowe1
07-03-2009, 02:37 PM
Point 1 - if something is objectively true there is no disagreement except when ignorance or misunderstanding is an issue. I stated that in the first post. They may disagree, but there is an objective reality that will prove them right or wrong. With morality there is no such thing.

Point 2 - If I believe they ought not do that, that is my personal moral opinion. I don't have to declare it as a universal moral truth in order to believe it is wrong.


On point 1. You have merely pointed to the issue, saying nothing that supports your view. Yes, that's right, when people disagree about something that is objective, one or more of them must be wrong. Thus, if morality is objective, then people's disagreements are similarly either closer or farther from the truth. This does nothing as far as showing whether objective morality exists. So in light of some societies that have practiced and approved of cannibalism, child sacrifice, imperialism, female circumcision, foot binding, minimum wage laws, etc., only those of us who accept the existence of absolute morality can claim (with internal consistency) that other societies that don't practice those things are in those respects closer to the truth in their morality. Your assertion that there is no such thing (as an objective standard) with morality remains just an assertion. That is, of course, precisely the point at issue here.

On point 2, which is it? Is it the case that people ought not to do that, in which case it is more than just your opinion, but instead an objective moral principle? Or is it the case that it's just your opinion, in which case there is no oughtness involved, just one person's preference which is of no more moral value than whether he chooses to sleep on his stomach or back or side. You don't have to declare it to be a universal moral truth to believe it's wrong. But in order for it actually to be wrong, it must be a universal moral truth. So if your world view excludes the existence of absolute morality, then any claim you might make that anything is ever actually wrong is one that does not comport with your professed world view.

So again, do you have any valid arguments for your moral relativism, or are these clearly invalid ones the best you have?

idirtify
07-03-2009, 02:49 PM
Why do my posts need to fulfill some ultimate purpose? That would very likely bias the poll results.

Kludge,

If by “ultimate purpose” you mean “point”, I should explain to you how the POINT of posting an opinionated comment about an important topic in a discussion forum is usually to MAKE A POINT. Regarding your questioning of said “need”: do you wish to derail this thread into a debate about the fundamentals of debate? I don’t. I’ll only remind you that the only real “need” to make a point is to maintain your posts’ credibility. But since I’m sure you already know that, I will assume your reply means that you exempt yourself from that norm – and have no point, or concern about credibility.

Mini-Me
07-03-2009, 02:50 PM
Work on it some more. To state that morality does not exist is different from stating that morals are not absolute or objective. Your logic fails.

Do you seriously think you're telling me something I don't already know? I read an earlier post of yours, and your own logic failed horribly: Even if morality is objective, that doesn't preclude people from disagreeing on what that objective truth is. When it comes to moral truths, morality can be objective but unverifiable due to the fact that we are not omniscient. To give a religious analogue: Either one or more deities exist in some form, or no deities exist at all. The truth of God's existence or nonexistence is an objective truth, but it is one which we are not privy to from our limited vantage point, which is why we disagree about it. We may treat the issue with a degree of subjectivity, but in the end, someone is definitely wrong and someone is definitely right, which makes the underlying truth objective (note: I say someone is definitely right, but that's assuming we're dealing only with those two options - if we're dealing with precise details regarding the nature of God, it's possible that everyone is wrong).

Similarly, your snooty little attack on my own post is almost entirely baseless. Read it again. If Kludge does not believe in morality of any kind, he cannot claim someone "shouldn't" impose their morality on him, because imposing their morality on him would not violate his nonexistent morality. What if Kludge literally believes in moral relativism, i.e. the idea that "correct" morality varies from time to time, culture to culture, and person to person? If he believes those standards are not equally valid, then we're back to making objective claims about morality. If he believes those varying standards ARE equally valid, then that includes the morality of anyone else imposing their own morality on him...which leads to the stronger conclusion that you can ONLY make a universal* claim that someone "shouldn't" impose their morality on you if you hold that their morality is objectively incorrect and a different morality is an objective truth. Sure, you can make a personal claim, but if you're a moral relativist who believes that anyone's system is valid, you can hardly expect someone else to follow your morality instead of their own.

*The fact that I originally omitted this qualifier is why your attack is only almost baseless rather than entirely...but it hardly makes a difference, given my previous sentence.

Kludge
07-03-2009, 02:53 PM
Kludge,

If by “ultimate purpose” you mean “point”, I should explain to you how the POINT of posting an opinionated comment about an important topic in a discussion forum is usually to MAKE A POINT. Regarding your questioning of said “need”: do you wish to derail this thread into a debate about the fundamentals of debate? I don’t. I’ll only remind you that the only real “need” to make a point is to maintain your posts’ credibility. But since I’m sure you already know that, I will assume your reply means that you exempt yourself from that norm – and have no point, or concern about credibility.

Buddha is not amused.

idirtify
07-03-2009, 03:25 PM
Anyone dickering about whether ethics really exist in terms of universal rights needs to answer this question:
Do you agree that others should not initiate aggression against you (steal from you, rape you, kidnap you, enslave you, torture you, kill you, etc)?
If you disagree, you lose all credibility as a rational individual. If you agree, you will be credible; but you can not remain credible if you turn around and claim that others should not have the same wish. Since agreement is the only logical answer, natural rights exist for all human persons. IOW if everyone agrees, there is nothing to debate (see “self-evident”). After all, we are talking about the main principle of individual liberty within the context of an intelligent civilized species; not the dynamics of survival-of-the-fittest or might-is-right amongst lower species that are not smart enough to know a better way to survive and thrive.

