Singular Logical Objective Ethical Truth

[ProIndividual]

I have made it clear for some time that I developed my own ethical theory. I don't want to attack the NAP, or any other theory, whether amoral (a lack of ethical theory) or moral, as I feel that would be counterproductive and only serve to further divide an already fractal movement. However, I do want to eventually publish my theory elsewhere (I've been writing a now nearly complete book for a few years, off and on), and I think SOME of the folks around here are likely to give me a good intellectual 'run for my money' (and thereby will give me constructive comments about what I'm about to say).

So, that said, let's get into something very important...proving ethics even exist before going about debating an ethical theory of any kind, and trying to prove ethics are objective or subjective therefore. If we can't first prove ethics exist, then we cannot claim any ethical theory is worth debating. I know most of you already accept ethics exist (maybe ALL of you do), but nonetheless this isn't a trivial matter in philosophy. What's more, I believe that my proof of ethics existing (below) also simultaneously proves ethical theories beyond a Singular Logical Objective Ethical Truth are purely subjective, and that when ethical theory is translated into legal theory (which is basically inevitable) anything but polycentric/free market/customary legal "systems" are objectively illogical (and immoral). That means all state legal systems are illogical (and immoral).

The Singular Logical Objective Ethical Truth (SLOET) is NOT my ethical theory, and if I publish my ethical theory here (which I have, in part, previously) that will become abundantly clear. My ethical theory is called the Path of Least Coercion (PLC), and it will not be discussed further in this post or in the comments below (directly). The reason is, I want to give it a separate post to avoid conflation of the two concepts (SLOET vs PLC), and because the SLOET is totally independent of the PLC. One does not rely on the other. One last thing about the PLC: I don't claim it is objective, but instead subjective, like I consider all ethical theories.

Without further ado, here is the introduction and the SLOET:

I read tonight a post which made think this was the right time to post this. The post said, among other things, the following:

The classic example of a syllogism is the following:


All men are mortal (Major, or basic, premise)
Socrates is a man (Minor premise)
Socrates is mortal (Conclusion)

Then it went on to say...

Now, let’s return to the example of a syllogism, but change the basic premise.


All men are immortal.
Socrates is a man.
Socrates is immortal.


While the conclusion is logically correct, the conclusion is clearly wrong. Socrates is not immortal. The conclusion is wrong, because the basic premise is wrong: man is not immortal. The acceptance of a bad premise, led to a bad conclusion.

Why did this make me think this was the right time to post my SLOET? Because if my premises cannot be logically (or empirically) destroyed, and my logic that follows the premises cannot be logically (or empirically) destroyed, then my conclusions at the end of the SLOET will stand as truth.


Now, on to the SLOET itself:

To develop an ethical theory, or prove ethics exist at all, one needs to use reason to develop epistemological (the nature and scope of knowledge) and metaphysical (the nature of reality) precepts, and pass them through a prism (logic) to create (or allow to emerge) said ethical theory (or to show that ethics even exist at all). If ethics do in fact exist, we are faced with several problems/questions; Are ethics real (objective)? Are ethical theories real (subjective or objective)? What makes ethics consistent or inconsistent?


I will now attempt to prove ethics exist in an objective sense, ethical theories beyond a singular logical objective ethical truth are subjective, and that the key to a consistent ethical theory is logical consistency (meaning to the degree you are logical/illogical is the degree to which you will have consistency/inconsistency in ethical theory).

The SLOET (Singular Logical Objective Ethical Truth):

1. What is the nature of reality? As per the "brain in a vat" (or Descartes' "evil demon") thought experiment, it's clear we can't prove reality even exists. Einstein also said mathematics, and therefore science, cannot prove reality (he said "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one" and "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality"). However, as Ayn Rand aptly pointed out, there is no point in discussing anything at all, or doing anything at all, if we do not simply assume an objective reality exists. So we assume an objective reality exists (but we view it subjectively; hence 10 witnesses to a crime will all describe it and the criminal slightly, or even vastly, differently).

2. What is the nature of knowledge? Since reality is assumed objective, but is subjectively viewed, then knowledge can only be attained via logic and reason, and their invention of the scientific method (and those things create a filter for the subjective aspects, as to determine what is universally objective). From logic and reason we developed the scientific method, as to test our subjective views to see if we were accurately describing the objective reality we assume we share. Logic, reason, and the scientific method allow us to test our subjective ideas and observations across the globe apart from each other, to see if they are accurately describing the objective reality, or best known truth. ("Best known truth" refers to scientist and philosopher Karl Popper's idea that our view of objective reality through science is really an ever increasing and ever clearer view based on a succession of theories, each less wrong than the last, but none that are perfectly correct simply because they are more correct than the previous theories. Theories in science must stand up to the problem of induction and falsifiability to be true, as that which isn't falsifiable or fails the problem of induction is unproven.)

3. What is the nature of ethics, given 1 and 2? If reality is assumed objective, but viewed subjectively, and if knowledge is only that which can be filtered through logic and the scientific method (and never in an absolute sense via scientific theory), then we can arrive at a Singular Logical Objective Ethical Truth (SLOET). That truth is no view of reality is perfectly known to be correct without being tested, both inductively and then via falsifiability, and since subjective ethical views cannot largely be tested in any scientific way, and the logic used to test them has limits on these subjective views, the SLOET is simply that no one single ethical code should be imposed, via law or social norm, on anyone that is not voluntarily agreeing to it. That is to say, the SLOET says that coercion (of those capable of consent) into one particular ethical standard is invalid logically, as it has to ignore 1 and 2 above. All coercion of those capable of consent into one particular ethical (or legal) standard would have to assume an objective reality is perfectly known, and that assumes it can be perfectly tested - both of which are not possible.

The SLOET is not an ethical code or theory...it's merely an observation of logical truth. All ethical theories will be subjective therefore, and extend from the SLOET. So, I believe I have proven ethics exist in an objective sense, that ethical theories are merely subjective, and that imposition of any ethical theory by force on those capable of consent (but refuse to give it), by law or social norm, is objectively illogical (and therefore unethical - as the degree of immorality is proportionate to the degree of illogic).

I believe this brings people together from different subjective views of reality, as we can discover this truth without needing to agree on ethical theory, what we experience as real, etc. It's purely derived via logic and a few basic, easily understandable, reasonable precepts. If the precepts stand as correct, and logic is applied consistently and correctly, then the SLOET should also be correct.

Thanks for reading, and feel free to comment below (in a constructive manner, please).

[GunnyFreedom]

The SLOET (Singular Logical Objective Ethical Truth):

1. ... we assume an objective reality exists (but we view it subjectively; hence 10 witnesses to a crime will all describe it and the criminal slightly, or even vastly, differently).

2. ... knowledge can only be attained via logic and reason, ...

Not strictly true, rudimentary knowledge can be gained through irrational observation and repetition. Not off-target enough to affect this argument I think though.

3. What is the nature of ethics, given 1 and 2? If reality is assumed objective, but viewed subjectively, and if knowledge is only that which can be filtered through logic and the scientific method (and never in an absolute sense via scientific theory), then we can arrive at a Singular Logical Objective Ethical Truth (SLOET).