Kludge
07-03-2009, 03:27 PM
Anyone dickering about whether ethics really exist in terms of universal rights needs to answer this question:
Do you agree that others should not initiate aggression against you (steal from you, rape you, kidnap you, enslave you, torture you, kill you, etc)?

I should not initiate aggression. I would prefer if others did the same, but I think it would be irrational to initiate new aggression against previous aggressors.

PaulaGem
07-03-2009, 09:12 PM
Do you seriously think you're telling me something I don't already know? I read an earlier post of yours, and your own logic failed horribly: Even if morality is objective, that doesn't preclude people from disagreeing on what that objective truth is. When it comes to moral truths, morality can be objective but unverifiable due to the fact that we are not omniscient. To give a religious analogue: Either one or more deities exist in some form, or no deities exist at all. The truth of God's existence or nonexistence is an objective truth, but it is one which we are not privy to from our limited vantage point, which is why we disagree about it. We may treat the issue with a degree of subjectivity, but in the end, someone is definitely wrong and someone is definitely right, which makes the underlying truth objective (note: I say someone is definitely right, but that's assuming we're dealing only with those two options - if we're dealing with precise details regarding the nature of God, it's possible that everyone is wrong).

Similarly, your snooty little attack on my own post is almost entirely baseless. Read it again. If Kludge does not believe in morality of any kind, he cannot claim someone "shouldn't" impose their morality on him, because imposing their morality on him would not violate his nonexistent morality. What if Kludge literally believes in moral relativism, i.e. the idea that "correct" morality varies from time to time, culture to culture, and person to person? If he believes those standards are not equally valid, then we're back to making objective claims about morality. If he believes those varying standards ARE equally valid, then that includes the morality of anyone else imposing their own morality on him...which leads to the stronger conclusion that you can ONLY make a universal* claim that someone "shouldn't" impose their morality on you if you hold that their morality is objectively incorrect and a different morality is an objective truth. Sure, you can make a personal claim, but if you're a moral relativist who believes that anyone's system is valid, you can hardly expect someone else to follow your morality instead of their own.

*The fact that I originally omitted this qualifier is why your attack is only almost baseless rather than entirely...but it hardly makes a difference, given my previous sentence.


Your logic still fails...



Even if morality is objective, that doesn't preclude people from disagreeing on what that objective truth is.

That is a non-sequitur. I never argued that morality was objective so why should I care about this argument of yours?

In this post you presume a God that defines morality. You make presumptions outside of physical reality (metaphysical).

Objective reality is not metaphysical by definition - it is physical.



What if Kludge literally believes in moral relativism, i.e. the idea that "correct" morality varies from time to time, culture to culture, and person to person? If he believes those standards are not equally valid, then we're back to making objective claims about morality.

What if he believes they are equally invalid?

andrewh817
07-04-2009, 05:56 AM
So you have a reason to kill something. What's your reason not to kill something?

I think the guy is saying it's not a moral question, but a question of whether it's practical or necessary to kill someone. Maybe he'd kill someone in self-defense, but maybe not a random guy on the street.

Mini-Me
07-04-2009, 06:33 AM
Your logic still fails...




That is a non-sequitur. I never argued that morality was objective so why should I care about this argument of yours?
You should care because I'm not actually debating you. For the most part, your arguments in this thread are "not even wrong," and I'm informing you that you're misunderstanding the entire concepts of objectivity and relativity. This applies to your disagreements with others, and it forms the foundation of your misunderstanding of what I've said. Read it again.



In this post you presume a God that defines morality. You make presumptions outside of physical reality (metaphysical).

Objective reality is not metaphysical by definition - it is physical.
Actually, you're the one making presumptions here. I'm not even sure if I believe in God, so it's pretty funny that you're telling me I'm presuming the existence of one, let alone one that defines morality. Objective truth only requires existence of its own, not a God to dictate it. Furthermore, even the existence of a God would not necessarily make God the perfect arbiter of morality between humans anyway (hypothetically, if it's possible for God to exist, it's similarly possible for God to be evil anyway). So, no...your basic assumptions about my argument are way off base.

Back to the nature of objectivity, which you still have not grasped: Again, the God argument itself is a perfect example: Whether or not one or more deities exist or do not is an objective truth - either one or more deities do exist in some form, or they do not. People disagree, which gives the appearance of subjectivity, but the simple fact is that some people are just wrong. Precisely who is wrong, nobody knows for sure, but there is an objective truth underlying this. For the same reason, people who claim objective morality can recognize disagreement (and recognize that nobody knows for sure who is right about what the real objective truth is) without agreeing with you that morality is subjective or relative.



What if he believes they are equally invalid?
Is he making a personal claim that they are invalid to HIM, or is he making a universal claim that they're invalid? ;) Either way, it doesn't matter. If he's making a personal claim that someone else's morality is invalid to him, without holding that his claim is objectively, universally true [for everyone], then he cannot expect his claim to hold any authority over anyone else, because anyone else can make a personal claim of equal validity with respect to themselves. If he's making a universal claim that everyone's morality is equally invalid, that's the same thing as saying that everyone's morality is [equally] objectively wrong...but in order for anyone's standard of morality to be objectively wrong, there must inherently be some objective truth about morality that makes those others standards incorrect. Now, I'm not necessarily saying that morality is objective (although I believe it to be), I'm just saying that one must intrinsically believe it to be objective if they disagree with someone else's morality and actually expect others to respect their disagreement.

PaulaGem
07-04-2009, 06:57 AM
You should care because I'm not actually debating you. For the most part, your arguments in this thread are "not even wrong," and I'm informing you that you're misunderstanding the entire concepts of objectivity and relativity. This applies to your disagreements with others, and it forms the foundation of your misunderstanding of what I've said. Read it again.

You're not "debating me" on any level because there is no logical thread, you're just embarrassing yourself. I have copied the dictionary definition of the word objectivity at the end of the post. Next time you start defining words for others, check out a dictionary first, PLEASE!!!

If you're still in school I would suggest a course in logic, it will serve you well.


Actually, you're the one making presumptions here. I'm not even sure if I believe in God, so it's pretty funny that you're telling me I'm presuming the existence of one, let alone one that defines morality.

It's pretty funny that you think that's what I said - I did not.


Objective truth only requires existence of its own, not a God to dictate it. Furthermore, even the existence of a God would not necessarily make God the perfect arbiter of morality between humans anyway (hypothetically, if it's possible for God to exist, it's similarly possible for God to be evil anyway). So, no...your basic assumptions about my argument are way off base.

I used the term objective correctly, you did not. That is why your logic failed.



Back to the nature of objectivity, which you still have not grasped: Again, the God argument itself is a perfect example: Whether or not one or more deities exist or do not is an objective truth - either one or more deities do exist in some form, or they do not. People disagree, which gives the appearance of subjectivity, but the simple fact is that some people are just wrong.

yawn..... there you go again.... God is by definition metaphysical so God's Truth is by definition not objective. Your have anthropomorphised that God you don't believe in.


Precisely who is wrong, nobody knows for sure, but there is an objective truth underlying this. For the same reason, people who claim objective morality can recognize disagreement (and recognize that nobody knows for sure who is right about what the real objective truth is) without agreeing with you that morality is subjective or relative.

If it were objective it would be tied to physically demonstrable facts, not metaphysical conjecture. This is precisely the same argument didn't understand the first time.



Me: What if he believes they are equally invalid?

Is he making a personal claim that they are invalid to HIM, or is he making a universal claim that they're invalid? ;)

He is making the argument that they are invalid for the purpose of establishing law because they are based on an arbitrary, subjective standard - Morality.


Either way, it doesn't matter. If he's making a personal claim that someone else's morality is invalid to him, without holding that his claim is objectively, universally true [for everyone], then he cannot expect his claim to hold any authority over anyone else, because anyone else can make a personal claim of equal validity with respect to themselves.

He is not saying someone else's morality is invalid. He is saying it is not a proper basis for law. (I just had an awful thought - if you're in law school or pre-law DROP OUT NOW!!!)


If he's making a universal claim that everyone's morality is equally invalid, that's the same thing as saying that everyone's morality is [equally] objectively wrong...but in order for anyone's standard of morality to be objectively wrong, there must inherently be some objective truth about morality that makes those others standards incorrect.

Morality is "objectively wrong" because it is demonstrably subjective. Their subjective nature is the inherent characteristic that makes it unsuitable. Incorrect was never argued.



!



http://www.yourdictionary.com/objective

objective definition

ob·jec·tive (əb jek′tiv, äb-)

adjective

1. of or having to do with a known or perceived object as distinguished from something existing only in the mind of the subject, or person thinking
2. being, or regarded as being, independent of the mind; real; actual
3. determined by and emphasizing the features and characteristics of the object, or thing dealt with, rather than the thoughts and feelings of the artist, writer, or speaker an objective painting or description
4. without bias or prejudice; detached
5. being the aim or goal an objective point
6. ☆ designating a kind of test, as a multiple-choice or true-false test, that minimizes subjective factors in answering and grading
7. Gram. designating or of the case of an object of a transitive verb or preposition
8. Med. designating or of a symptom or condition perceptible to others besides the patient

Etymology: ML objectivus

PaulaGem
07-04-2009, 07:12 AM
To quote a portion of an essay I'm working on for another thread:


People can debate all they want about what kind of morality should and should not be codified into law. There are varying degrees of subjectivity and uncertainty, so it makes perfect sense perfect sense that people would differentiate religion-specific morality (no sexy-time before marriage) from "universal" morality, even if "don't kill your neighbor" morality isn't strictly universal due to the people like Kludge who haven't yet realized that philosophical skepticism is a dead end of intellectual stagnation. ;)

I hope you now realize that you shouldn't use big words you don't understand...



Schools of philosophical skepticism

Philosophical skepticism begins with the claim that the skeptic currently does not have knowledge. Some adherents maintain that knowledge is, in theory, possible. It could be argued that Socrates held that view. He appears to have thought that if people continue to ask questions they might eventually come to have knowledge; but that they did not have it yet. Some skeptics have gone further and claimed that true knowledge is impossible, for example the Academic school in Ancient Greece well after the time of Carneades. A third skeptical approach would be neither to accept nor reject the possibility of knowledge.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism

Has Kludge called himself a "philosophical skeptic" or is your statement a subjective moral judgment?

eOs
07-04-2009, 07:13 AM
"When subjectivity, inwardness is the truth, the truth becomes objectively a paradox; and the fact that truth is objectively a paradox shows in its turn that subjectivity is the truth…. The paradoxical character of the truth is its objective uncertainty. This uncertainty is the expression for passionate inwardness, and this passion is precisely the truth."