I would dispute some basic assumptions here. Knowledge is stored and retrievable data that is accurate enough for user intended purposes. Knowledge is the train stop. Logic are the rails that move ideas back and forth. I don't think they can be conflated. I can get to a train stop without taking the train, for example.

That truth is no view of reality is perfectly known to be correct without being tested, both inductively and then via falsifiability,

this kind of follows from #1

and since subjective ethical views cannot largely be tested in any scientific way, and the logic used to test them has limits on these subjective views,

this is an entirely new premise. two entirely new premises. I'm not sure if I agree with either one. The second one I know for sure I don't agree with. I don't believe that logic is in any way limited by subjectivity/objectivity. At most our own subjective ability to perceive a logical conclusion may be limited, but the underlying math passes between subjectivity and objectivity like math passes between the square and the cube.

the SLOET is simply that no one single ethical code should be imposed, via law or social norm, on anyone that is not voluntarily agreeing to it. That is to say, the SLOET says that coercion (of those capable of consent) into one particular ethical standard is invalid logically, as it has to ignore 1 and 2 above.

This is a conclusion, but it's not well connected to the arguments made above. We are introducing lots of new ideas JUST in the conclusion, which is a non sequitur. Imposition is a new idea, not established in the premises. Likewise society, norms, persons, voluntaryness, agreement, coercion, and consent. All new ideas that have not been established by the premises.

All coercion of those capable of consent into one particular ethical (or legal) standard would have to assume an objective reality is perfectly known, and that assumes it can be perfectly tested - both of which are not possible.

OK, here is another conclusion sounding part. All the new ideas in the first conclusion are actually new premises? But it also adds a whole nuther premise: that coercion must presume a total knowledge of objective reality. I don't think I agree with that either. A guy points a gun at me I am going to coerce the hell out of him whether his gun is loaded or not. I don't have total knowledge but I am morally right to break his idiot arm.

The SLOET is not an ethical code or theory...it's merely an observation of logical truth.

It's not a logical argument either. It's pretty easy to follow the line of thought going on here, and it's kind of structured like a logical argument, but frankly it's really just a whole bunch of diverse premises, with the last two premises sounding a lot like conclusions. There really isn't any argument going on here to apply logic to. :-/

I dispute some of the premises, and not all of the premises are even used in the argument.

All ethical theories will be subjective therefore, and extend from the SLOET. So, I believe I have proven ethics exist in an objective sense,

whoa! now that's one hell of a conclusion. The premises for which I appear to have missed.

that ethical theories are merely subjective, and that imposition of any ethical theory by force on those capable of consent (but refuse to give it), by law or social norm, is objectively illogical (and therefore unethical - as the degree of immorality is proportionate to the degree of illogic).

I believe this brings people together from different subjective views of reality, as we can discover this truth without needing to agree on ethical theory, what we experience as real, etc. It's purely derived via logic and a few basic, easily understandable, reasonable precepts. If the precepts stand as correct, and logic is applied consistently and correctly, then the SLOET should also be correct.

Thanks for reading, and feel free to comment below (in a constructive manner, please).

His line of thought is fairly cogent, his ultimate conclusions may possibly be somewhere in the neighborhood of correct, but there is really nothing logical about his presentation at all. It is more rhetorical in nature than logical I think.

I promise I tried to be nice.

[ProIndividual]

Hi Gunny,

Not strictly true, rudimentary knowledge can be gained through irrational observation and repetition. Not off-target enough to affect this argument I think though.

"Rudimentary" means "partial or incomplete; underdeveloped". If we call that "knowledge", then I can agree. I do not consider that knowledge, as "knowledge" means "clear awareness or explicit information" (at least in the sciences and philosophy - which is what I was referring to for the sake of this essay). That's our only divide here, so as you said, it doesn't affect the argument and isn't a big deal (yet). I would define these terms if we were to debate (as we are now), but I didn't define my terms for the most part because the essay wasn't itself the opening to a debate (it's part of a book). But fair point, Gunny...it is important to define our terms in debates.

I would dispute some basic assumptions here. Knowledge is stored and retrievable data that is accurate enough for user intended purposes. Knowledge is the train stop. Logic are the rails that move ideas back and forth. I don't think they can be conflated. I can get to a train stop without taking the train, for example.

I wouldn't conflate logic and knowledge (we agree there), as the premises must be correct for logic to lead to knowledge (and otherwise logic can be correct and consistent, but because of the flawed premises the conclusion will be incorrect). BUT I would disagree about getting to knowledge without logic given the denotative meaning of knowledge I just gave above (which was quoted from an online dictionary, as to give a denotative, not connotative, meaning...but you are welcome to dispute this with counter sources). Also, how you defined "knowledge" in this quoted comment seems more of a definition of "memory"...one can forget knowledge (see Alzheimer's Disease). Further, one cannot KNOW anything without induction AND falsifiability, in science. In thinking, logic is what we use in the place of the scientific method which is used to test the physical world (we used logic to invent the scientific method, long ago). This is because thought can't use empiricism largely to prove anything about it (empiricism has nothing to say about ethics, and therefore empiricists see NOTHING objective about ethics - but to be clear, I'm neither a pure rationalist nor empiricist). I think a better analogy (than your train tracks, train, and station example) might be getting out of bed in the morning:

You cannot get out of bed unless you have assumed reality exists (there would no point in getting up otherwise), and the knowledge of the floor being there to meet your feet as you leave your bed is attained by repeatedly testing your faith in the fact the floor will be there (which on the surface seems to validate your claims - but won't in the next few sentences to follow). But this is a scientific method, loosely speaking (so the on-the-surface-validation dissipates). However, it is not purely science...you need logic to understand and set up such a repeated test. In other words, there is no science without logic. Science without logic would be pseudoscience or junk science (just as logic used to achieve knowledge relies on correct premises, so does science). You assume reality is real, you believe therefore the floor is part of this assumed objective reality, and therefore the floor should be there every time (barring some construction failure or whatever) you leave your bed. Testing this via experience just follows from the logic. The complete clear and explicit information gained is knowledge in a denotative sense (which is what matters in discussion of science or philosophy - unless we never use denotation, and instead use always connotation...in other words, we can't mix both in a discussion; one or the other must be consistently used when defining terms, and I prefer denotation for several reasons that are irrelevant right now). I see your point, however, if you are using a certain connotation of the word "knowledge"...but I wasn't using that meaning.

this is an entirely new premise. two entirely new premises. I'm not sure if I agree with either one. The second one I know for sure I don't agree with. I don't believe that logic is in any way limited by subjectivity/objectivity. At most our own subjective ability to perceive a logical conclusion may be limited, but the underlying math passes between subjectivity and objectivity like math passes between the square and the cube.

I don't see any new premise(s). And logic is NOT limited by subjectivity or objectivity (we agree there)...it can be used to lead to correct or incorrect claims via valid or invalid premises, or consistent or inconsistent use of the logic. I never claimed logic is limited in such a way. Instead I claimed you cannot test our subjective views of reality without a method which shows if they are accurately describing the assumed objective reality we share, and this is why we developed logic (useful to validate or invalidate claims in the realm of ideas), and later the scientific method (useful to validate or invalidate claims in the realm of the physical world).