TGGRV
07-04-2009, 07:15 AM
As long as MY morality is the one being legislated, I'm fine with it.

PaulaGem
07-04-2009, 07:33 AM
"When subjectivity, inwardness is the truth, the truth becomes objectively a paradox; and the fact that truth is objectively a paradox shows in its turn that subjectivity is the truth…. The paradoxical character of the truth is its objective uncertainty. This uncertainty is the expression for passionate inwardness, and this passion is precisely the truth."

Well, at least you aren't arguing that we pass laws based on "passion".

Mini-Me
07-04-2009, 07:40 AM
You're not "debating me" on any level because there is no logical thread, you're just embarrassing yourself. I have copied the dictionary definition of the word objectivity at the end of the post. Next time you start defining words for others, check out a dictionary first, PLEASE!!!
Are you even reading my posts? Seriously, are you...or are you just making insults at random? Did you even read the definition you posted yourself? Here, I'll copy that same dictionary definition RIGHT HERE:


objective definition

ob·jec·tive (əb jek′tiv, äb-)

adjective

1. of or having to do with a known or perceived object as distinguished from something existing only in the mind of the subject, or person thinking
2. being, or regarded as being, independent of the mind; real; actual
3. determined by and emphasizing the features and characteristics of the object, or thing dealt with, rather than the thoughts and feelings of the artist, writer, or speaker an objective painting or description
4. without bias or prejudice; detached
5. being the aim or goal an objective point
6. ☆ designating a kind of test, as a multiple-choice or true-false test, that minimizes subjective factors in answering and grading
7. Gram. designating or of the case of an object of a transitive verb or preposition
8. Med. designating or of a symptom or condition perceptible to others besides the patient

Etymology: ML objectivus
This - ESPECIALLY definition 2 - is EXACTLY what I have been saying about the definition of objectivity, whereas you have been acting as though "objective" means "universally agreed upon" or "empirically testable." Objective truth is truth that exists regardless of what people believe about it, i.e. independent from the mind.


If you're still in school I would suggest a course in logic, it will serve you well.
No, I'm not still in school, and yes, I remember my course on predicate logic very well. Perhaps you should stick to the subject instead of resorting to petty ad hominem attacks.


It's pretty funny that you think that's what I said - I did not.



I used the term objective correctly, you did not. That is why your logic failed.
Check the dictionary definition you posted - again.




yawn..... there you go again.... God is by definition metaphysical so God's Truth is by definition not objective. Your have anthropomorphised that God you don't believe in.
Your basic assumptions about metaphysics and objectivity are again entirely incorrect. We cannot test metaphysical statements for truth, and they are not verifiable or falsifiable to us, but that does not mean they are not objectively true or false. You seem to have injected your own opinion into the definitions of objectivity and metaphysics that preclude metaphysical statements from possibly being objectively true or false, but that opinion is baseless.

Anthropomorphization is completely beside the point, by the way...and you think I've been making non sequiturs?



If it were objective it would be tied to physically demonstrable facts, not metaphysical conjecture. This is precisely the same argument didn't understand the first time.
This is your mistake: Again, you're injecting your own opinion that objective means empirically verifiable, falsifiable, which it does not. Now, you are correct that metaphysical conjecture is not verifiable or falsifiable, which is what makes it metaphysical, but that does not preclude the notion that metaphysical statements can be either objectively true or untrue. Just because we cannot test which is the case, that does not mean neither are the case.



He is making the argument that they are invalid for the purpose of establishing law because they are based on an arbitrary, subjective standard - Morality.

He is not saying someone else's morality is invalid. He is saying it is not a proper basis for law. (I just had an awful thought - if you're in law school or pre-law DROP OUT NOW!!!)
In this case, he is claiming that legislating morality is invalid in the intellectual sense. In other words, this is essentially a claim that it is a stupid/unwise/intellectually improper/etc. idea to translate your morals into law, because of the fact that people disagree on them (and his opinion that they are actually subjective in the first place). Maybe he's right, maybe he's not, but my initial post is intended to be agnostic to that kind of claim. Rather, my own post very clearly deals with moral claims that people shouldn't [in the moral sense] translate their morals into law.



Morality is "objectively wrong" because it is demonstrably subjective. Their subjective nature is the inherent characteristic that makes it unsuitable. Incorrect was never argued.
The idea that morality is subjective is an unverifiable opinion (but it may or may not reflect an objective truth). Here's another example: Either morality is objective, or it's subjective - one or the other is objectively true, no matter how much we disagree about which one is the case. Disagreement, once again, does not entail subjectivity - which is why, if course, the definition below did not include anything about "universal agreement" or empiricism as conditions for the definition of objectivity:

http://www.yourdictionary.com/objective

Mini-Me
07-04-2009, 08:00 AM
I hope you now realize that you shouldn't use big words you don't understand...




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism

Has Kludge called himself a "philosophical skeptic" or is your statement a subjective moral judgment?

Actually, snootiness aside (are you this unpleasant all the time?), I'll accept your criticism as partially valid here: On second thought, although Kludge labels himself a nihilist, he hasn't necessarily shown me that he's a skeptic...I think I just sort of assumed he was, but I can't remember him questioning the general idea of certainty in knowledge. In particular, I can't remember him ever questioning the idea of whether we can obtain true knowledge from sensory experience and empiricism, nor do I recall him questioning the veracity of the laws of logic themselves (which of course is impossible to prove within the framework of logic anyway - even most skeptics don't go that far). That said...he would, though. ;)

Anyway, the problem isn't that I don't understand philosophical skepticism though (which I do), just that I rushed to judgment on Kludge. However, I should point out that prematurely labeling someone a philosophical skeptic is not actually a moral judgment unless you're loading the term with some kind of moral value.

PaulaGem
07-04-2009, 08:14 AM
Are you even reading my posts? Seriously, are you...or are you just making insults at random? Did you even read the definition you posted yourself? Here, I'll copy that same dictionary definition RIGHT HERE:

This - ESPECIALLY definition 2 - is EXACTLY what I have been saying about the definition of objectivity, whereas you have been acting as though "objective" means "universally agreed upon" or "empirically testable." Objective truth is truth that exists regardless of what people believe about it, i.e. independent from the mind.


Um.... when they write dictionaries they put the best and most common definition first. Number one does indicate something that is "empirically testable".



No, I'm not still in school, and yes, I remember my course on predicate logic very well.

That premise is negated by your irrational display on this board.


Your basic assumptions about metaphysics and objectivity are again entirely incorrect. We cannot test metaphysical statements for truth, and they are not verifiable or falsifiable to us, but that does not mean they are not objectively true or false. You seem to have injected your own opinion into the definitions of objectivity and metaphysics that preclude metaphysical statements from possibly being objectively true or false, but that opinion is baseless.



Now, you are correct that metaphysical conjecture is not verifiable or falsifiable, which is what makes it metaphysical, but that does not preclude the notion that metaphysical statements can be either objectively true or untrue. Just because we cannot test which is the case, that does not mean neither are the case.

We have to have an objective test if we are making it the basis for a law. It's kind of silly to argue for laws on the basis of a hypothetical objective test.



Rather, my own post very clearly deals with moral claims that people shouldn't [in the moral sense] translate their morals into law.

Sounds like mental masturbation to me, sorry.


Disagreement, once again, does not entail subjectivity - which is why, if course, the definition below did not include anything about "universal agreement" or empiricism as conditions for the definition of objectivity:


You keep adding non stated presumptions and assumptions to your argument. "known or percieved object" sounds pretty empirical to me and there is no reason to speculate that it might refer to a metaphysical object or concept.

What you percieve as "ad homimen attacks" were actually attempts to figure out where the hell you are coming from with this. It seems just plain silly to me and has no logical basis.

PaulaGem
07-04-2009, 08:21 AM
Actually, snootiness aside (are you this unpleasant all the time?), I'll accept your criticism as partially valid here: On second thought, although Kludge labels himself a nihilist, he hasn't necessarily shown me that he's a skeptic...I think I just sort of assumed he was, but I can't remember him questioning the general idea of certainty in knowledge. In particular, I can't remember him ever questioning the idea of whether we can obtain true knowledge from sensory experience and empiricism, nor do I recall him questioning the veracity of the laws of logic themselves (which of course is impossible to prove within the framework of logic anyway - even most skeptics don't go that far). That said...he would, though. ;)

Anyway, the problem isn't that I don't understand philosophical skepticism though (which I do), just that I rushed to judgment on Kludge. However, I should point out that prematurely labeling someone a philosophical skeptic is not actually a moral judgment unless you're loading the term with some kind of moral value.

You interpret it as snooty - I simply express things as simply and concisely as possible. I do become offended when people start to attribute beliefs and attitudes to me which I do not have. I become irritated when people pretend to logic that does not exist. Call it snooty if you wish, I don't care, but that is an ad hominem attack and the term is loaded with moral condemnation.

Mini-Me
07-04-2009, 08:32 AM
Um.... when they write dictionaries they put the best and most common definition first. Number one does indicate something that is "empirically testable".
...and yet, if the number one definition was complete, there wouldn't be a need for a number two definition, would there be? :rolleyes: The reason the number one definition is complete is its constrained use of the word "object," necessitating the second definition. You're seeing only what you want to see.



That premise is negated by your irrational display on this board.

It's quite audacious of you to make an ad hominem attack on me accusing me of irrationality, when ad hominem attacks are themselves logical fallacies (except when the subject of discussion IS a person in the first place, which it is not in this case).

The reason is, you are attacking the credibility of one of my statements ("that premise is negated") with an attack on the person ("irrational display")...and the particular statement you're attacking is the statement that I remember my logic course, which of course was in response to a previous ad hominem attack against my rationality which cast doubt on the credibility of my arguments, etc., blah blah...



We have to have an objective test if we are making it the basis for a law. It's kind of silly to argue for laws on the basis of a hypothetical objective test.

Do we really have to? Are you saying it's an objective truth that we have to? ;)

That said, I may actually agree with you on this point. What sort of objective test do you propose?



Sounds like mental masturbation to me, sorry.

You keep adding non stated presumptions and assumptions to your argument. "known or percieved object" sounds pretty empirical to me and there is no reason to speculate that it might refer to a metaphysical object or concept.
If the first definition is so complete, why do you believe the other definitions included? Shits and giggles?


What you percieve as "ad homimen attacks" were actually attempts to figure out where the hell you are coming from with this. It seems just plain silly to me and has no logical basis.
Oh?

Mini-Me
07-04-2009, 08:36 AM
You interpret it as snooty - I simply express things as simply and concisely as possible. I do become offended when people start to attribute beliefs and attitudes to me which I do not have. I become irritated when people pretend to logic that does not exist. Call it snooty if you wish, I don't care, but that is an ad hominem attack and the term is loaded with moral condemnation.