The claims are simple; that if reality is assumed but not provable, and knowledge (denotative meaning) is only that which can be proven via logic (and its invention of the scientific method), then it follows that unless something can be proven empirically (science) or logically (thoughts), that which you are trying to prove cannot be proven (and is therefore invalid). The burden of proof in logic falls on the affirmative claims, ALWAYS (you never have to prove a negative, or 'what is NOT'). So, to claim ethical theories are objective (as most NAP adherents do, just for an example among many ethical theories and their adherents), you need to show you can prove reality exists AND that you can know it (knowledge being complete information). Since neither is possible (making falsifiability of the claim impossible and failing the problem of induction, AND failing to provide any logically consistent proofs, aka truth), then all claims of ethical theories being objectively true are invalid.

There wasn't anything new in premises department here...these are the logical implications of the premises in 1 and 2. If you accept reality is assumed objective, but is un-provable, and viewed subjectively, AND accept the denotative meaning of knowledge in the sciences and philosophy, then using consistent logic as a prism leads to these implications directly. One cannot say reality is not provable, but instead assumed, and viewed subjectively, while simultaneously saying it is possible to know reality in any complete objective sense or prove it in any way, and thereby elevate one's views of reality (and ethics) to the status of objective (without proofs). Also, one cannot claim knowledge of a thing if they do not have complete information of that thing (at least in terms of science and logic - you can have partial proofs, but that amounts to Karl Popper's 'best known truth' concept...not knowledge, per se - hence, scientific theories often overthrow each other as our objective view becomes clearer, as we approach true knowledge). The logical implications lead to "subjective ethical views cannot largely be tested in any scientific way, and the logic used to test them has limits on these subjective views". The first part is just obvious (you can't test ethics in the real world...only via thought experiments...the scientific method has nothing to say about that which cannot be falsified or can't face up to the problem of induction....this is why philosophical questions use logic instead, and that method predates science). The 2nd part is valid because logic cannot by itself prove a truth...the premises must be correct as well. That's the limits on logic to test subjective views. I hope that explains it better.

This is a conclusion, but it's not well connected to the arguments made above. We are introducing lots of new ideas JUST in the conclusion, which is a non sequitur. Imposition is a new idea, not established in the premises. Likewise society, norms, persons, voluntaryness, agreement, coercion, and consent. All new ideas that have not been established by the premises.

It's actually perfectly connected to the premises in 1 and 2. If the premises hold true, and I doubt anyone will argue using denotative meanings that they are false, and the logic is consistent, the conclusion holds. The only true knowledge attainable about ethics is that they are real (objective; or as objective as any thing can be in an assumed, un-provable reality), but individual theories in ethics from there are purely subjective...and this is just logical given 1 and 2. I think you using a connotation on the word "knowledge" has led to this confusion. In other words, I would argue (and quite correctly, I'd say) that your premise was flawed, and so your conclusion is flawed. You defined knowledge in such a way as it is not what is considered "knowledge" in any of the sciences or in philosophy (especially libertarian philosophy, as there are some non-libertarian definitions of knowledge that mostly coincide with your connotative meaning). That meant you applied consistent logic to that premise, and ended up with an incorrect conclusion. If you go back and read the word "knowledge" as I have denotatively defined it (not how you defined it - and that's not to say it was your fault I didn't define my terms already), you will see my premises are not flawed, and because my logic (like yours) was correct and consistent, the conclusion is correct as well. All the ideas you listed follow directly from the premises, logic, and conclusion.

How can one call it "ethical" to coerce others into any form of law or social norm if they are capable of consent, refuse to give it, and if the person wishing to do the coercion is not able to 1) prove reality is objective, and 2) therefore gain any knowledge of ethical theories in any objective sense? It would be illogical. To do such a coercive thing would be obviously operating on the assumption that 1) reality is objective and provable, and 2) is perfectly knowable via passing the problem of induction and falsifiability. As I demonstrated in my first premise (#1), reality cannot be proven. As I demonstrated in my second premise (#2), there is no way to get complete information about reality. Since ALL ethical theory in philosophy stem from epistemological and metaphysical premises (which are what I went into with 1 and 2) passed through a prism of logic (to attain the ethical theory), then logically all ethical theories must be subjective ONLY (objective and subjective are binary possibilities). This is because the only truth we can get at all concerning ethics, the only real knowledge on the subject, is that coercion of non-consenting individuals who are capable of consent into one set of laws or social norms violates the logic or premises set forth, and so is incorrect. You have to ignore reality is un-provable and has almost nothing about it that is knowable to impose such coercions.

Now, I didn't address self defense, but it is implied. If someone coerces you into a law or social norm, their actions are illogical and objectively immoral (given the SLOET)...this means THEY, not you, are the coercer of a non-consenter into a law or social norm. You resisting such a coercion with coercion of your own is not YOU trying to impose you ethical theory on them (and if you did, this would also be objectively unethical)...instead, your defense is simply trying to stop their imposition and trying to re-establish the only known truth about ethics (the SLOET). This is also why I agree with the statement "the only ethical objective in war is to take away your enemy's ability to make war against you or others you are charged with defending". All things that do not go to that end are logically trying to impose a subjective ethical theory, not simply uphold the SLOET. Now, what that means for fights (individuals) or wars (groups) in practice, and what in-practice in specific circumstances is ethical or not is grand discussion for another time (and from reading you for some time here, and shortly on another forum, I think we'll find a lot of agreement overall - although tactically you know far more than I do on the subject, so I will not attempt to go too far into minutia in most cases).

In short, I didn't introduce new premises...I simply used logic, and the denotative meaning of "knowledge", to arrive at obvious consequences/implications given 1 and 2. For sure, 3 was the conclusions (we agree there). To resist the three conclusions one must destroy my logic or premises...which I do not think anyone can do if "knowledge" is defined denotatively. That seems to be our hang up here.

OK, here is another conclusion sounding part. All the new ideas in the first conclusion are actually new premises? But it also adds a whole nuther premise: that coercion must presume a total knowledge of objective reality. I don't think I agree with that either. A guy points a gun at me I am going to coerce the hell out of him whether his gun is loaded or not. I don't have total knowledge but I am morally right to break his idiot arm.

The first conclusion is just logical if we define knowledge denotatively. Then we simply use the same consistent logic to expand upon that conclusion. There were no new premises. And coercion, to be justified (unlike self defense, which is NOT initiated, nor is trying to impose any ethical theory), ABSOLUTELY MUST presume total knowledge of reality (which is NOT provably objective, and I demonstrated this in #1). Otherwise, how can you justify it? You just guess stuff and impose it? Your opinion, with no proofs (truth), is sufficient to murder, rape, steal, or stop people from masochistic activities like drug use, duels, euthanasia, forming voluntary anti-property communes, etc.?