Actually, unlike your own attacks, that is not an ad hominem attack for the following reason: I'm not using the insult of "snooty" to cast doubt on the credibility of your arguments. Rather, I'm objecting to your tone for its own sake. There is a clear difference.

PaulaGem
07-04-2009, 08:49 AM
...and yet, if the number one definition was complete, there wouldn't be a need for a number two definition, would there be? :rolleyes: The reason the number one definition is complete is its constrained use of the word "object," necessitating the second definition. You're seeing only what you want to see.

Number two also seems to refer only to physical objects:
2. being, or regarded as being, independent of the mind; real; actual



It's quite audacious of you to make an ad hominem attack on me accusing me of irrationality, when ad hominem attacks are themselves logical fallacies (except when the subject of discussion IS a person in the first place, which it is not in this case).


I found your arguments to be logically inconsistent ergo - irrational. I made no judgement of your personal worth.


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

Addressing the accuracy of your argument it was by definition, not an ad hominem attack. "Irrational display" is not an ad hominem attack if you have in fact displayed posts on this board that are not thought through in a rational manner, and I believe you have. Actually, you have confessed that your assumptions concerning another board member were not rationally based so you have confirmed that this was not an ad hominem attack either. If you had an emotional reaction to what I said that does not make it an ad hominem attack.



That said, I may actually agree with you on this point. What sort of objective test do you propose?

I and others on this thread have previously proposed that the preservation of Constitutional Rights and the preservation of the State are the only valid reasons for passing laws. I also added that Rights take precedence over the State because our government is based on consent of the governed so when it fails to protect Rights it ceases to have a reason to exist.

PaulaGem
07-04-2009, 08:52 AM
Actually, unlike your own attacks, that is not an ad hominem attack for the following reason: I'm not using the insult of "snooty" to cast doubt on the credibility of your arguments. Rather, I'm objecting to your tone for its own sake. There is a clear difference.

The tone of my argument is your perception. I am attempting to be clear and concise. Note the size of my responses vs. your own. I will admit that I did begin to express impatience with your arguments and that is the reason that I postulated that you were not familiar with logic.

Mini-Me
07-04-2009, 09:20 AM
Number two also seems to refer only to physical objects:
2. being, or regarded as being, independent of the mind; real; actual
I strongly disagree with your assessment here; "real, actual" does not necessarily mean that an empirical test applies. Still, I don't think either of us are going to budge. Shall we agree to disagree?



I found your arguments to be logically inconsistent ergo - irrational. I made no judgement of your personal worth.
I think you're misunderstanding the premise of an ad hominem attack: An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy not because it judges a person's worth, but because it is a personal insult intended to cast doubt on the credibility of the person's arguments/statements/etc. This is why your own attacks were examples of this fallacy, and my own attack objecting to your tone ("snooty") was not.

Your initial ad hominem attack was, "If you're still in school I would suggest a course in logic, it will serve you well." As a substitute for logically refuting my statements, you attacked me as illogical. Do you see why that is considered an ad hominem attack?

After I called you on that attack and mentioned that I have in fact taken a course on logic, your second ad hominem attack was, "That premise is negated by your irrational display on this board." Rather than directly refute my claim that I have taken a course in logic, you instead substituted an unsubstantiated attack on my supposed "irrational display" here, which references your first unsubstantiated ad hominem attack anyway.

Besides, in any case, it seems like your primary disagreement revolves around one of my assumptions (the definition of the word "objective"), not my logic following from those assumptions.



Addressing the accuracy of your argument it was by definition, not an ad hominem attack. "Irrational display" is not an ad hominem attack if you have in fact displayed posts on this board that are not thought through in a rational manner, and I believe you have.
However, the point is that you have not successfully demonstrated - using logic - that my posts are irrational. Instead, you've simply asserted that my posts are irrational without backing up that claim, with one single [minor] exception:


Actually, you have confessed that your assumptions concerning another board member were not rationally based so you have confirmed that this was not an ad hominem attack either. If you had an emotional reaction to what I said that does not make it an ad hominem attack.

For once, you have finally supported your statement that I have been irrational, though you can hardly argue that a single slip-up undermines the credibility of everything I've written (to do so would be something of an ad hominem attack itself). Even if I irrationally jumped to conclusions regarding Kludge*, I'm pretty sure you weren't referring only to that when you attacked my rationality anyway. Furthermore, your second attack (scoffing at the idea that I've taken a logic class) would still amount to an ad hominem attack, because the fact that I jumped the gun on calling Kludge a skeptic does not actually refute the idea that I've taken a logic class.

*Also, keep in mind that my first post was a playful nudge at him, not something malicious, which is why I went for the melodramatic conclusion about philosophical skepticism in the first place. I agree that I jumped the gun on calling Kludge a philosophical skeptic, but I was only halfway serious in the first place (hence the smiley), and it's just a bit of a stretch for you to use this as evidence that I've been writing irrationally post after post.



I and others on this thread have previously proposed that the preservation of Constitutional Rights and the preservation of the State are the only valid reasons for passing laws. I also added that Rights take precedence over the State because our government is based on consent of the governed so when it fails to protect Rights it ceases to have a reason to exist.

I agree with this for the most part, but I think you're placing the cart before the horse a bit: The Constitution is also law. If you were to write a Constitution from scratch, what objective test would you use to determine what kind of things should be written into it?