Of course coercing means you are saying "this IS"...and yet you cannot prove ANYTHING "is". Every tyrant in history has tried to claim their ethical code (or lack thereof) was objectively true...and they carried out atrocities under that assumption (see ISIS/ISIL/IS right now on their mythology-based moral theory in Iraq/Syria, or many other current or past examples). But since they couldn't possibly prove reality was objective (but, like all of us, simply had to assume it for the sake of doing or saying anything), and since they couldn't gain any knowledge (in the denotative sense of the word) about the objective nature of their ethical theories, then we rightly see their actions as evil. It is only through a belief that an ethical theory (or thereof) is perfectly provable as objective that religions, union, corporations, and states can coerce anyone...and the same is logically true of individuals. Why else would they do it? If they agreed with me that nothing in reality is provable in any objective sense, and nothing is therefore know-able in any objective sense about ethics, besides the SLOET (and that's only via process of elimination via a bunch of binary choices), then they would not seek to coerce anyone in any initiatory way into any ethical theory (or lack thereof). It would be logically impossible. If they acted out of impulsivity in the moment, they would agree they acted unethically (humans may break the SLOET, the "IS" does not validate or invalidate the "OUGHT", however).

You go on to talk about self defense (justifiable responsive coercion)...but if you are NOT trying to impose your ethical theory via that defense, and instead are only trying to stop THEM from doing so to you (or someone you are charged with defending), that does not violate the SLOET, logically. Notice, I didn't say ALL coercion was immoral...I was very specific as to when it was immoral (when used to impose a subjective ethical theory by way of law or social norm). "Taking the law into your own hands" has many meanings, but the one that applies here is that the initiator of coercion is taking it upon himself to be YOUR law, and YOUR social judge, and change your behavior and liberties via initiated coercion. So, if a person pulls a gun on you, he is violating the SLOET (he believes armed robbery or whatever is ethical by his ethical theory, or he rejects ethics entirely - the latter of which is not a logical conclusion given the premises in 1 and 2, and the logical conclusions in 3). You are not violating the SLOET to fend him off, provided you don't go on to impose your subjective ethical code on him via coercion of law and social norm. This is why even the NAP (taken in the colloquial sense that "aggression" is only initiated aggression - which I will debate when I publish my entire subjective ethical theory, the PLC) says you can knock someone out who shoves you, but you cannot then stomp on their unconscious head until they are dead (that latter part violates the NAP, as it is popularly understood). Defense is not a violation of the SLOET if you think through the implications of the SLOET (and use denotative meanings for words like "knowledge" to arrive at it). It only becomes a violation if you do not stop short of imposing your own ethical theory (or lack thereof) on the initiator of coercion (and someone's ethical theory, or lack thereof, may well say murder is fine, so stomping him to death might be subjectively moral to them...but imposing that upon him would a violation of the SLOET). At that point you logically would violate the SLOET. The SLOET actually justifies self defense 100% (although, I'd point out, some NAP adherents take the NAP to the logical conclusion of the ZAP, or zero aggression principle, which leads to radical pacifism where even self defense is immoral to them). I think this confusion is because one of your premises is that knowledge is not complete information (and my meaning of the word is that it is). The initiating coercer would require such complete information of reality and therefore ethics in order to properly justify their initiation of coercion (they would need to invalidate the SLOET)...the defender, however, has no such burden. They don't need to know reality perfectly at all, nor ethics. All they need is reasonable perception of the initiated coercion.

What is reasonable? Well for thousands upon thousands of years, in states and in stateless societies, methods of evidence and what is, and is not, a reasonable perception of peril have been developed via logic. As in the Trayvon Martin case, the defender does NOT need to even be correct about the peril's level...they just need to have reasonably perceived it as sufficient to justify their actions. Had Zimmerman been schizophrenic, this may have been called into more question. But because he was not, and the evidence was not sufficient to show he initiated any attack (the burden of proof of an affirmative claim is always on the claimant, hence the assumption of innocence developed in law via logic), the perception of a threat of great bodily harm or death was reasonable (even if possibly entirely incorrect).

It's not a logical argument either. It's pretty easy to follow the line of thought going on here, and it's kind of structured like a logical argument, but frankly it's really just a whole bunch of diverse premises, with the last two premises sounding a lot like conclusions. There really isn't any argument going on here to apply logic to. :-/

I dispute some of the premises, and not all of the premises are even used in the argument.

I completely disagree, and if you switch you definition of knowledge to a denotative one, not a colloquial or conative one, then we will end up at the same conclusions. It's impossible for us not to, I would contend.

whoa! now that's one hell of a conclusion. The premises for which I appear to have missed.

How can you claim any ethical theory is objective, and not simply subjective, if there is only one know-able truth in any objective sense about ethics (the SLOET)? Again, switch to a denotative meaning of "knowledge", and go back to beginning, and all will come to this logical conclusion. You didn't miss it...you just have a flawed premise in the way you are defining a single (and very pertinent) word to my argument.

His line of thought is fairly cogent, his ultimate conclusions may possibly be somewhere in the neighborhood of correct, but there is really nothing logical about his presentation at all. It is more rhetorical in nature than logical I think.

I promise I tried to be nice.

Actually it is completely consistently logical if you change your meaning of "knowledge" to one used in the sciences and philosophy in general. Not defining terms, and agreeing on those terms, in debate is often the source of confusion between parties. And even if we disagree on the ultimate meanings, this problem can also be avoided by labeling...for example, "knowledge1" is your version, and "knowledge2" is my version. If we use your version, then I agree with everything you said. If we use my version, I don't think you can disagree with everything I said. It comes down to defining terms and therefore premises.

And you were sufficiently nice

The only thing further I would say is this:

We can easily get too far in the weeds here...although you did a fine job of not going to deep into the brush.

If premise #1 is that reality cannot be proven as objective, but instead is viewed subjectively after an assumption (but not proof) of its objective nature, then premise #1 holds once you agree to that (and I can't see how you cannot). To break premise #1, the affirmative claim of reality being provably objective will require logical or absolute scientific proof (which cannot be attained given the two thought experiments I cited that show reality is in fact un-provable in any objective sense).

So, premise #1 should hold true.

If premise #2 is that knowledge(2) (the denotative, or actual, meaning in science and philosophy in general) in thought processes like ethical theories are not really testable in such a way as to prove them as objective, and even the scientific method (an extension of logic into the physical environment) does not prove any 100% proofs (truth) of the reality we live in or the ideas like ethical theories (given Popper's cited concepts concerning falsifiability and the problem of induction), then this premise holds water insofar as you agree with what I just now wrote. If you do not agree, the burden of proof is on the affirmative claim in logic...you'll have to show proofs for A) proving the problem of induction and falsifiability don't matter to scientific evidence, and B) that logic is somehow sufficient, despite the premises, to prove the objectivity of an ethical theory (or lack thereof).

Since no one can do either, premise #2 would hold true.

The burden of proof isn't on me to prove things here...I am making no affirmative claims until my conclusions in #3...and those affirmative claims are proven true by using logic to reduce other possibilities from the "equation".