PaulaGem
07-04-2009, 09:29 AM
I agree with this for the most part, but I think you're placing the cart before the horse a bit: The Constitution is also law. If you were to write a Constitution from scratch, what objective test would you use to determine what kind of things should be written into it?

It is the foundational law, the "unailienables" and the theory of government by consent of the governed are the assumptions that the forefathers agreed upon and used as a basis for this foundational law.

I don't have a problem with the Constitution or any of its properly ratified amendments so I would not propose an alternative. I would repeal those amendments which were not properly ratified, however.


About your logic - several times I pointed out that you were making unsupported assumptions.

Mini-Me
07-04-2009, 09:30 AM
The tone of my argument is your perception. I am attempting to be clear and concise. Note the size of my responses vs. your own. I will admit that I did begin to express impatience with your arguments and that is the reason that I postulated that you were not familiar with logic.

I agree that my assessment of your tone is entirely subjective...but that doesn't make it an ad hominem attack, so I'm not really sure why you're pointing it out.

Mini-Me
07-04-2009, 09:37 AM
It is the foundational law, the "unailienables" and the theory of government by consent of the governed are the assumptions that the forefathers agreed upon and used as a basis for this foundational law.
This gets more at the heart of the matter: What objective test confirms the validity of these ideas (inalienable rights, the notion of government by consent of the governed, etc.) as the basis for government? To clarify, I'm not saying no such test exists, but I'm wondering how we objectively determine the best such test. I have my own ideas on this (and they have to do with the essay I mentioned in my first post), but I'd like to hear yours.

As much as we've disagreed over the past couple pages, I actually think we're in agreement on this point, which is actually the primary subject of the thread. I believe that there are plenty of rational justifications for these ideas (the idea of rights, laws against murder, etc.) that only coincide with the idea of "morality," and which are completely independent from any particular view of morality.



I don't have a problem with the Constitution or any of its properly ratified amendments so I would not propose an alternative. I would repeal those amendments which were not properly ratified, however.

PaulaGem
07-04-2009, 09:45 AM
This gets more at the heart of the matter: What objective test confirms the validity of these ideas (inalienable rights, the notion of government by consent of the governed, etc.) as the basis for government? To clarify, I'm not saying no such test exists, but I'm wondering how we objectively determine the best such test.

As much as we've disagreed over the past couple pages, I actually think we're in agreement on this point, which is actually the primary subject of the thread. I believe that there are plenty of rational justifications for these ideas (the idea of rights, laws against murder, etc.) that only coincide with the idea of "morality," and which are completely independent from any particular view of morality.

There is no objective test. There is a clearly drawn consensus of opinion and theory of government. The fact that the elected representatives got together and wrote the Constitution does show objectively that they obtained the "consent of the governed" as it was then defined (with the exclusion of women and slaves).

With the vote in as it is now (totally and completely rigged) there no longer is "consent of the governed". I believe that restoration of the vote and re-establishing the consent of the governed is the first step in fixing what is broken in this system. It is also an indispensable step and I often wonder why more attention isn't given to it in this forum.

Mini-Me
07-04-2009, 09:49 AM
There is no objective test. There is a clearly drawn consensus of opinion and theory of government. The fact that the elected representatives got together and wrote the Constitution does show objectively that they obtained the "consent of the governed" as it was then defined (with the exclusion of women and slaves).

With the vote in as it is now (totally and completely rigged) there no longer is "consent of the governed". I believe that restoration of the vote and re-establishing the consent of the governed is the first step in fixing what is broken in this system. It is also an indispensable step and I often wonder why more attention isn't given to it in this forum.

Unfortunately, that begs the question: What defines "clearly drawn consensus of opinion," and what makes it the best way to go?
If we're talking a mere democratic majority consensus among the population (or among political theorists), why is that sufficient justification for the contents of a Constitution but not sufficient justification to ignore the Constitution when creating lesser laws?

PaulaGem
07-04-2009, 10:58 AM
Unfortunately, that begs the question: What defines "clearly drawn consensus of opinion," and what makes it the best way to go?

NO, it does not beg the question, I said there is no objective test, that answered the question. The forefathers clearly defined their consensus of opinion in the Constitution. I did not say it was absolutely "the best way to go". I said I can't think of anything better. I also have never heard of anything better, with the possible exception of pure communal living as practiced in the early Christian church at Jerusalem (and probably elsewhere).


If we're talking a mere democratic majority consensus among the population (or among political theorists), why is that sufficient justification for the contents of a Constitution but not sufficient justification to ignore the Constitution when creating lesser laws?

Because it exists, because it is the fundamental law of this country, because they voted on it back then and it has not been repealed. If our government would openly declare the Constitution void and the consent of the governed no longer necessary we would have another form of government. As it is, the people still seem to have enough power to make "them" afraid to do this.

Brian4Liberty
07-04-2009, 11:33 AM
Property rights don't exist in nature.

Sure they do. Not in a Rothbard/lawyer sense. In a "this is my territory and I am defending it" sense. Very common in nature.

idiom
07-04-2009, 05:35 PM
Sure they do. Not in a Rothbard/lawyer sense. In a "this is my territory and I am defending it" sense. Very common in nature.

In nature, generally, if you can intimidate someone off their property, or just kill them, then their land is yours fair and square with no repercussions from an imaginary 'natural' law.

Kludge
07-04-2009, 05:42 PM
In nature, generally, if you can intimidate someone off their property, or just kill them, then their land is yours fair and square with no repercussions from an imaginary 'natural' law.