So, if you cannot prove reality is objective (and you cannot), and if you cannot prove an ethical theory (or lack thereof) is objectively true via either logic or science (which you cannot), then LOGICALLY calling any ethical theory (or lack thereof) objective, as opposed to subjective, would be invalid. This leads directly, via logic, to the conclusion that the only know-able aspect of ethics generally is that imposition of subjective ethical theories (or lack thereof) on others would be illogical, because it requires justification via logic (which cannot be done). Coercion (when initiated) being justified IS an affirmative claim, explicitly or implicitly (depending on the type of coercion). It must therefore stand up to logical muster...and it cannot. Since it cannot, logically any imposition of law or social norm on non-consenters capable of consent would be objectively illogical, and therefore objectively immoral (as ethics can only be derived in philosophy via epistemological and metaphysical precepts passed through a prism of logic). Since we can show, purely via logic, that there is a singular logical objective ethical truth, then we can logically say ethics exist (defeating amoralism as a negation of ethics and refusal to accept they exist).

This proves (proofs = truth in philosophy and science, including mathematics) 3 things: 1) ethics exist in an objective sense (albeit only one thing is know-able about ethics; the SLOET), 2) that all ethical theories are therefore subjective (because they cannot proven in any logical or scientific manner to be objective - the burden of proof is on the affirmative claim ALWAYS in logic), and 3) that the lack of moral consistency is directly proportional to the lack of logical consistency (if one were completely logically consistent they would come to the SLOET, and thereby would understand the only real provable moral truth; that ethical theories are subjective, so their imposition via coercion of laws and social norms - including individual acts of making one's self the "law" - is logically invalid and therefore immoral).

If we use the NAP as objective, as an example of breaking the SLOET, we have to use coercion in an initiated way to stop acts of aggression that cause no unwilling victims capable of consent. For example, if in the extreme two men wished to go out in the desert, where no one could see them, hear them, or be harmed by their activities, and they decide to contract together to duel to the death, this is clearly aggression. There is no arguing simply because the aggression of both dueling parties is voluntary that it is not aggression...it is irrefutably aggression as defined most anywhere (and I can cite sources to prove it). One must aggress to kill another person in a duel. However, there is no coercion in such a contract (both have explicitly consented, making coercion logically impossible). Since we are not talking about contracts under duress, but instead a purely voluntary contract, the NAP translated into legal theory in a consistent way would regard this as illegal (because of the presence of aggression)...which means you have coerce people in an initiatory way to stop them. This is incompatible with a free society, voluntaryism, etc., as clearly coercing them when not in defense is creating a new state by another name. Acts that do not victimize (which implies coercion) the innocent are not worthy of the label "crime"...and if they are, the logical conclusion is drug wars, wars of occupation and initiated aggression, etc. We cannot stop consenting people, capable of consent (so not small children or severely mentally disturbed or handicapped people - none of those can really consent) from ANY consensual acts, no matter how masochistic, if they do not create victims (via coercion, logically)...and if we do, the burden of proof as to why is on us. That burden of proof cannot be met given premise 1 and 2 I wrote in the OP...hence, the 3 conclusions (and the SLOET that materialized via those 3 logical conclusions).

Now, many have attempted to prove the NAP objective...and I do not see how that can be possible unless my two premises or my 3 conclusions (and their logical implication of the SLOET). But this IS NOT about attacking the NAP (it was just an easy example given how many people here agree with it and see it as somehow objective). ANY ethical theory (or even amoralism) can be attacked in the same exact manner. If you say theft is moral, that is fine provided that subjective moral theory is only used to steal from others who contract with you that theft is legal. The moment they steal from unwilling parties, they create victims. That violates the SLOET. It also is why in stateless societies you could only contract with others for law (insurance against victimization), and anyone who had a different contractual arrangement wasn't held to your standard PROVIDED they didn't create victims (via coercion, but not necessarily aggression).

See, the entire point of ethics in the real world is to develop legal theory. Otherwise ethics are rather, in practice, meaningless. People who contract for law will share ethical beliefs. For example, if Muslims want to cut off each others hands for theft, that's fine...provided they don't do it to anyone not in that contract. They can't hold anyone to a contract who cannot consent either (so kids can't be held to a contract they cannot sign). This is why in customary law, and indeed in most statist systems, juveniles face entirely different standards of law. They can't consent, so they are held in stateless situations to basic minimum standards...they are not permitted create victims or consent to contracts of their own, but when they do create victims or are victimized while "giving approval" (before they are capable, which is an individual thing) the consequence is not that of their parents' contracts for them, but is for the adult who victimized them (if they were victimized, of course). It's a much more minimalist approach by sureties to resolve the dispute. So, what I'm trying to get across is if an ethical theory can not be consistently translated into legal theory, then it cannot be objective (it's just further proof the claim of objectivity is invalid). It's subjective, and only seen as "objective" for those who contract to it.

The problem with any ethical theory (of which I hold the NAP is very high regard, even if I criticize it) is that its imposition via law or social norm on non-consenters capable of consent automatically leads to a state or de facto state. Even the NAP, which is my 2nd favorite ethical theory (my favorite being the PLC that I developed), will lead to a state if initiations of aggression that are voluntary in nature are illegal. And that will follow all the way through. One has to make up loopholes for circumstances they know harm the NAPs viability (what they refer to as "lifeboat ethics", which are far more common in non-1st world nations than here in America, and are in fact real things that happen every day somewhere on Earth...and in fact happen rarely in America too). If all initiations of aggression, for example, are unethical, why would you punish (or remunerative alternatives) a man differently who murdered his lover for cheating on him than you would punish (or remunerative alternatives) a group of 3 men who were stranded at sea, dying of thirst and starvation, when they murdered a comatose and dying friend who was surely going to die anyways, so that they could survive (this is an actual famous legal case, and the 3 men indeed were rescued soon after, and no one disputes they would have died without drinking the victim's blood, and that if they didn't kill him the blood would have been poisonous to drink...it had to be done the way it was done or all 4 would have died)? There would be no reason to punish (or remunerative alternatives) those cases differently using either deontological or consequentialist justifications for the NAP. Applied consistently, the NAP leads to equivalent consequences legally. And that cannot be right, given the circumstances being so vastly different...unless all who contract with each other agree to that, of course.

On the other hand, if you wish to avoid such problems, you can take on a different subjective theory...and use circumstantialist reasoning to arrive at it, as opposed to deontological or consequentialist. I also developed circumstantialism, BTW, as to break what I see as a false paradigm set up by deontological and consequentialist means of deriving ethical theories.

BUT this isn't about circumstantialism or the PLC directly...it's about pointing out that viewing any ethical theory as objective means that it AND ONLY IT can be the basis of law, which logically destroys any real ability to have contractual legal arrangements that ethical theory deems "immoral" in an objective sense. I do not wish to stop psychopaths from contracting with each other to kill each other...I just don't want them to kill innocent victims. I do not wish to keep anarcho communists from contracting together to "steal" each other's "property", provided they create no victims who contract differently. These are both examples of initiatory aggression (murder and theft), but when consensual cease to be unethical (as they don't violate the SLOET). They are masochistic, but as long as no victims are created, then these contractual arrangements are consistent in legal theory.