Right. Claims may exist, but that only means as much as people respect that claim. So that "law" is in nature so much as it is natural for people to not want the conflict that will come with challenging another's claim.

idirtify
07-04-2009, 06:41 PM
I should not initiate aggression. I would prefer if others did the same, but I think it would be irrational to initiate new aggression against previous aggressors.

Again, your point seems unmade. What the heck is “initiating new aggression against previous aggressors”? Are you talking about self-defense or what?

Kludge
07-04-2009, 06:44 PM
What the heck is “initiating new aggression against previous aggressors”?

It would be the initiation of aggression against those who previously aggressed against you.

idiom
07-04-2009, 06:55 PM
It would be the initiation of aggression against those who previously aggressed against you.

Lol. Its not agression when we do it.

Objectivist
07-04-2009, 07:07 PM
Your rights end at the tip of my nose.

But if you'd like to proceed beyond the tip of my nose, I can shoot you.

Kludge
07-04-2009, 07:11 PM
if you'd like to proceed beyond the tip of my nose, I can shoot you.

You could shoot me otherwise, if you'd like.

idiom
07-04-2009, 07:13 PM
"I tried to shoot a guy without cause, but natural law dissolved the bullet mid flight. You can't fight physics I guess."

Objectivist
07-04-2009, 07:13 PM
You could shoot me otherwise, if you'd like.

No that would be unethical and I'm sure you're capable of shooting yourself... if you so choose.:cool:

idirtify
07-05-2009, 09:31 AM
It would be the initiation of aggression against those who previously aggressed against you.

Again, your point seems unmade. You seem to be talking about self-defense, but why are you terming it “INITIATION of aggression” when it’s only against those who previously aggressed against you? If it’s not “self defense”, it’s at least “justice”.

Kludge
07-05-2009, 01:34 PM
Again, your point seems unmade. You seem to be talking about self-defense, but why are you terming it “INITIATION of aggression” when it’s only against those who previously aggressed against you? If it’s not “self defense”, it’s at least “justice”.

Justice is a nonsense concept and only further burdens society. Initiation of aggression does not justify aggression.

I punch you. Aggression has ended. You have no justification in hitting me after I've hit you.

You shoot me in the arm. Aggression has ended. I have no justification in shooting you.

I run someone off the road. They die. Aggression has ended. The government has no justification in aggressing against the criminal nor the taxpayers by paying for court/lawyer fees, and prison costs.

In the rare case of aggression that is ongoing (kidnap, rape, robbery), I think defense would be acceptable, but that's not something the government can handle effectively, given response time and the likely "justice" that will burden taxpayers after.

erowe1
07-05-2009, 01:45 PM
Justice is a nonsense concept and only further burdens society. Initiation of aggression does not justify aggression.

I punch you. Aggression has ended. You have no justification in hitting me after I've hit you.

You shoot me in the arm. Aggression has ended. I have no justification in shooting you.

I run someone off the road. They die. Aggression has ended. The government has no justification in aggressing against the criminal nor the taxpayers by paying for court/lawyer fees, and prison costs.

In the rare case of aggression that is ongoing (kidnap, rape, robbery), I think defense would be acceptable, but that's not something the government can handle effectively, given response time and the likely "justice" that will burden taxpayers after.

The fact that you base your decisions on what you think is justified/has justification proves that you don't actually believe that justice is a nonsense concept.

Theocrat
07-05-2009, 01:46 PM
Lol. Its not agression when we do it.

Actually, retaliation is an act of aggression. To determine whether or not it is a righteous act of aggression depends upon the intent of the initiator of the first act of aggression. If a person who retaliates does so because he is resisting arrest (assuming the law for the crime is just), then that is not a righteous use of aggression against its initiation. However, if a person retaliates because an initiator does so out of malice, then it is righteous to retaliate aggressively as a means of self-defense. It just depends on the scenario.

heavenlyboy34
07-05-2009, 02:01 PM
Rights??? I don't believe in rights (except maybe the right to free healthcare).

If you believe in rights and want to protect them, do it with your own funding. Don't push your system of beliefs on me.... I think that would violate my rights.

Crazy anarchist! ;):D (fwiw, I agree with ya on this one)

Kludge
07-05-2009, 02:30 PM
The fact that you base your decisions on what you think is justified/has justification proves that you don't actually believe that justice is a nonsense concept.

Eh, I meant to say something along the lines of "there wouldn't be justice in...", because justice doesn't exist. In ongoing aggression, I wouldn't say stopping the aggression is justice.

erowe1
07-05-2009, 02:38 PM
Eh, I meant to say something along the lines of "there wouldn't be justice in...", because justice doesn't exist. In ongoing aggression, I wouldn't say stopping the aggression is justice.

Ahhh. I see what you meant now. I'm skeptical that you actually believe that. But I can't prove you don't, since reading it that way you're at least more consistent than I first gave you credit for.

Brian4Liberty
07-07-2009, 10:49 AM
In nature, generally, if you can intimidate someone off their property, or just kill them, then their land is yours fair and square with no repercussions from an imaginary 'natural' law.

Semantics. Nature is nature, no imaginary laws required.

Leaving humans out, many territorial animals do not use lethal force (just a little head butting or barking). Heck, some don't even use violence. "My feathers are bigger than yours, and I'm a better dancer: get the heck out!". I guess that's why Michael Jackson was the King of the world... :D