No subjective ethical theory (not even my PLC) can be translated into law in any objective sense and still be consistent in logic (because it requires imposition by force on those who disagree). To do so, one either needs loopholes (which show the theory is in fact invalid), OR it requires coercion to be initiated against those who do not agree with that ethical theory. Why believe in a theory that in practice proves itself invalid, or requires initiations of coercion? There's an easy way to avoid these problems...accept the SLOET and the logical truth that all ethical theories beyond it are indeed subjective. That means they can translated into legal theory with no problems (as they will only be legal for those who contract to them - all others can contract how they please). The SLOET chiefly implies that Sharia Law Muslims can't coerce you into their laws, and you can't coerce them into libertarian NAP-based laws. Everyone can do as they please, have any laws they please, insofar as they don't impose them on those who do not agree. Murder, rape, thievery can all be legal if consented to (which arguably makes "murder" into death by surprise or voluntary euthanasia, makes "rape" S&M sex by surprise, and makes "theft" wealth redistribution by surprise). Since we both wouldn't want those things to happen to us, and think of them as immoral (I argue purely in a subjective sense), we would just contract with a different set of laws. Any time we are stolen from, murdered, or raped, we are victims, and someone is going to pay, one way or the other...and justifiably so, via the SLOET. However, conversely, if we attempt to stop those who murder, steal from, and rape only those who consented to those type of contracts, we are creating victims via our initiation of coercion, and thus will have to pay, one way or the other...and justifiably so, given the SLOET.

Without acceptance of the SLOET, there is no liberty in legal markets. Liberty means the right to do stupid and harmful things provided they don't create victims (by doing them to unwilling parties). All imposition of ethical theories as if they are objective completely, logically, destroy any possibility of a legal "system" that facilitates liberty. Hence, the state and its monopoly over legal services violates the SLOET, and is therefore illogical and immoral. The same can be said for any criminal individual or group (those who create victims)...not just the self-legalized criminal organization of the state. And any other de facto state by this manner of action is also a state, whether they call themselves "mafia", "union", "church", or "corporation", etc.

Is a state of 100 any less a state than a state of 1 million? How about a de facto state of one vs a state of hundreds of millions? A criminal is a criminal, alone or in groups, and under any euphemistic label they choose to throw around for themselves.

I contend voluntaryism translated into real-world legal practice demands acceptance of the SLOET, logically. You can give it another name, or modify your own existing theory to look like or sound like the SLOET...that all makes no difference. What matters is the general concept that coercing people who can consent, but refuse to, into one particular ethical theory via law or social norm (whether enacted individually or in groups) is the only thing that is objectively immoral. All else can only be subjectively moral or immoral based on contractual arrangements of consenters.

Ethical theories appear a lot better in thought experiments than they actually work in real life legal theory...so, the true test of these theories is how they appear when translated into legal theory (using consistent logic). Any ethical theory that is said to be objective is making assumptions that cannot be true (as explained in the SLOET in the OP), and is going to itself initiate coercion if applied in a logically consistent way. The only way to avoid this is to create loopholes and cognitive dissonance (which is fine, if in practice it looks like the implication of accepting the SLOET, as I have described them above), OR to accept that ethical theories are all subjective, and the SLOET is valid (and therefore has proofs - which means it is true).

The only way to disprove the SLOET is A) prove reality is objective, not simply assumed so (impossible), B) that this reality can be perfectly known (impossible), and C) that the logical implications of NOT being able to poke holes in those premises isn't that imposing an ethical theory (on non-consenters capable of consent) as if it is objective isn't itself built on un-provable assumptions (which invalidates the ethics behind such an act). Since I do not foresee anyone breaking the two epistemological and metaphysical premises, and my logic (I think) is consistent, then I cannot imagine the SLOET being invalidated. However, I am willing to entertain the possibility, because I value truth above my ego. Hence, I published the essay here before publishing the book. People like yourself give me good constructive criticism, even if we don't always agree.

In proving ethics objectively exist (insofar as anything can be proven to be objective in an assumed reality which is un-provable), there are logical implications of that achievement. They were the 3 conclusions I came to...A)ethics exist objectively, B) it is impossible to prove ethical theories are objective which renders them subjective by binary default, and C) the only way to deny the first two conclusions is to be inconsistent in the use of logic, which leads to immoral beliefs and actions in proportion to that illogic. That by reduction methods gave me the SLOET as a result. The SLOET is just the logical result of the three conclusions, via process of elimination (reduction). I do not see how I ventured too far into reductionism given the 2 premises and the 3 conclusions, and the logic used to get to those conclusions, and the logic used to find the SLOET from those 3 conclusions and their logical consequences/implications.

Thanks again for your valuable time.

[ProIndividual]

Perhaps I overestimated the response I would get here. I got more of a response on Facebook, to my surprise. I thank Gunny for his 1st response, but I wish he would have responded to my counter. I'll check back in a few days to see if he did indeed respond. As for the rest, I'm really surprised no one else put their intellectual nose to the metaphorical grindstone on this one. I don't think I'll be posting any of the rest of my book here. It will be available free online when completed, so no loss or gain for anyone here...but I really wanted to pay respect to some of the thinkers here by giving them first crack at some of the essays in the book. That may have been a mistake, in retrospect. After all, I did it to get feedback, not simply post it for the sake of posting it. As little as I participate in social media, it appears that may be the better place to get feedback on such heady philosophical topics.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained...so I don't regret posting it. I just really expected more of this community in terms of willingness to debate, critique, etc. such subjects. Maybe I shouldn't have...or maybe the people I expected to respond aren't here as much anymore.

[GunnyFreedom]

Perhaps I overestimated the response I would get here. I got more of a response on Facebook, to my surprise. I thank Gunny for his 1st response, but I wish he would have responded to my counter. I'll check back in a few days to see if he did indeed respond. As for the rest, I'm really surprised no one else put their intellectual nose to the metaphorical grindstone on this one. I don't think I'll be posting any of the rest of my book here. It will be available free online when completed, so no loss or gain for anyone here...but I really wanted to pay respect to some of the thinkers here by giving them first crack at some of the essays in the book. That may have been a mistake, in retrospect. After all, I did it to get feedback, not simply post it for the sake of posting it. As little as I participate in social media, it appears that may be the better place to get feedback on such heady philosophical topics.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained...so I don't regret posting it. I just really expected more of this community in terms of willingness to debate, critique, etc. such subjects. Maybe I shouldn't have...or maybe the people I expected to respond aren't here as much anymore.

I can't really argue with it, because it does not conform to what I have been taught is logic. To me it still looks like a large precession of loosely related premises. I have already pointed out most the premises I disagreed with, and unfortunately I still I find no logic present to deconstruct. I don't know what else to say, really.

[idiom]

Who does this theory differ from Rand's Objectivism?

If you are talking about ethical theories being objective, do you mean in a real testable repeatable hypothesis-experiment-theory way? Would ethics apply to all life forms?

If ethics are objective are you justified in enforcing them on people who disagree?

[Ronin Truth]

Do you distinguish between ethics and morality?

Have you identified any core axioms?

Most of the world claims to believe in the Golden Rule or close variations of it. Can you start or end with that?

[Ronin Truth]

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...55.Hn1pGK-nYHY

[ClydeCoulter]

Just found this thread. Interesting, and I was able to follow the OP...waiting to see where this is leading...the other thread (ie SLOET vs PLC)?

[ProIndividual]

I can't really argue with it, because it does not conform to what I have been taught is logic. To me it still looks like a large precession of loosely related premises. I have already pointed out most the premises I disagreed with, and unfortunately I still I find no logic present to deconstruct. I don't know what else to say, really.

Try reading my response and pointing out where I wasn't logical. Otherwise this is a claim without any argument to back it. If you aren't seeing the logic, you are purposefully avoiding it. I went to great pains in the response to explain it in minute detail (as opposed to the relatively short OP).

I'm not trying to be rude to you, but your original criticisms were addressed in great detail. You defined a very important word differently than I did, and as such you went on to make an analysis which would not be possible if you defined it the way I did. I pointed this out over and over to show that if we define that word the way you did, sure, you are right. If we define it how I did, which is the denotative meaning, then I'm right. You can't deny my premises, nor my logic, nor my conclusions (or so I'd argue) if you define the word denotatively. My logic isn't full of holes, nor did I introduce new premises. I explained this in a VERY detailed manner so you wouldn't get confused again. If you don't want to make the effort, just say that...but don't just make the same claim again without backing it up via argumentation. It makes no sense to do this.

[ProIndividual]

Who does this theory differ from Rand's Objectivism?

If you are talking about ethical theories being objective, do you mean in a real testable repeatable hypothesis-experiment-theory way? Would ethics apply to all life forms?

If ethics are objective are you justified in enforcing them on people who disagree?

Rand believed reality was assumed objective...that's the only real similarity, since the SLOET couldn't justify a state. In fact, it shows why a state can't be justified (it violates the SLOET to coercively monopolize legal insurance markets). And I clearly explained that ethics objectively exist, but ethical theories are subjective (and therefore can't be enforced on anyone who doesn't consent, who is capable of consent). You didn't really read much of what I wrote, based on these questions. I'm not trying to be rude, but I certainly wrote that over and over above - both in the OP and in the 2nd longer post.

And as far as ethics applying to all life forms...if we are involved, sure. But you cannot expect a 6 month old or a animal of equal mentality to grasp the subject. Hence, the ability to consent comes up repeatedly.

[ProIndividual]

Just found this thread. Interesting, and I was able to follow the OP...waiting to see where this is leading...the other thread (ie SLOET vs PLC)?

I will PM you a link to the book when I finish proofreading it. I'm also trying to get someone special to write a little opening for the book. I don't want to give it away though...and I only work on this project in my spare time. It's been quite a few years in the making.

And yeah, that other thread was part of my process in writing this book. I've refined a bit of it, but the general ideas are the same. Thanks for having an open mind about it, even if you come to conclusion I'm wrong.

The PLC thread I was going to post was basically the overview of an entire chapter in the book. It would be long as hell, and that's why I started with the SLOET, which is a much shorter and simpler concept. I spent a lot of time on the PLC because I basically wanted to run through real world cases (a couple of which I mention in that other thread) and plausible (and not so plausible, but famous in philosophy) hypotheticals to show the implications of the theory.

Also, to explain the PLC I needed to criticize what I see as a false paradigm between deontological and consequentialist means to arrive at ethical valuations. In doing so, I set forth my circumstantialist methodology in their places. As you can imagine, this is long, boring, etc., and that is before we even start the PLC itself. So, we're talking a lot of walls of text and stuff...

[ProIndividual]

Do you distinguish between ethics and morality?

Have you identified any core axioms?

Most of the world claims to believe in the Golden Rule or close variations of it. Can you start or end with that?

No, I don't really distinguish, because most ethicists and philosophers use the terms interchangeably. The link you gave (or links within the link, I should say) mentions morality concerning rules...but consequentialist ethics (with the exception of rule utilitarianism) don't concern themselves with rules, but rather outcomes. Hence, most philosophers don't distinguish any real difference. Religious people like to draw a distinction, I notice...but I think that has something to do with avoiding logical criticism of their moral (ethical) codes derived from mythologies.

Morality means "proper behavior"...which ethics concerns itself with. Now, if you mean moral character, or moral manner, then I can see what you mean. But I don't think it is impossible to make a value judgment about manner or character using ethical theories (albeit a subjective one). Another reason not to distinguish is my assertion ethical theories are subjective (even if I claim ethics are objectively in existence).

Ethics is moral philosophy. The term "moral philosophy" is totally interchangeable with "ethics" (but not necessarily ethical theoretical valutations, if you claim they are subjective).

Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is the branch of philosophy which addresses questions of morality. The word 'ethics' is "commonly used interchangeably with 'morality' ... and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group, or individual."[6] Likewise, certain types of ethical theories, especially deontological ethics, sometimes distinguish between 'ethics' and 'morals': "Although the morality of people and their ethics amounts to the same thing, there is a usage that restricts morality to systems such as that of Kant, based on notions such as duty, obligation, and principles of conduct, reserving ethics for the more Aristotelian approach to practical reasoning, based on the notion of a virtue, and generally avoiding the separation of 'moral' considerations from other practical considerations."[7]

So, unless coming from a deontological point of view, or a very Kantian point of view (or a few others), the two terms are interchangeable. But even deontological philosophers usually use the terms interchangeably today. Molyneux is one example of a philosopher who both sees his ethical theory as objective AND see morality and ethics as interchangeable terms (he's not the only one though).

And my two premises are axiomatic (that reality cannot be proven, but must be assumed for the sake of any rational action or discussion, and is viewed subjectively even if assumed objective, AND that aspects of the assumed reality can only be proven objective via empiricism or logic, and because neither perfectly describes the assumed objective reality no one can have any true - or perfect - knowledge about this assumed reality...and in my conclusion I show, via process of elimination, or simple reduction, that because of premises one and two, three conclusions can be known for sure - that ethics can shown to be objective, ethical theories can not be shown to be objective, and so must be subjective given the binary choice, and that therefore it would be illogical to force anyone who can consent but refuses to consent into any law or social norm based upon a subjective ethical view - precisely because it must assume things are perfectly known that cannot be known in order to justify this act of coercion).

Therefore, the SLOET is axiomatic. The only way to see it otherwise is to place more emphasis on the need to be uncontroversial, which of course would negate most anything from being axiomatic (like the NAP being claimed as an axiom is also controversial, just not so much among libertarians...but even among libertarians who accept it, its axiomatic status is pretty contentious).

Axioms are basically premises that can be derived via reason and logic (or science, which is derived itself via reason and logic) and can then be proven via a FAIRLY uncontroversial methodology (in science proofs - truth - require overcoming the problems of induction and falsifiability, and in logic proofs can come in a number of ways, but in this case I eliminate other possibilities via binary choices, leaving us with only what remains and cannot be broken via breaking the premises or logic used to eliminate the other possibilities...and I actually got the idea to do this via Rothbard, who does it quite well in a lot of his writings).

And the Golden Rule being popular isn't a matter of logic. That's just argumentum ad populum (not that you are attempting this). However, I will say the SLOET is very similar to the spirit of the GR in its application...but the GR itself is a subjective ethical theory that cannot be enforced on those who can consent and refuse to consent among contracting individuals. In other words, if two people wish to contract to kill each other in duel, and they are capable of such consent, and no other non-consenting person is affected directly or measurably, then enforcing the GR on them because most people disagree would be objectively immoral (as it would be illogical). Also, it would justify a state based on some GR-based legal system, which the SLOET shows is immoral (unethical). That doesn't mean I'm for NOT treating people as I wish them to treat me, or some such phrasing of the GR...it just means I don't think this ethical preference is objective, but instead it is subjectively preferred. But, if you see the SLOET as a sort of GR, that's fine...as long as you can see the distinction between the two in effect when translated into legal theory (most people who claim the GR is objective would want a state, and would enforce their laws on those who do not agree even if those who do not agree were creating no victims other than other people who agree and consent to it).

In the book I show these things to be axiomatic via logical and mathematical processes (as in "can C = G be valid, if G = T + S, but C /= T+S...the answer is objectively 'No', C = G is not a logically valid statement and therefore not axiomatic insofar as G = T +S, but C /= T+S"). Sometimes I use algebraic formulations, and sometimes I use the traditional Greek alphabet and symbols used in symbolic logic and propositional (sentential) logic. I tend to prefer algebraic proofs overall, because I'm more comfortable with them and more people accept their proofs (although both can be argued to be forms of mathematical or propositional calculus/logic).

This is what turns logic into a math-related exercise:

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

Different types of logic (and this link might also apply to Gunny's claim I'm not being logical because it's not the type of logic he was taught):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic#Types_of_logic

Of course all of this assumes you aren't claiming a priori that reality does not require an objective assumption (solipsists will say reality, and everyone and everything in it, are just products of their imagination...and although I find this a bit silly while debating - as they shouldn't debate with someone if reality is an illusion; it would make them mentally unstable - to their credit, they cannot be proven wrong...see premise #1 as to why).

[ProIndividual]

double post

[Ronin Truth]

A Brief Summary of Kant’s Categorical Imperative

Posted on May 1, 2012 by Poignantboy


Immanuel Kant’s take on ethics stands out in stark contrast to the utiliarianist views of Jeremy Bentham. His categorical imperative is a deontological ethical theory, which means it is based on the idea that there are certain objective ethical rules in the world. “Deontology” comes from the Greek word “deon” meaning duty – in other words, deontologically minded philosophers believe we have a duty to act in certain ways, in accordance with moral laws. Kant’s version is possibly the most well known, and relies heavily on his idea that all people are fundamentally capable of reasoning in the same manner and on the same level. Kantianism focuses more on intent and action in itself, as opposed to the consequentialist focus of utilitarianism. One of the primary points of Kantian ethics is, basically, that you must never treat another human being as a means to an end – this idea lies at the core of Kant’s ethical thinking.

First of all, let’s look at some of the foundational theories that Kant based his approach on. Now, Kant was pretty big on something known as autonomy (self-governance). He believed that, unless a person freely and willingly makes a choice, their action has no meaning (and certainly no moral value) – this would be an example of what Kant called heteronomy. So how did he move from this to the concept of a universal, objective moral law that no man had the right to break? Well, an idea that’s central to Kant’s moral laws or duties is that they’re based on reason. Kant thought that every man, if using reason when looking at moral dilemmas, would agree with what he called the Categorical Imperative (the CI). So, while the law is objective, Kant thought that all people could come to understand and agree with it after autonomous reflection.

So how, exactly, does the CI tell us how to act? How does it work? The decision-making procedure of the theory is actually quite straight forward, and one that many people should be able to grasp intuitively (which is exactly what Kant wanted to achieve). Kant thought that when a moral action is being considered, one should ask the following questions; what would happen if I made the maxim of this action a universal law (killing someone who’s insulted you = you must kill anyone who insults you)? Is this universalization possible? Consider the example of killing someone because they’ve insulted you. If everyone did this, we’d swiftly and surely run out of people to kill, and it would no longer be possible to follow the law. Because of this logical contradiction, Kant felt that we have a perfect duty to not kill people. However, are also imperfect duties. An example of this would be giving to charity – it is not a moral necessity that you do this, but you should be praised if you do.

A core aspect of this theory is the concept of intent. To Kant, the actual outcome (the consequences) of a particular action didn’t matter at all. It was the intent that mattered to him. Let’s look at an example. Imagine you’re a murderer walking down the street, and you see a defenseless young man in front of you. It’s dark, and there’s no one else around. You have a knife in your pocket. It would be easy for you to kill him. So, you consider. Maybe, in the end, you choose to let the man live – not because you were worried about acting immorally, but because you didn’t want to take the risk of him screaming and drawing the attention of the police (or something to that effect). In the end, you do not kill. According to Kant, you haven’t acted ethically. You’re action does not make you a better person. This is because when you acted (or, rather, chose not to act), you weren’t considering the action in terms of its morality. You didn’t make a moral choice – you merely acted out of self-preservation. However, if you were to choose not to kill the man because you suddenly realized that it was wrong to kill and didn’t want to act unethically, then you would have acted morally, and would be a better person for it.

One of the advantages of this approach to morality is that it looks more closely at the individual and his choices, rather than the actual consequences of what he does (which, after all, he has no control over). Take this example; a scientist decides that he is going to find a cure for a particular sort of cancer, and spends years trying to accomplish this. Look at his intent – it’s highly moral. But imagine that he accidentally invents some sort of super weapon instead, which eventually leads to the total destruction of entire civilizations. This is not a positive result, but it was not what he wanted to achieve. The utilitarian would say that he is a bad person nevertheless, as he has caused massive amounts of suffering. But it’s not what he wanted to do. Kant’s approach here seems preferable, and much fairer.

The main problem with the categorical imperative is its rigidity. The famous example that illustrates this is that of a crazed axe-murderer coming to your front door and asking you where your children are. You could lie – many would say you should lie – but imagine if everyone in the entire world lied all the time. If everyone lied, there would be no “telling the truth” and, thus, no real lying. As the law is logically contradictory, you have a perfect duty not to lie. You have to tell the axe-murderer the truth, so he can go and kill your children. Kant was asked about this personally, and he said that this was indeed the case. It would be immoral to lie to the man. He did, however, say that you could also choose to lock your door and call the police. Here’s another example – you’re in a room with a man who’s holding a gun to your mother’s head. You know he’ll shoot her any second. Right next to you, there’s a button. If you press the button, the man will fall through a trap door and land in a spike pit, dying instantly. Your mother will be saved. According to the categorical imperative, this would be the wrong thing to do. You can’t press the button. But if you don’t, your mother will die. It’s in situations like this that strict ethical systems with specific decision procedures tend to fall apart. Morality is simply too complex, too full of exceptions for these theories to ever fully work.

http://poignantboy.wordpress.com/201...al-imperative/